A Letter from David J. D'Addabbo: Re: Saga of Edward and Elaine
Addressing the Court of Public Opinion
"David J. D'Addabbo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
NOTE: I received this from David J. D'Addabbo Today, Oct 27,
2009. I agree with his comments regarding the people of the
counties throughout our nation in holding the Sheriff accountable for
all enforcement activities engaged in by outside Law Enforcement
Agencies (Federal State, etc.) in his county. Unfortunately
most county Sheriffs are bought and paid for by their mere acceptance
of Federal grants which undermine their position and thus render
them ineffective in performing their duties to the People who elected
them. They become well paid underlings of the Federal Government.
Our own sheriff here in Josephine County Oregon was a Federally
contracted security agent in the Serbia/Bosnia conflict prior to his
taking office. Much Truth is hidden from the People by those whom
the people have elected to office. Every Freedom-Loving Sovereign
Man/Woman must make an effort to find where their local Sheriff's
Loyalties lie i.e., is it to remasking of the "old world order, as it
is now emerging as the NEW WORLD ORDER, or to the DeJure
Constitutional Republic, the united states of America?.
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
A few points to bring forward:
I too met a person called Dutch, in Arizona, back in 1995, 96... I was
founder of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty in AZ and a national
intelligence gathering foundation; entirely made up of voluntary work
by many people around the nation. At that time King Clinton and
Reno were killing Americans under color of law.
In March of 2006, I too was kidnapped by US treasury agents for
petitioning the IRS.
They had a falsified federal indictment that was NOT signed by the
federal court clerk and was indeed stamped AFTER HOURS of the court! It
had a generic STAMP by Federal Judge Benson in the District of Utah,
who later, I found out was a co-conspirator of organized Crimes against
the people of the USA....
anyway, what I am informing you of, in the Browns case as was in mine,
was that the Sheriff should have and must have stopped these illegal
actions from taking place. The sheriff has total and ONLY jurisdiction
in his county. ABOVE the feds, the police etc....
The Sheriff in my case did NOT give permission for the Feds to arrest
me. The feds publicly endangered over 1,500 men women and children at a
Christian church service, when I was kidnapped by them (false arrested).
They then tortured me for 10 days while trying to get me to plead to a
crimes I did not do. After 153 days I was released and tricked to
signing a false plea agreement, that my so called public defenders
(pretenders) lied to me about what was on the agreement....
Anyway, for recourse actions, I filed suit in state court as the crime
was in the sovereign state of Utah on private property...
The DOJ took it from state court and placed it in Federal court. Where
I took it to the Supreme Court of the US and it was denied, due to me
allegedly not following due process of law of gaining resolve per their
rules, with the IRS and others, BEFORE the case was filed.
That is what I was doing before I was arrested. I was and had been
investigating the IRS and others of organized Crimes against the people
of the United States of America.. And in breach of Constitutional laws,
So, I duly filed paperwork with all involved in the case requesting
they resolve the dispute before I file another civil rights suit
Of course they all refuse to answer with any resolve and have been
passing the buck from one agency to another for over a year now.
I will be filing another suit very soon...
The key to making your home safe is to fire the sheriff for breach of
duty for allowing these things to happen under his watch in your county.
Then YOU run for sheriff.
You protect the people.
You have every right to do so and must do so in order to make your home
I am doing the same in Cache County Utah, as the sheriff runs for
office in 2010... If he does not resign before that time.
I have already seen the county attorney resign before his time was
up.... There are several people in the DOJ also retiring (with FULL
benefits, instead of going to jail). Judges are recused themselves from
my other cases against WEBER county Utah sheriff for torture....
The Utah Attorney generals office, the governor, the UT tax Commission
and others are all part of the organized crime family doing illegal
forms of governments upon the people.
US Const Art 4 section 4.... NO other form of government is allowed in
the states other than a republican form of government and the FEDS are
ORDERED by law to make it so....
However, we now are being ruled by socialist democracy corporations for
profit types of governments.... This is TREASON and the adjutant
generals the military and others, including the sheriffs and militias
of the nation must stand together to defend this nation.
We are made to believe the illusion of foreign terrorists who around
the world are threatening the USA.
While in FACT the USA is GONE. It is now the US inc, for profit, a
socialist democracy corporation for profit.
WE have LOST our nation. It has been taken over by enemies to the
Republic, under God.
So, we must stop fighting the world's nations and bring back our troops
to fight for our own nation back!
Obama is going to sign a treaty in a short while that will bring
together the new world order and dissolve our nation completely as
being a sovereign nation.
I have been before 2 state of UTAH corp. grand juries. One on Jan 3rd
2007 and the other on October 8th 2009. Both are nothing more than dog
and pony shows, where judges do NOT want to hear about their
constitutional restrictions, and or that organized crimes were and are
being committed by governments... They say sui them... And when you
place suits against them, they throw it out...
I say arrest them! Become a sheriff in your county ASAP. Arrest the IRS
the DOJ, the state tax commissioners, auditors, etc.. that take money
by racketeering, fraud, extortion, theft, etc... from the people....
under color of law.
If we take away their money source the BEAST will crumble.
Also note that we will be fighting for our liberties VERY soon in the
streets of this nation. If you want it NOT to be in YOUR county, then
secure your sheriff and county attorneys office ASAP and Force them to
OBEY the laws of the land!
David J. D'Addabbo.
A Letter from David J. D'Addabbo: Re: Saga of Edward and Elaine
Addressing the Court of Public Opinion
korgroth wrote on SUIJURISCLUB Forum:
The representatives which assembled in Philadelphia in May, 1787, to
attend the Constitutional Convention met for the primary purpose of
improving the commercial relations among the States, although the
product of the Convention was more than this. But, no intention was
demonstrated for the States to surrender in any degree the jurisdiction
so possessed by them at that time, and indeed the Constitution as
finally drafted continued the same territorial jurisdiction of the
States as existed under the Articles of Confederation. The essence of
this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Art. I, § 8,
cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which defined federal jurisdiction as
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution is
obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full
and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders.
The Congress under the Articles of Confederation was merely a body
which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for
external affairs, and it had no jurisdiction within the States. This
defect in the Articles made the Confederation Congress totally
dependent upon any given State for protection, and this dependency did
in fact cause embarrassment for that Congress. During the Revolutionary
War while the Congress met in Philadelphia, a body of mutineers from
the Continental Army surrounded the Congress and chastised and insulted
its members. The governments of both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania
proved themselves powerless to remedy this situation, so Congress was
forced to flee first to Princeton, New Jersey, and finally to
Annapolis, Maryland. Thus, this clause was inserted into the
Constitution to give jurisdiction to Congress over its capital, and
such other places which Congress might purchase for forts, magazines,
arsenals and other needful buildings wherein the State ceded
jurisdiction of such lands to the federal government. Other than in
these areas, this clause of the Constitution did not operate to cede
further jurisdiction to the federal government, and jurisdiction over
those areas which had not been so ceded remained within the States.
While there had been no real provisions in the Articles which permitted
the Confederation Congress to acquire property and possess exclusive
jurisdiction over that property, the above clause filled an essential
need by permitting the federal government to acquire land for the seat
of government and other purposes from certain of the States. These
lands were deemed essential to enable the United States to perform the
powers delegated by the Constitution, and a cession of lands by any
particular State would grant exclusive jurisdiction of them to
Congress. Perhaps the best explanations for this clause in the
Constitution were set forth in Essay No. 43 of The Federalist:
"The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of
government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by
every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of
its general supremacy. Without it not only the public authority might
be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a
dependence of the members of the general government on the State
comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise
of their duty might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe
or influence equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory
to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the
more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the
stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public
pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so
many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to
abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district
is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite
nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of
the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact
for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the
inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become
willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in
the election of the government which is to exercise authority over
them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their
own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of
the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part
of it, to concur in the cession will be derived from the whole people
of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable
objection seems to be obviated.
"The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc.,
established by the general government, is not less evident. The public
money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in
them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the
particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the
security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent
on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also
obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every
Since the ratification of the present U.S. Constitution, the U.S.
Supreme Court and all lower courts have had many opportunities to
construe and apply this clause of the Constitution. The essence of all
these decisions manifests a legal principle that the States of this
nation have exclusive jurisdiction of property and persons located
within their borders, excluding such lands and persons residing thereon
which have been ceded to the United States.
Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States
v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal
prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence,
anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained
that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute this crime and argued
that the federal circuit courts had no jurisdiction of this crime
supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty
jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the
United States admitted as much:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and
dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the
states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other
manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme
and exclusive therein," Id., at 350-51.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over this
crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is
co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative
power," Id., at 386-87.
"The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is
not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction...
Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this
district, and over all places purchased by the consent of the
legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection
of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.
"It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation (which is
jurisdiction) is united with cession of territory, which is to be the
free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections
together, without feeling a conviction, not to be strengthened by any
commentary on them, that, in describing the judicial power, the framers
of our constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which
is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction," Id., at 388.
The Court in Bevans thus established a principle that federal
jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power
of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all
subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To
hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent and meaning of the
entire U.S. Constitution.
The decision in Bevans was closely followed by decisions made in two
state courts and one federal court within the next two years. In
Commonwealth v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 302, 309 (Pa. 1818), the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands
owned by the United States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded
jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state law. In deciding that the
law of Pennsylvania exclusively controlled this sale of federal land,
the Court held:
"The legislation and authority of congress is confined to cessions by
particular states for the seat of government, and purchases made by
consent of the legislature of the state, for the purpose of erecting
forts. The legislative power and exclusive jurisdiction remained in the
several states, of all territory within their limits, not ceded to, or
purchased by, congress, with the assent of the state legislature, to
prevent the collision of legislation and authority between the United
States and the several states."
A year later, the Supreme Court of New York was presented with the
issue of whether the State of New York had jurisdiction over a murder
committed at Fort Niagara, a federal fort. In People v. Godfrey, 17
Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819), that court held that the fort was subject
to the jurisdiction of the State since the lands therefore had not been
ceded to the United States:
"To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its
laws, and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed
within the acknowledged limits of the state, is clearly and exclusively
cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States. In the case
already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed, that to bring the
offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, it must
have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not (he
says,) the offence committed, but the place in which it is committed,
which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state."
The decisional authority upon which this court relied was United States
v. Bevans, supra.
At about the same time that the New York Supreme Court rendered its
opinion in Godfrey, a similar fact situation was before a federal
court, the only difference being that the murder was committed on land
which had been ceded to the United States. In United States v. Cornell,
25 Fed.Cas. 646, 648, No. 14,867 (C.C.D.R.I. 1819), the court held that
the case fell within federal jurisdiction:
"But although the United States may well purchase and hold lands for
public purposes, within the territorial limits of a state, this does
not of itself oust the jurisdiction or sovereignty of such State over
the lands so purchased. It remains until the State has relinquished its
authority over the land either expressly or by necessary implication.
"When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by
the national government, and the State Legislature has given its
consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the
constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of
Congress, and the State jurisdiction is completely ousted."
Almost 18 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court was again presented with
a case involving the distinction between state and federal
jurisdiction. In New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662,
737 (1836), the United States claimed title to property in New Orleans
likewise claimed by the city. After holding that title to the subject
lands was owned by the city, the Court addressed the question of
"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of
jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal government
shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these
places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can
exercise a general jurisdiction."
In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before
the Court involved an attempt by the City of New York to assess
penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report
regarding the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the
master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York
had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:
"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the
territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we
look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same
territory and jurisdiction," Id., at 133.
"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited
jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits,
as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or
restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of
this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a
State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people,
and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of
legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the
power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not
surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those
powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may,
perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus
surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to
these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and
exclusive," Id., at 139.
Some eight years later in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212
(1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the
Court. This case involved a real property title dispute with one of the
parties claiming a right to the contested property via a U.S. patent;
the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to
Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the
"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the
United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or
right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the
new States were formed," Id., at 221.
"[b]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to
exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within
the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is
expressly granted," Id., at 223.
"Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over
all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," Id.,
The single most important case regarding the subject of federal
jurisdiction appears to be Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S.
525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885), which sets forth the law on this point
fully. Here, the railroad company property which passed through the
Fort Leavenworth federal enclave was being subjected to taxation by
Kansas, and the company claimed an exemption from state taxation
because its property was within federal jurisdiction and outside that
of the state. In holding that the railroad company's property could be
taxed, the Court carefully explained federal jurisdiction within the
"The consent of the states to the purchase of lands within them for the
special purposes named, is, however, essential, under the constitution,
to the transfer to the general government, with the title, of political
jurisdiction and dominion. Where lands are acquired without such
consent, the possession of the United States, unless political
jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an
ordinary proprietor. The property in that case, unless used as a means
to carry out the purposes of the government, is subject to the
legislative authority and control of the states equally with the
property of private individuals."
Thus the cases decided within the 19th century clearly disclosed the
extent and scope of both State and federal jurisdiction. In essence,
these cases, among many others, hold that the jurisdiction of any
particular State is co-extensive with its borders or territory, and all
persons and property located or found therein are subject to that
jurisdiction; this jurisdiction is superior. Federal jurisdiction
results from a conveyance of state jurisdiction to the federal
government for lands owned or otherwise possessed by the federal
government, and thus federal jurisdiction is extremely limited in
nature. There is no federal jurisdiction if there be no grant or
cession of jurisdiction by the State to the federal government.
Therefore, federal territorial jurisdiction exists only in Washington,
D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and the territories and
insular possessions of the United States.
The above principles of jurisdiction established in the last century
continue their vitality today with only one minor exception. In the
last century, the cessions of jurisdiction by States to the federal
government were by legislative acts which typically ceded full
jurisdiction to the federal government, thus placing in the hands of
the federal government the troublesome problem of dealing with and
governing scattered, localized federal enclaves which had been totally
surrendered by the States. With the advent in this century of large
federal works projects and national parks, the problems regarding
management of these areas by the federal government were magnified.
During the last century, it was thought that if a State ceded
jurisdiction to the federal government, the cession granted full and
complete jurisdiction. But with the ever increasing number of separate
tracts of land falling within the jurisdiction of the federal
government in this century, it was obviously determined by both federal
and state public officials that the States should retain greater
control over these ceded lands, and the courts have acknowledged the
constitutionality of varying degrees of state jurisdiction and control
over lands so ceded.
One of the first cases to acknowledge the proposition that a State
could retain some jurisdiction over property ceded to the federal
government was Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 50 S.Ct. 455
(1930). Here, a state attempt to assess an ad valorem tax on Army
blankets located within a federal army camp was found invalid and
beyond the state's jurisdiction. But in regards to the proposition that
a State could make a qualified cession of jurisdiction to the federal
government, the Court held:
"[T]he state undoubtedly may cede her jurisdiction to the United States
and may make the cession either absolute or qualified as to her may
appear desirable, provided the qualification is consistent with the
purposes for which the reservation is maintained and is accepted by the
United States. And, where such a cession is made and accepted, it will
be determinative of the jurisdiction of both the United States and the
state within the reservation," Id., at 651-52.
Two cases decided in 1937 by the U.S. Supreme Court further clarify the
constitutionality of a reservation of partial state jurisdiction over
lands ceded to the jurisdiction of the United States. In James v. Dravo
Contracting Company, 302 U.S. 134, 58 S.Ct. 208 (1937), the State of
West Virginia sought to impose a tax upon the gross receipts of the
company arising from a contract which it had made with the United
States to build some dams. One of the issues involved in this case was
the validity of the state tax imposed on the receipts derived by the
company from work performed on lands to which the State had ceded
"concurrent" jurisdiction to the United States. The Court held that a
State could reserve and qualify any cession of jurisdiction for lands
owned by the United States; since the State had done so here, the Court
upheld this part of the challenged tax notwithstanding a partial
cession of jurisdiction to the U.S. A similar result occurred in Silas
Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of State of Washington, 302 U.S. 186, 58
S.Ct. 233 (1937). Here, the United States was undertaking the
construction of several dams on the Columbia River in Washington, and
had purchased the lands necessary for the project. Silas Mason obtained
a contract to build a part of the Grand Coulee Dam, but filed suit
challenging the Washington income tax when that State sought to impose
that tax on the contract proceeds. Mason's argument that the federal
government had exclusive jurisdiction over both the lands and its
contract was not upheld by either the Supreme Court of Washington or
the U.S. Supreme Court. The latter Court held that none of the lands
owned by the U.S. were within its jurisdiction and thus Washington
clearly had jurisdiction to impose the challenged tax; see also Wilson
v. Cook, 327 U.S. 474, 66 S.Ct. 663 (1946).
Some few years later in 1943, the Supreme Court was again presented
with similar taxation and jurisdiction issues; the facts in these two
cases were identical with the exception that one clearly involved lands
ceded to the jurisdiction of the United States. This single difference
caused directly opposite results in both cases. In Pacific Coast Dairy
v. Department of Agriculture of California, 318 U.S. 285, 63 S.Ct. 628
(1943), the question involved the applicability of state law to a
contract entered into and performed on a federal enclave to which
jurisdiction had been ceded to the United States. During World War II,
California passed a law setting a minimum price for the sale of milk,
and this law imposed penalties for sales made below the regulated
price. Here, Pacific Coast Dairy consummated a contract on Moffett
Field, a federal enclave within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
United States, to sell milk to such federal facility at below the
regulated price. When this occurred, California sought to impose a
penalty for what it perceived as a violation of state law. But, the
U.S. Supreme Court refused to permit the enforcement of the California
law, holding that the contract was made and performed in a territory
outside the jurisdiction of California and within the jurisdiction of
the United States, a place where this law didn't apply. Thus in this
case, the existence of federal jurisdiction was the foundation for the
decision. However, in Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission of
Pennsylvania, 318 U.S. 261, 63 S.Ct. 617 (1943), an opposite result was
reached on almost identical facts. Here, Pennsylvania likewise had a
law which regulated the price of milk and penalized milk sales below
the regulated price. During World War II, the United States leased some
land from Pennsylvania for the construction of a military camp; since
the land was leased, Pennsylvania did not cede jurisdiction to the
United States. When Penn Dairies sold milk to the military facility for
a price below the regulated price, the Commission sought to impose the
penalty. In this case, since there was no federal jurisdiction, the
Supreme Court found that the state law applied and permitted the
imposition of the penalty. These two cases clearly show the different
results which can occur with the presence or absence of federal
A final point regarding federal jurisdiction concerns the question of
when such jurisdiction ends or ceases. This issue was considered in
S.R.A. v. Minnesota, 327 U.S. 558, 563-64, 66 S.Ct. 749 (1946), which
involved the power of a State to tax the real property interest of a
purchaser of land sold by the United States. Here, a federal post
office building was sold to S.R.A. pursuant to a real estates sale
contract which provided that title would pass only after the purchase
price had been paid. In refuting the argument of S.R.A. that the ad
valorem tax on its equitable interest in the property was really an
unlawful tax on U.S. property, the Court held:
"In the absence of some such provisions, a transfer of property held by
the United States under state cessions pursuant to Article I, Section
8, Clause 17, of the Constitution would leave numerous isolated islands
of federal jurisdiction, unless the unrestricted transfer of the
property to private hands is thought without more to revest sovereignty
in the states. As the purpose of Clause 17 was to give control over the
sites of governmental operations to the United States, when such
control was deemed essential for federal activities, it would seem that
the sovereignty of the United States would end with the reason for its
existence and the disposition of the property. We shall treat this case
as though the Government's unrestricted transfer of property to
non-federal hands is a relinquishment of the exclusive legislative
Thus when any property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States is no longer utilized by that government for governmental
purposes, and the title or any interest therein is conveyed to private
interests, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases and
jurisdiction once again reverts to the State.
The above principles regarding the distinction between State and
federal jurisdiction continue today; see Paul v. United States, 371
U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963), and United States v. State Tax
Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973). What was
definitely decided in the beginning days of this Republic regarding the
extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions
remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth
workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal
government. Without such jurisdictional principles which form a clear
boundary between the jurisdiction of the States and the United States,
our federal governmental system would have surely met its demise long
In summary, the jurisdiction of the States is essentially the same as
they possessed when they were leagued together under the Articles of
Confederation. The confederated States possessed absolute, complete and
full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their
borders. It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these States, which
had banished the centralized power and jurisdiction of the English
Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of Independence,
would shortly thereafter cede comparable power and jurisdiction to the
Confederation Congress. They did not and they closely and jealously
guarded their own rights, powers and jurisdiction. When the Articles
were replaced by the Constitution, the intent and purpose of the States
was to retain their same powers and jurisdiction, with a small
concession of jurisdiction to the United States of lands found
essential for the operation of that government. However, even this
provision did not operate to instantly change any aspect of state
jurisdiction, it only permitted its future operation wherein any State,
by its own volition, should choose to cede jurisdiction to the United
By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered
some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which
related almost entirely to external affairs of the States. Any single
delegated power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a
fashion so as to invade or divest a State of its jurisdiction. As
against a single State, the remainder of the States under the
Constitution have no right to jurisdiction within the single State
absent its consent.
The only provision in the Constitution which permits territorial
jurisdiction to be vested in the United States is found in Art. I,
§ 8, cl. 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary cession
of jurisdiction from any State to the United States. When the
Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no
lands within the States, and it possessed jurisdiction only in the
lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly after formation
of the Union, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United
States for Washington, D.C. Over time, the States have ceded
jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such
ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves
within the States, and such territories and possessions which may now
be owned by the United States.
The above conclusion is buttressed by the opinion of the federal
government itself. In June 1957, the United States government published
a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States:
Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction
Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, and this report is the
definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:
"The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal
acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under
Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the
Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and
that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take
place," Id., at 41.
"It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of
jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land
with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal
Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction
upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no
legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such
jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non-
interference by the State with Federal functions," Id., at 45.
"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part,
acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior
boundaries of a State," Id., at 46.
"On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under
various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as
criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United
States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes,
jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our
Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas
as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal
Government," Id., at 107.
Thus from a wealth of case law, in addition to this lengthy and
definitive government treatise, the "jurisdiction of the United States"
is identified as a very precise and carefully defined portion of
America. The United States is one of the 50 jurisdictions existing on
this continent, excluding Canada and its provinces.
FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation
applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
unless a contrary intent appears;" see Caha v. United States, 152 U.S.
211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit
Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v.
Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922); Blackmer v. United
States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo,
336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338
U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and United States v. First National
City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963). This particular principle
of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate
courts; see McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th
Cir. 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as
territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 1964)
(holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v.
Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir. 1975) (holding federal wiretap
laws as territorial); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir.
1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir.
1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas
v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding
same as Cleary, supra); United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002
(5th Cir. 1977) (holding marine mammals protection act as territorial);
Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir.
1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline
Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d
170, 175 (8th Cir. 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial);
Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1984)
(holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures
Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (holding
commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial); Reyes v.
Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (holding
administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum
v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (holding securities
act as territorial). This principle was perhaps best expressed in Caha
v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215, where the Court declared:
"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."
But, because of treaties as well as express statutory language, the
federal drug laws operate extra-territorially; see United States v.
King, 552 F.2d 833, 851 (9th Cir. 1976). The United States has
territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves
within the States, and in the territories and insular possessions of
the United States. However, it has no territorial jurisdiction over
non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the
States within the American Union, and this proposition of law is
supported by literally hundreds of cases.
As a general rule, the power of the United States to criminally
prosecute is, for the most part, confined to offenses committed within
"its jurisdiction" in the absence of treaties. This is born out simply
by examination of 18 U.S.C. §5 which defines the term "United
States" in clear jurisdictional terms.  Further, §7 of that
federal criminal code contains the fullest statutory definition of the
"jurisdiction of the United States." The U.S. district courts have
jurisdiction of offenses occurring within the "United States" pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §3231.
Examples of this proposition are numerous. In Pothier v. Rodman, 291 F.
311 (1st Cir. 1923), the question involved whether a murder committed
at Camp Lewis Military Reservation in the State of Washington was a
federal crime. Here, the murder was committed more than a year before
the U.S. acquired a deed for the property which was the scene of the
crime. Pothier was arrested and incarcerated in Rhode Island and filed
a habeas corpus petition seeking his release on the grounds that the
federal courts had no jurisdiction over this offense not committed in
U.S. jurisdiction. The First Circuit agreed that there was no federal
jurisdiction and ordered his release. But, on appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court, in Rodman v. Pothier, 264 U.S. 399, 44 S.Ct. 360 (1924),
that Court reversed; although agreeing with the jurisdictional
principles enunciated by the First Circuit, it held that only the
federal court in Washington State could decide that issue. In United
States v. Unzeuta, 35 F.2d 750 (8th Cir. 1929), the Eighth Circuit held
that the U.S. had no jurisdiction over a murder committed in a railroad
car at Fort Robinson, the state cession statute being construed as not
including railroad rights-of-way. This decision was reversed in United
States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284 (1930), the Court holding
that the U.S. did have jurisdiction over the railroad rights-of-way in
Fort Robinson. In Bowen v. Johnson, 97 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1938), the
question presented was whether the lack of jurisdiction over an offense
prosecuted in federal court could be raised in a habeas corpus
petition. The denial of Bowen's petition was reversed in Bowen v.
Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442 (1939), the Court concluding that
such a jurisdictional challenge could be raised via such a petition.
But, the Court then addressed the issue, found that the U.S. both owned
the property in question and had a state legislative grant ceding
jurisdiction to the United States, thus there was jurisdiction in the
United States to prosecute Bowen. But, if jurisdiction is not vested in
the United States pursuant to statute, there is no jurisdiction; see
Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122 (1943).
The lower federal courts also require the presence of federal
jurisdiction in criminal prosecutions. In Kelly v. United States, 27 F.
616 (D.Me. 1885), federal jurisdiction of a manslaughter committed at
Fort Popham was upheld when it was shown that the U.S. owned the
property where the offense occurred and the state had ceded
jurisdiction. In United States v. Andem, 158 F. 996 (D.N.J. 1908),
federal jurisdiction for a forgery offense was upheld on a showing that
the United States owned the property where the offense was committed
and the state had ceded jurisdiction of the property to the U.S. In
United States v. Penn, 48 F. 669 (E.D.Va. 1880), since the U.S. did not
have jurisdiction over Arlington National Cemetery, a federal larceny
prosecution was dismissed. In United States v. Lovely, 319 F.2d 673
(4th Cir. 1963), federal jurisdiction was found to exist by U.S.
ownership of the property and a state cession of jurisdiction. In
United States v. Watson, 80 F.Supp. 649, 651 (E.D.Va. 1948), federal
criminal charges were dismissed, the court stating:
"Without proof of the requisite ownership or possession of the United
States, the crime has not been made out."
In Brown v. United States, 257 F. 46 (5th Cir. 1919), federal
jurisdiction was upheld on the basis that the U.S. owned the post
office site where a murder was committed and the state had ceded
jurisdiction; see also England v. United States, 174 F.2d 466 (5th Cir.
1949); Hudspeth v. United States, 223 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1955); Krull
v. United States, 240 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1957); and Gainey v. United
States, 324 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1963). In United States v. Townsend, 474
F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1973), a conviction for receiving stolen property
was reversed when the court reviewed the record and learned that there
was absolutely no evidence disclosing that the defendant had committed
this offense within the jurisdiction of the United States. In United
States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 1974), in finding federal
jurisdiction for a robbery committed at Fort Rucker, the court held:
"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial
jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor."
In two Sixth Circuit cases, United States v. Tucker, 122 F. 518
(W.D.Ky. 1903), a case involving an assault committed at a federal dam,
and United States v. Blunt, 558 F.2d 1245 (6th Cir. 1977), a case
involving an assault within a federal penitentiary, jurisdiction was
sustained by finding that the U.S. owned the property in question and
the state involved had ceded jurisdiction. In In re Kelly, 71 F. 545
(E.D.Wis. 1895), a federal assault charge was dismissed when the court
held that the state cession statute in question was not adequate to
convey jurisdiction of the property in question to the United States.
In United States v. Johnson, 426 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1970), a case
involving a federal burglary prosecution, federal jurisdiction was
sustained upon the showing of U.S. ownership and a state cession. And
cases from the Eighth and Tenth Circuits likewise require the same
elements to be shown to demonstrate the presence of federal
jurisdiction; see United States v. Heard, 270 F.Supp. 198 (W.D.Mo.
1967); United States v. Redstone, 488 F.2d 300 (8th Cir. 1973); United
States v. Goings, 504 F.2d 809 (8th Cir. 1974) (demonstrating loss of
jurisdiction); Hayes v. United States, 367 F.2d 216 (10th Cir. 1966);
Hall v. United States, 404 F.2d 1367 (10th Cir. 1969); United States v.
Carter, 430 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1970); and United States v. Cassidy,
571 F.2d 534 (10th Cir. 1978).
Of all the circuits, the Ninth Circuit has addressed jurisdictional
issues more than any of the rest. In United States v. Bateman, 34 F. 86
(N.D.Cal. 1888), it was determined that the United States did not have
jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder committed at the Presidio
because California had never ceded jurisdiction; see also United States
v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D.Mon. 1905). But later, California ceded
jurisdiction for the Presidio to the United States, and it was held in
United States v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437 (N.D.Cal. 1927), that this
enabled the U.S. to maintain a murder prosecution. See also United
States v. Holt, 168 F. 141 (W.D.Wash. 1909), United States v. Lewis,
253 F. 469 (S.D.Cal. 1918), and United States v. Wurtzbarger, 276 F.
753 (D.Or. 1921). Because the U.S. owned and had a state cession of
jurisdiction for Fort Douglas in Utah, it was held that the U.S. had
jurisdiction for a rape prosecution in Rogers v. Squier, 157 F.2d 948
(9th Cir. 1946). But, without a cession, the U.S. has no jurisdiction;
see Arizona v. Manypenny, 445 F.Supp. 1123 (D.Ariz. 1977).
The above cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate
courts set forth the rule that in criminal prosecutions, the
government, as the party seeking to establish the existence of federal
jurisdiction, must prove U.S. ownership of the property in question and
a state cession of jurisdiction. This same rule manifests itself in
state cases. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction and in a
state criminal prosecution, the state must only prove that the offense
was committed within the state and a county thereof. If a defendant
contends that only the federal government has jurisdiction over the
offense, he, as proponent for the existence of federal jurisdiction,
must likewise prove U.S. ownership of the property where the crime was
committed and state cession of jurisdiction.
Examples of the operation of this principle are numerous. In Arizona,
the State has jurisdiction over federal lands in the public domain, the
state not having ceded jurisdiction of that property to the U.S.; see
State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P.2d 1090 (1977). In California, if
it is not proved by a defendant in a state prosecution that the state
has ceded jurisdiction, it is presumed the state does have jurisdiction
over a criminal offense; see People v. Brown, 69 Cal. App.2d 602, 159
P.2d 686 (1945). If the cession exists, the state has no jurisdiction;
see People v. Mouse, 203 Cal. 782, 265 P. 944 (1928). In Montana, the
state has jurisdiction over property if it is not proved there is a
state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S.; see State ex rel Parker v.
District Court, 147 Mon. 151, 410 P.2d 459 (1966); the existence of a
state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S. ousts the state of
jurisdiction; see State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 P. 760 (1904). The
same applies in Nevada; see State v. Mack, 23 Nev. 359, 47 P. 763
(1897), and Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987); it applies in
Oregon (see State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and
State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987)); and in
Washington (see State v. Williams, 23 Wash.App. 694, 598 P.2d 731
In People v. Hammond, 1 Ill.2d 65, 115 N.E.2d 331 (1953), a burglary of
an IRS office was held to be within state jurisdiction, the court
holding that the defendant was required to prove existence of federal
jurisdiction by U.S. ownership of the property and state cession of
jurisdiction. In two cases from Michigan, larcenies committed at U.S.
post offices which were rented were held to be within state
jurisdiction; see People v. Burke, 161 Mich. 397, 126 N.W. 446 (1910),
and People v. Van Dyke, 276 Mich. 32, 267 N.W. 778 (1936). See also In
re Kelly, 311 Mich. 596, 19 N.W.2d 218 (1945). In Kansas City v.
Garner, 430 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1968), state jurisdiction over a theft
offense occurring in a federal building was upheld, and the court
stated that a defendant had to show federal jurisdiction by proving
U.S. ownership of the building and a cession of jurisdiction from the
state to the United States. A similar holding was made for a theft at a
U.S. missile site in State v. Rindall, 146 Mon. 64, 404 P.2d 327
(1965). In Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987), the state
court was held to have jurisdiction over a D.U.I. committed on federal
lands, the defendant having failed to show U.S. ownership and state
cession of jurisdiction.
In People v. Gerald, 40 Misc.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (1963), the
state was held to have jurisdiction of an assault at a U.S. post office
since the defendant did not meet his burden of showing presence of
federal jurisdiction; and because a defendant failed to prove title and
jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs
station, state jurisdiction was upheld in People v. Fisher, 97 A.D.2d
651, 469 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1983). The proper method of showing
federal jurisdiction in state court is demonstrated by the decision in
People v. Williams, 136 Misc.2d 294, 518 N.Y.S.2d 751 (1987). This rule
was likewise enunciated in State v. Burger, 33 Ohio App.3d 231, 515
N.E.2d 640 (1986), a case involving a D.U.I. offense committed on a
road near a federal arsenal.
In Kuerschner v. State, 493 P.2d 1402 (Okl.Cr.App. 1972), the state was
held to have jurisdiction of a drug sales offense occurring at an Air
Force Base, the defendant not having attempted to prove federal
jurisdiction by showing title and jurisdiction of the property in
question in the United States; see also Towry v. State, 540 P.2d 597
(Okl.Cr.App. 1975). Similar holdings for murders committed at U.S. post
offices were made in State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918),
and in United States v. Pate, 393 F.2d 44 (7th Cir. 1968). Another
Oregon case, State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987),
demonstrates this rule. Finally, in Curry v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. 264,
12 S.W.2d 796 (1928), it was held that, in the absence of proof that
the state had ceded jurisdiction of a place to the United States, the
state courts had jurisdiction over an offense.
Therefore, in federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional
type crimes, the government must prove the existence of federal
jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was
committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends
for the power to criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside
"its jurisdiction," it must prove an extra-territorial application of
the statute in question as well as a constitutional foundation
supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be
commenced for offenses committed outside "its jurisdiction."
"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State
than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men
of unexceptionable characters." --Samuel Adams
Sept 9th, 2008
To the People of the United
States of America.;
"Organized Criminals", have seized control of our nation. What are We
as guardians (Patriots) over this nation going to do about it?
RE: Important facts for all
Americans to know.
My name is David J.
D'Addabbo; I live in Nibley Utah. I
have been a private investigator for the people of the United States of
America, and especially for the people of Utah and Arizona.
What I have discovered over
the past 15 years, is that
the United States of America, has transformed into the United States
Inc. Indeed a corporation for profit, and NOT the "Republic, under God,
indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for ALL".
What this means to YOU and
the citizens of this nation;
is that without knowledge or full disclosure; we the people have
surrendered our rights to the corporation for profit, the US Inc.
We have done this under the
illusion of legal law, when
indeed it has been forced upon us under coercion, duress, extortion,
fraud, kidnapping, murder, and various numbers of civil rights crimes;
all under the illusion of being normal procedure.
To simplify this
extraordinary discovery; "I have found
Organized Crime reeks with the filth and smell of rats in the wood
piles of this nation's governments; from the IRS, DOJ, DEA, BATF, CIA,
CPS, HLS (home land insecurity), and other STATE and Federal secrete
combinations of agencies,
societies....Deep within the foundations of this nation.
I, being an investigator,
and NOT an attorney of the
BAR; have filed 2 civil rights cases, to prove my accusations of
Organized Crimes in America.
One is in 2nd District Court
in Utah; against the Weber
County Sheriff and commissioners for civil rights crimes against myself
and others; as of today, they are in default of the case as of
September 2008. They are being investigated by the state (5 judge
panel) of these crimes, this was instigated by myself as I appeared in
front of this Grand Jury of Judges on January 3rd, 2008.
The other case is now in
10th Circuit Court of Appeal,
against the TIGTA Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration,
IRS, DOJ, Thus including the Corporation of the US Inc, named as the
United States of America; exposing Organized Crimes against them and
the Federal Reserve Bank for profit.
The important discovery
materials include; extortion,
fraud, kidnapping, torture, treason, contempt of Court, contempt of
Constitution, and various civil rights crimes against myself and the
people of this nation.
One document of very great
value to this case
wasintroduced to many Americans, and the courts in Utah, both federal
and state; and to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals; is called the
"PINK PAPERS", by the IRS, or an internal document that the IRS passes
for public eyes) to IRS
It brings to fact, that what
my 15 year investigation
1. That the Income tax
system is 100% voluntary by most
Americans, and they do not have to reply, report or pay income taxes.
a.) The Supreme Court
states; the words Income tax as
described in the 16th Amendment, means profits and or gains, above
$5,900.00 a year; and does not mean wages, salaries, earnings.
b.) That the IRS knew, and
knows about this fact, and
yet has taken money, ruined lives, destroyed marriages, farms, ranches,
homes, businesses, individuals were kidnapped and sent to prison for NO
LEGAL CRIME WHAT SO EVER!
2. Therefore, the DOJ has
also known about this, and
still prosecutes people!!
3. Therefore the Federal
Courts and or federal
agencies, have ONLY jurisdiction on interstate commerce and NOT on
individuals, companies, doing business, or residing in any state of the
a.) This means all agencies
of the federal governments
have been acting under the illusion of law, when indeed they are the
biggest organized crime family in the world!
If you are interested in a
complete story of this,
including evidence mentioned above; please let me know. My duty to all
Americans is the same. No one is over or above or better than another.
However, due to my
investigations over the past 15
years; the IRS, has illegally used their powers to try to stop me from
exposing their secretes to the people. They have taken my wealth, my
ranch, lost 3 homes and no one will hire me due to the actions of the
IRS and their secrete combinations of Organized criminals.
This means, that I am not
making any money for my work.
I have never made any money for 15 years of research and
investigations, due to the importance of getting the truth told.
If you know of people who
can assist me in monetary
values, and or help me distribute this most important
message of freedom to the
people; I would be most
appreciative. The costs of publication, distribution,
printing, mailings, discs,
etc.. have been a burden
upon myself and family.
When I am successful in my
quest for justice; I have
filed for punitive damages, due to the discovery evidence, and the
amount of evil that was perpetrated upon myself, and the nation.
Damages in Weber County
Utah, is $ 1,580,000.00.
Damages in US Inc, and
others, is $158,000,000.00.
Total Damages in my cases
I pray and work hard each
day; that the demands for
justice will prevail for those who want to become free.
Thank you for your time.
David J. D'Addabbo
Investigator For the People,
Christian Patriot Preacher,
The Pen is only mightier
than the sword,
if you also own a sword.UCC
All Rights Preserved Without
David J. D'Addabbo
Sept 9th, 2008
A Christ Demands Let My People
By: Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
simple man of Truth, a Christ have
already dispelled the mythical Powers which lies at the root of the
impotent Laws of Mammon, by slaying Goliath, its symbolic "bogeyman"
which rules over its subjects by force, fear, intimidation, and tyranny.
How did I do
this?. I, Raymond Ronald
Karczewski©, a natural born American citizen, a common man of the
Sovereign People, follow God's Law, not the Law of Mammon. I owe
no allegiance to the Corporate Monstrosity now operating under
Maritime, Administrative Court Law, which has replaced the Common Law,
and Law of the Constitutional Republic arising under the original
jurisdiction of the de jure Constitution of the united States of 1789
as amended by the qualified electors of the several States of the
American union and the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787 for the Territories
of the de jure united States. By definition, I am a citizen
of the DeJure Government, not the present DeFacto Government.
The State of
Oregon and County of Josephine,
the Corporate "Bogeyman" with all of its vast show of power, personnel,
resources derived from countless,
bilked American Taxpayers and used to
engender fear, strip away their freedoms, and now systematically
enslave their Sovereign Masters through legal trickery and
deception stood down and now HIDE BEHIND A
STONEWALL OF SILENCE, while this
simple man of Truth demands they
answer the fundamental question of how a fictional government can
assert it's fictional JURISDICTION, over any Living, Breathing,
Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man or Woman, of the Sovereign
People who understands that FICTIONS have NO POWER over the Living, the
Real , The True People unless the latter
willingly and knowingly grants
jurisdiction to such courts through
consent or contract.
Sovereign Men and Women, have been
thrust into our growing prison system by such legalistic
trickery. Their unawareness of their True Spiritual and lawful
Estate has relegated them to the status of slaves, human resources,,
:"wards of the state", owned by the State via their 14th Amendment
status, Birth Certificate, Social Security Number and sundry government
contracts entered into without full disclosure having been made by
government at entry of such contracts..
It is time that the
Tyrannical Courts of Oregon,
Josephine County, and the rest of the several States in the union COME
CLEAN in their fraudulent application of law.
It is time to
answer the questions of a fictional
court's assumed and asserted JURISDICTION accompanied by Oath or
) over this or any
other Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man or
Woman of the Sovereign People who do not consent to their unlawful
prosecution, once and for all.
Failure to do so shall
brand them as frauds by their own
10 Maxims of Commerce
1. A workman is worthy of his
2. All are equal under the law
(both moral and natural law).
3. In commerce truth is
4. Truth is expressed by means
of an affidavit.
5. An unrebutted affidavit
stands as the truth in commerce.
6. An unrebutted affidavit
becomes the judgment in commerce.
7. A matter must be expressed to
8. He who leaves the field of
battle first loses by default.
9. Sacrifice is the measure of
credibility (if one has neither
been damaged nor incurred a risk, and is unwilling to swear an
affidavit -- i.e., "true, correct, and complete," the commercial
equivalent of, " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"
-- on his unlimited commercial liability for the veracity of his
statements and the legitimacy of his action, he has no credibility, and
therefore no basis for asserting claims/charges or claiming authority).
10. A lien or claim can be
satisfied only through rebuttal by
counteraffidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment.
If this fictional
government and its courts cannot
or will not answer the questions of JURISDICTION put forth by this
Simple Sovereign man of Truth, the cell doors of all innocent men and
women who have been incarcerated under such Satanic Trickery must be
opened and such unlawfully incarcerated living, breathing,
flesh-and-blood, sentient natural men and women must be released from
In short, LET MY
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Jeanette Triplett, a murder victim
still alive enough to name my assailants
Jeanette Triplett wrote:
September 7, 20089:30 a.m.
Irene & Chief, and all other damaged and injured
parties as a result of PACIFIC COUNTY
WASHINGTON and PACIFIC COUNTY P.U.D. and
STATE OF WASHINGTON et al d.b.a.'s. intentional,
willful, malicious with forethought and malice
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER OF A
FEDERAL WITNESS and HARASSING A FEDERAL
I have made many calls this morning, Sunday, September 7, 2008
regarding Pacific County P.U.D. in Washington state intentionally
without [Jeanette or her husband's] consent, approval, authority,
permit, notification either in writing or oral, the corporate
employees and their agents moving Jeanette's power line directly
the federal witness's house located at 1003 30th street, Seaview,
Washington, , with intent of causing imminent death by radiation
poisoning to a federal witness that the corporate employees
collectively have successfully caused and created cancer in same
witness but who is not dying fast enough while continuing to
the herein but not limited to actors in an international and
act of terrorism.
I have contacted a professional witness this morning, and
informing them of the crime being filed against the STATE OF WASHINGTON
et al d.b.a.'s, and PACIFIC COUNTY et al d.b.a.'s, and PACIFIC COUNTY
P.U.D. et al d.b.a.'s of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT PREMEDITATED MURDER.
I will be immediately filing those federal charges this date. I have
obtained expert witnesses, naming names and entities, including DOUGLAS
E. GOELZ, INC.et al d.b.a.'s., of LONG BEACH, WASHINGTON. I have
contacted WASHINGTON STATE governors office, Christine Gregoire.
contacted the Pacific County P.U.D. COMMISSIONER DIANE THOMPSON.
Each of their individual and collective failure to act will be added as
additional damages in the criminal
complaint of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT PREMEDITATED MURDER.
This email will be sent to additional parties to ensure the safety of
my life, since each of their intent is to murder me, a federal expert
witness, and a victim of federal crimes perpetrated by corporate
employees impersonating officials.
This email is not to be taken lightly. Many across the country have
been informed of this serious situation. This will be broadcast on the
air later this week, if I am still alive then.
We all know that this goes through LONGVIEW HOUSING AUTHORITY, (see
Dunn & Bradstreet) see all the HOUSING AUTHORITY across the
country. Follow HOUSING AUTHORITY into UNITED STATES AND CANADA
HOUSING AUTHORITY. This then goes through HUD. This in turn goes into
FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE (note FM & FM which is same
initials as FREE MASONS & FREE
MASONS,..coincidental?? NOPE). This goes into FHA. FHA then is partners
with USDA and FSA. Henceforth, end result is every piece of property in
the country owned by these corrupt racketeering corporations
originating in Chicago Illinois, and Lucky Luciano and Al Capone now
run by Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, working with George Bush,
groomed by his daddy, George senior, who in
turn was groomed by Prescott Bush, which takes us into the AMERICAN
COMMUNIST PARTY, and the UNITED STATES COMMUNIST PARTY, THE UNITED
STATES BAR ASSOCIATION and the UNILATERAL UNIVERSAL
ASSOCIATION, (UUA) who is
intentionally writing the laws to uphold and continue the racketeering
enterprises of the herein named corporations and each and all of their
affiliates et al.
If anyone feels this is not a serious matter, let them delete this, and
wait your turn, this is not an isolated matter. Since I have done
EXTENSIVE research on uncovering this and other matters, it only is
apparent my evidence is correct or these parties would not have
intentionally done what they have done to cause my imminent death, with
intent, forethought, malice having the means, method, motive,
opportunity and intent to do so, using
radiation poisoning with high power voltage in violation of federal law.
I do hereby state and aver that the above is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief and that I am over the age of 18, a native
American citizen with all natural born rights, privileges, immunities
inherent under Jehovah God's law, superior law of the natural born
citizen, not a man made created corporation.
A copy of this will be included in my criminal complaint against the
herein, but not limited to, and including but not limited to, the
herein criminal charges.
Signed September 7, 2008
Jeanette Triplett, a murder victim still alive enough to name my
----- Original Message -----
From: Iam Peace
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:12 AM
Subject: Hi JT,
You are not alone ... many of us are bombarded with their stuff...with
no accountability to any one or any
thing ....remember that we love you, Irene
Raymond Karczewski (email@example.com) wrote:
For more than a decade, I, and my family
have been attacked
roundly by Government/Media, anonymous disinformation agents who hide
behind a multitude of aliases while they ply their deceptive trade.
They attack, deceive, misdirect, malign, libel,
forge and bait me
with endless questions that exact reams of responses, any part of
which may be isolated, twisted, and misquoted out of context as coming
from me. I do not engage in such activity. I merely Mirror
continue on my way.
The inarguable evidence of what I say must be
observed beyond the
limitation of words seen on a computer screen.. The government of
State of Oregon and Josephine County, orignially threatened me with 35
years of prison, but would drop it all and release me for time served
(128 days total) if I would Cop a Plea, and accept 2 year offer
I refused the offer, went through two Trials.
stood Sui Juris,
challenged Jurisdiction, which they refused to answer, yet the black
robed Pharisees repeatedly committed the crime of Fraud by
try a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man, one
whom was beyond their limited Maritime Law Administrative Corporate
Court Jurisdiction.. My motion for discovery was not honored by the
courts as is the right to anyone standing trial.
I was not allowed to present my
evidence, I was not allowed to
present some subpoenade witnessess while the prosecution had free reign
to present anything they wished with the blessing of the judges.
Throughout some 21 hearings and two trials, My
demand for proof of
Jurisdiction was evaded by ALL JUDGES. When the Juristic Person was
Convicted (they would not address the nexus with which they attempted
to link me with the Juristic Person through presumption) and they
attempted to impose an offer of Probation on me, I refused to accept
their offer which would have been my consent for such unlawful legal
impositions and thus grant them jurisdiction over this
Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man..
Hence, from 35 years in prison to 0 time (most of
the 128 days of
incarceration were awaiting trial) I now sit here in my home a Free
Man, and they still will not answer the questions of JURISDICTION under
oath or affidavit, even onto this day. This issue of JURISDICTION
the Laws of Mammon, over a man who lives by God's Law, will open the
flood gates of presently imprisoned American Citizens now languishing
in Jail through the same Satanic tactics which were used on me.
What puzzles me to the nth degree is the
resistance of masses of
people, now enslaved at the mercy of a Tyrannical government who side
with their Slave overseers against the clear and unambiguous solution
of a Simple Man oF Truth, offering them the key to Freedom and
Sovereignty IN THEIR LIFETIME.
If that does not stand as PROOF, what the Hell
does? If refusal to
see such simple solution to the Tyrannical New World Order, WHAT THE
By the way Kokomojo, If I responded to you in a way that
was unjust, I apologize. I give short shrift to disinformation agents
who can display charm in one moment, when they are seducing, and
animalistic when they go on their "pack-0-jackals, libelous
I point to my website links for the answers to the
can liberate the average man/woman from their enslavement, but the
average man/woman does not want to do the work. They want it
them on a "silver platter." To accomadate them would be a
to them, as they MUST UNDERSTAND what they are doing when they step
into the den of legal vipers, todays, courtrooms. The
presented must not merely be retained and regurgitated as if you were
facing a quick quiz on Friday during your school days.
Unfortunately, such regurgitated "Jeopardy" ignorance passes off
intelligence these days.
Yes, I do "piss" people off, as I do not pander to
their face-saving demands.
Hope this helps.
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©
Re: The Problem With Ray Karczewski, A Christ, As Experienced via the
Satanic Intellect of Ignoramuses
Irene-Peace: Kiapilanoq(TM) Business Manager for
Sovereign Hereditary Siyam Kiapilanoq(TM) of the
Squamish(TM) Nation Territory and Pine Tree
Sovereign Hereditary Chief Red Jacket(TM) of Turtle
Island, Kanada (that surveyed land mass portion of the
American continent and its large settlements of the Red
Karczewski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Do I have your permission to publish this on my
At 12:39 PM 9/2/2008, you wrote:
Raymond Karczewski <email@example.com>
You may print anything I send you. I have protective orders against
those who have kidnapped and tortured me, in hopes to silence me. My
life, is in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ, who petitions our
Father in his name, to help us in good things.
Yes, All my information is truth. I do not control truth like the US
Inc, does. I leave it up to the people on how to respond to the truth.
Also you may attach a recent article from a contact of mine outside the
USA. See Attached warning...
Also see attached exposure of the IRS in my Civil Rights Case (I am not
an attorney or lawyer at the BAR, I am an investigator for the people)
at 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. All is for public use. FREE of
charge, As it is our duty as watchmen over this nation, to inspire
truth, and expose corruptions.
We must awaken NOW and see the awful state we are now in. WE ALL are in
very, eminent danger of the Beast who is taking his last few steps
toward total world control, as prophesied in Revelations in the Bible.
We must have the Flag of Liberty around our shoulders, in our yards,
offices and vehicles. It is time the people took back America from the
foreign owned world powers...
We have to stop all fighting amongst ourselves and STOP trying to kill
the Beast of evil, by plucking off leaves from his tree of power!
We must dig up the roots, cut those roots, and his funding will dry up;
his secretes will be exposed to the world, so that even his unlimited
wealth and resources can not stop it from being known by Billions of
people..... That is why God allowed the internet to be
our single most powerful weapon of mass exposure. Or as the Bush
organized Crime family puts it "Weapons of Mass Destruction" but in
words instead of bombs....
David J. D'Addabbo
At 11:05 AM 8/28/2008, you wrote:
Date: 08-28-2008 The Time is near at hand, be patient and Trust the
True Patriots. We know there are many of us. We also know there are
many more, like you stated. I have sent out warnings and a call for the
flag of liberty to be boldly shown in our homes, cities and counties. I
do not know what will become of it. I only know that what I do, to warn
people and prepare them is all I can do. My conscience is clean, when
they are killed or injured due to them not listening to the warnings.
As I always state in any of my warnings, that I would rather be called
a fool, or idiot or worse, than to see one child suffer, because I did
nothing to warn their parents. I have received feed back from around
the nation telling me thanks for giving them the choice to investigate
in their own communities, instead
of letting them get blind sided by these storms, as would their
governments allow them to be. It is our duty as watchmen and women over
the nation, to warn our neighbors, when we shall see the signs of the
times...And that is all we can do. Thus giving them the freedom to take
the advise and shove it or use it. That is called free agency and that
is what Jesus Christ wants us to have. However, take note, that, even
1% of our nation is 3 million. and the revolutionary war was fought by
around 3 to 5% of the population during the founding of this nation.
Words of Warning: Major military buildup is happening all over the
world. The US inc, has sent a great new naval fleet to the gulf, to
place embargos on Iran and to control their oil.
The US inc, has threatened every large empire and country in the
world; and ordered them to fall in line with the New World Order or
else, the US inc, will use their weapons on them. Russia has told us
that they will retaliate with their own geophysical weapons.
China has informed the US inc that they can and will overwhelm
and destroy the US inc, if they are pushed too far. Russia is saving
face, on the Georgia war, but is ready to also launch counter attacks
on the US Inc. Iran supplies them both with oil. Some nations like
France, Germany and others know what you and I know. The world is in
extreme danger for the next 4 years or more. The US inc in its world
quest for fame and control, as a world sheriff, has turned into a
Hitler instead of the prior saviors of freedoms to the world we once
were. Unfortunately, the very intelligent evil people have convinced
many good people to follow them into battle. thus our brothers and
sisters are endangered and killed in combat. However, they are
awakening even to this day of the real intentions of their leaders. I
believe we will be helped by them in the near future as time will tell.
I am not an attorney nor lawyer of the BAR. I am a Patriot who has been
fighting for our nation for over 15 years. I, too have suffered much;
but like you, I know my destiny lies with the exposing of corruption
and the cutting off of the root money supply system of the tree of evil
that has such a hold on this once great nation.
I just sent in to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, information
that will condemn every IRS agent, the DOJ and others who now control
the nation’s people with Iron chains of slavery. With all of the huge
unrest, due to the New World Order and what the US Inc has
been shoving down the throats of the world’s leaders, it will soon be
an all out world war three. We have seen very unusual troop movement on
the west coast and on other coat lines. The Katrina Storm was not just
a idle storm caused by the weather on natural circumstances. I fear, we
will see a terrible tsunami, earthquake, flood, and or tactical nukes
placed along the coast lines of the
West. 80% of the USA population is within 200 miles of a coast. With my
exposure of the secrete money train that connects the funding to these
evil people, along with pressures from Russia China, Iran and others; I
feel within a month, we shall see terrible things happening in this
nation. These terrible things will be red herring attacks to turn the
heads of the sheeple away from the rats in the wood piles in the US
inc. Unfortunately the rest of the world thinks we Americans are the
rats in the wood pile. I have tried diplomacy with Russia and other
national contacts; letting them know that there are Patriots that will
support a change back to the Republic for Freedom and Justice that our
constitution orders the governments to comply. However, we shall see,
what happens, when it happens; and YES, that will be the time to stand
with your sheriff (if he or she is a Patriot, if not, they must be
replaced immediately) and public safety committees, militias, and
others, who will protect the county where they live. All counties will
be reporting directly to a state post at the guard’s general’s office
with the governor (who if not a patriot will be immediately replaced),
that relays messages to other states of the truthful actions being
underway. The media owned by the New World Order, will be turned over
to the people, thus ran by the Sheriff’s office of the county... That
is a perfect scenario of how public safety committees should operate. I
expect less cooperation at first. but supplies will be cut off from the
coasts, therefore marshal law will be in effect to (by illusions of
truth) stabilize the nation. Federal control will be placed on all
trucking, shipping, food, energy etc... You will not be allowed to use
any or receive any, unless you take the new Federal ID that was
implemented in May of 2008. So, Please be patient in your sufferings.
For we shall prevail in the end. prepare for the worst and expose the
corruptions to your area (county). Be sure you are surrounded by good
people, and those whom you can trust. I know most of the people now,
are not seeing the storms on the horizons like we do. But that will
change and there is nothing more we can do, NOW except inform others of
this news and pray they will awaken when needed. David j. D’Addabbo
Christian Patriot Preacher Investigator for the people of the USA and
of the western states especially.
The Pen is only mightier than the sword, if you also own a
All Rights Preserved Without Prejudice;
Below are two documents. 1st is the document on
the 2nd warning I received concerning west
Coast and gulf coastal areas being in danger. I
believe this warning to be true. Thus I am
sending it out. I have it on Microsoft Works
Word in proper format, but this will give you the information, however, not in format.
The 2nd document is a copy of a small part of my
10th Circuit Court of Appeals civil rights
case. It has the secrete document called the
Pink Papers, from the IRS (for in house eyes
only) Thus their secretes are exposed; and now
they "self entrapped themselves" due to their arrogance
and boldness of thinking they are untouchable
by the people.
I have news for the IRS and their secrete
combinations! The USA Republic has found your
secretes and is now broadcasting them all over
Some of the Crimes the IRS has been caught at
with this court case, is Conspiracy,
Obstruction of Justice, Contempt of
Constitution, Fraud, Extortion, Kidnapping,
Please send to everyone you know. But do not
expose everyone's address if possible. or send
it out in sections at a time.
Thanks David J. D'Addabbo.
Private investigator for the people of the
United States of America
Christian Patriot Preacher.
I am also sending you an attached file on the
IRS. It is an in house document that exposes
their lies, Fraud etc...on the people. Exposure
will be done at high court federal level.
My case is now in 10th Circuit court of appeals
in Denver Colorado. this document is part of my
case "The Pink Papers". read it and my comments
Exposure will destroy the IRS and get most of
them arrested. I know how dangerous this is,
but I have faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, as He will provide and protect me.
The IRS funds the Federal Reserve Bank for
profit who in turn funds the Rothschilds and
other international bankers who in turn fund
terrorism around the world. All the while,
placing an illusion of being needed. We do not
need the Federal Reserve at all! Tomorrow we can shut
them down and dissolve our so called debt to them. We owe them nothing. it is an illusion, trickery, by evil men to control this nation, thus giving them a tool to control the world. This is the Bible prophecies coming true.
To put it in easy understanding terms; "If you
pay income taxes to the IRS, you are funding
The word "Income" according to the Supreme Court
and pertaining to the 16th amendment; is
Profits, or gains and only profits or gains
above $5,900.00 a year, NOT wages, earnings
salaries etc... for Income taxes on wages,
earnings, salaries etc... are 100% voluntary to pay
by most Americans.
the IRS knows this, and for years has sent
people to prison, to jail, kidnapped them
tortured them (including myself), destroyed
homes, families, ranches, farms, industry,
thus the IRS is the root of the tree of evil. if
we cut the root the evil soon dies, as its
secretes get exposed by the internet! The main
media can not control the internet now, so we
use it to tell the truth to millions around the world.
Another note in the upcoming storms is that the
new Federal ID act went into effect May
of 2008. Are you guys in California being told
to renew your Identifications in order to
"secure yourself against terrorisms or ....?"
Do not do it. If you do, you will be entered
into the federal system as a piece of corporate furniture,
with NO rights, only privileges, if they like you
and if you are a good Bond Servant...
May of 2008, they went to 3 states in the Union.
they arrested several thousand people under the
new rules of law enforcement that this Federal
ID act enforces or allows (it is 100$ illegal,
and 100% forbidden to be implemented by
governments according to the USA constitution)
They are breaking the laws, and by illusions
and fabrications of illegal laws, getting Americans
to sign off on it by their own ignorance of the truths.
As for all other forms of the Federal (illegal
government agencies controlling state
sovereigns) the county sheriffs are the highest
elected law officer in the nation. Higher that
the secretary of state, the Department of justice, the Supreme Court, etc... as None of the above are elected! They are appointed! thus their status "While in the County where the Sheriff is the law, and protector of the people" All of the above can be arrested for Breach of duty, Fraud, Extortion, Treason, Contempt of Constitution etc... by the local sheriff.
Run for sheriff. You do not have to be a law enforcement officer, who has been trained like a robot to enforce illegal laws! All you have to be is a Patriot, who knows the rights of the people far out weigh the illegal laws that are enforced today. you must learn of the Constitution and support it 100%.
See latest update on possible actions along the
Thanks for being concerned and wanting to learn
truths v evils. See my responses to the
international news contact below, printed after
David J. D'Addabbo,
Private Investigator for the people,
Christian Patriot Preacher,
Update on US Inc World War Three.
[Ed. Note: This report should be read from its website location at
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1133.htm as this email copy does
contain the links embedded in the original report.]
September 2, 2008
US Accelerates Plans For World War III With New And Vicious Attacks
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
Russian Intelligence Analysts are warning today that the Americans are
accelerating their plans for Total Global War with new attacks being
made, and further ones planed, against Russia, China, India and Iran.
Reports from Europe are further echoing these warnings as the
Netherlands De Telegraaf News Service is reporting that the “Dutch
intelligence service has pulled an agent out of an "ultra-secret
operation" spying on Iran's military industry because spymasters in
Netherlands believe a United States air attack was imminent.”
Iran was quick to counter these latest US moves with one of their top
generals, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, warning that an attack on
his Nation would unleash a World War and that the “unrestrained greed
of the United States and Zionism are pushing the world to the edge of a
precipice” and “in the case of an attack, [these] "fake and artificial
regimes" would be the first to be eliminated.”
Even more disturbing, these reports continue, is that the US has now
included China and India on its lists of Nations being attacked as the
American HAARP Earthquake and Weather Weapon has unleashed another
devastating attack upon the Chinese Mainland with a devastating
earthquake that has killed over 40 people and destroyed nearly 400,000
homes and unleashed in India catastrophic floods which have left over 3
To the genesis of these US attacks against the East we have previously
detailed extensively in our May 30th report “China Orders Strike
Against US For Catastrophic Earthquake”, our June 17th report “‘Weather
Wars’ Pummel US-China Heartlands, India In Total Chaos” and our June
21st report “‘Stop Now Or We’ll Bury You’, China Warns US As Weather
The main objective of the Americans in attacking China and India, these
reports state, is the ‘neutralizing’ of these Nations ability to come
to the aid of Russia as any Western attack upon the Russians will
necessitate the Chinese need to protect their vital oil and gas
supplies coming from Iran, Siberia and Central Asia and generate
India’s need to protect their northern borders
against the US puppet state of Pakistan where from where they receive
vital gas supplies from Iran.
In order to keep both China and India from coming to the aid of the
Russians and Iranians the United States have, also, unleashed their
terrorist forces against these Eastern Nations by stepping up
attacks in China’s Muslim Xinjiang Province where recent attacks have
left hundreds dead, and in India’s Kashmir Region where another 8
people have been reported killed in Pakistan backed violence against
It should further be noted that being kept from the American people,
about their War Leaders actions plunging our World into Total War, was
the Pakistani terrorist bombing of India’s embassy in Afghanistan which
killed 54 people after India’s Intelligence Services had ‘uncovered’
the American plan for starting World War III on their very border.
By the actions of the United States, and its Western Allies, in
attempting to subjugate the entire World to its monstrous plans for
their so called New World Order, Russia has determined itself to
stopping them ‘at all costs’.
As we had reported in our August 28th, (US-Russia Begin Catastrophic
End Time War On World) and August 30th reports (Russian ‘Sleeper’
Agents Begin ‘Day X’ Attacks In US), Russian attacks against the United
States have increased with new attacks upon the
American Homeland, including from Russia’s most secret, and devastating
Hurricane Gun, and which with Hurricane Gustav has shut down their oil
production capability and with the new Hurricane Hanna will close down
the Americans ability to ship their war equipment
from their Southeast American ports.
Russian Military Analysts in these reports further state that the
Kremlin is ‘fully prepared’ to continue unleashing catastrophic storms
upon the Americans, and if these ‘warnings’ are not heeded they will
begin crippling the US with catastrophic earthquakes in their Midwest
and West Coast Regions.
The American people themselves seem to be entirely incapable of
understanding the enormity of the events being undertaken by their Nazi
backed leaders, even to the extent of not even believing in the
catastrophic Geophysical Weapons now being utilized by the United
States, Russia and China against each other in this prelude to the use
of nuclear weapons being employed.
Nor do these Americans fully understand that Russia had no choice but
to confront the American plans to utilize Georgian airfields for their
planned attack on Georgia using Israeli aircraft, and as warned about
by Prime Minister Putin:
“We know there were many US advisors there," Putin said, reiterating
remarks he had made in a previous interview to CNN. "But these
instructors, teachers in a general sense, personnel who trained others
to work on the supplied military equipment, are supposed to be in
training centers and where were they? In the military operations zone,"
he said. "Why did the senior US leadership allow their citizens to be
present there when they had no right to be in the security zone? And if
they allowed it, I begin to suspect that it was done intentionally to
organize a small victorious war.
"And if that failed, they wanted to create an enemy out of Russia and
unite voters around one of the presidential candidates (McCain). Of
course, a ruling party candidate, because it is only the ruling party
that has this kind of resource," he said.” But, to the fullest
examination of the American people as they become the unwitting pawns
of their War Leaders we can read as reported by the former US Secretary
of the Treasury, Dr. Paul Roberts, who earned his fame as the “Father
of Reaganomics” and who has stated: “Thinking about the massive failure
of the U.S. media to report truthfully is sobering. The United States,
bristling with nuclear weapons and pursuing a policy of world hegemony,
has a population that is kept in the dark -- indeed brainwashed --
about the most important and most dangerous events of our time.
Americans have become perfect subjects for George Orwell’s Big Brother.
They sit stupidly in front of the TV news or the New York Times or
Washington Post and absorb the lies fed to them. What is wrong with
Americans? Why do they put up with it? Are Americans
the nation of sheep that Judge Andrew P. Napolitano says they are?
Americans flaunt “freedom and democracy” and live under a Ministry of
Two decades ago, President Reagan reached agreement with Soviet
president Mikhail Gorbachev to end the dangerous cold war. But every
one of Reagan’s successors has sought to pick a new fight with Russia.
In violation of the agreement, NATO has been taken to Russia’s borders,
and the U.S. is determined to put former constituent parts of Russia
herself into NATO. In an effort to neutralize Russia’s nuclear
deterrent and compromise her independence, the U.S. is putting
anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s borders.
The gratuitously aggressive U.S. military policy toward Russia will
lead to nuclear war.”
It goes without saying that Dr. Roberts warnings to his fellow
citizens, and just like ours have been, will go unnoticed, and
unheeded, by the American people, even as those who know these things
to be true.
This is so because, unlike their ancestors, none of them seem willing
to ride to the defense of others shouting the warnings of what is soon,
very soon, to happen.
© September 2, 2008 EU and US all rights reserved.
Date: 09-01-2008, USA time.
RE: reports on Americans, v Russia, China, India and Iran.
Where are you getting your information? We as Patriots for the People
of the United States of America, (NOT for the US Inc. or the New World
Order governments) have been trying to get actual real time news for
The Truth must be made known to the people who are in danger ASAP. They
must make up their own minds on whether to move out, or relocate, or
what ever. It is NOT our job to do that for them, nor to with hold
potential evidence that could kill or harm them.
I would feel terrible if one child is injured or killed due to my
unwillingness to report something to their parents, that I felt could
I and others are watch men over this nation. We have sworn oaths to God
and to country to protect and to serve the people. I as a private
investigator and researcher for truths, have been trying to expose
these lies for 15 years now.
We now have a way to do just that. Expose the lies. Allow the
individuals to choice their own destinies and stop governments control
over the people. Especially if the governments lack of reporting,
endangers ONE single Person!
Our media is 99.9% controlled by the New World Order US Inc,
governments secrete societies, companies, agencies, and combinations of
federal and state controlled courts, news, Law Enforcement, etc..
Please let the people know in countries out of the United States of
America, that we the people do not want the US Inc to rule us, nor the
world. We have been fighting to expose their corruption for 15 years
now. We are under funded and have suffered for our work, but we keep on
going as best as we can. I was kidnapped and tortured by US Inc
government agents acting under color of law; then held without bail, or
allowed out of jail before trial for 153 days.
I survived and was released due to pressures by the evidence I had on
the IRS and others, who fund these evil people. I would have exposed
them in court, if I had to go to court to defend myself.
I am a private investigator for the people of the USA and especially
Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington areas. I
have been working on 2 civil law suits in hopes to expose their
corruptions in open court records. I am in the 10th circuit court of
appeals now, with the Federal case. That is one step away from the
Supreme court of the USA.
I am not a BAR attorney, but I am trained in Constitutional laws, by my
diligence to seek justice, and with my God helping me along the way. I
pray for help from those who can help, and I get the answers I pray
for, thus my cases are full of exposure and crimes
committed by the US Inc Governments who are out to rule the world.
We know about HAARP under US Inc Control; But did not know your people
had similar weapons. We were thinking HAARP was responsible for the
weather in our gulf of Mexico. But now the US weather corps are
informing us for the very first time in USA history, that the name of
the Gulf of Mexico Hurricane is Hurricane Gustav; What does Gustav mean
in your country. In our country it does not exist. Gustavo in Mexican
language is a city in South Central Mexico.
We the people of the USA are good God Respecting People. We desire only
to have freedoms for all people, to chose their own destiny’s.
We have found out that the IRS or the Internal Revenue Service, that
the Federal Reserve Bank (for profit) uses as an income tax collection
service; and has been lying (and many other crimes) to the people for
the past50 years.
My (and other Patriots) investigation is bringing to view the
corruptions found in this main money source (the IRS) for the New World
Order (the IRS).
I am (and other Patriots) are in danger of being killed, or tortured
for exposing this corruption. But we are willing to risk it for the
freedoms of the people, so they can see the truth that the US Inc
Controlled media is not informing the public about.
We are trying a massive internet exposure quest; that will bypass the
main media that is controlled by the US inc. thus millions of people
will hear the news by their computers. Myself and other investigators
are working on shoe string budgets, and have been NOT allowed to
gain employment; due to the IRS, controlling all of the employers by
FEAR, NOT to hire us. I work side jobs to get by, as a self employed
individual, but the press has placed fear in the hearts of the people,
and they are too afraid to be involved in the exposure, or they will
lose their wealth, and their positions in society. In other words, they
betray the USA for wealth and prosperity.
People who are not afraid to tell the truth, like myself and yourself,
are our only hope, for national and international exposure.
Will you please let your contacts and the public know, that we the
people are not the ones attacking the world. It is a minority of people
in power, who do have the majority people convinced that the real
terrorists are other nations who have attacked the USA in New York
on September 11th 2001; by the illusions of movies produced by the evil
ones, that work their propaganda into the minds of the people.
We as Truthful Patriots, know ; and have investigated the facts of the
New York Trade Center “bombing”. Besides being an Investigator,
researcher, I am a professional Commercial and residential construction
Manager; and have been, for over 25 years. I and others including
professors, and explosive experts know that those buildings could not
possibly fall strait down without the help of inside explosives
attached to the central column supports..
But our findings are always countered by the mass media and their
unlimited wealth, by their sound bites, movies and news contradicting
our exposures with illusions, lies, and twists, covering themselves
with manufactured engineering specialists in a total propaganda attack
on the people of the USA.
However, we as Patriots, believe very strongly, (due to supporting
evidence of who had control of the New York Trade Center security, 2
months before the bombings.. We have come to a conclusion that the Bush
family Mafia planned and orchestrated the whole 9-11
demolition of the World Trade Center complex. They did it for insurance
money (Billions of dollars) and to start their illusion of protecting
the people campaign by flooding the media with propaganda of foreign
terrorism people doing the bombings, thus convincing
the majority of the USA people; that Afghanistan and other nations are
behind the Sept. 11 2001 bombing attacks. Yet Bush went into Iraq, when
Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.
That is how they got the American people to go to war. We have tried to
get congress to impeach Bush and his mobsters but to no prevail. We
believe the Bush Organized Crime family has too much dirt on members of
congress; therefore Congress will not act to expose the crimes.
After much work by myself and other Patriots, we are beginning to
awaken the people of their awful conditions. We believe, the people
including soldiers, navy, marines and air force, are seeing the truth
and want to stop the wars. However, the Media is not helping us in any
way. In fact the media has tried all it can do, to counter everything
we inform the people about with propaganda that soon fades the event of
exposure away as if it never happened.
The New World Order Leaders are brilliant, but are very evil. They use
their powers and unlimited resources to control the world. They do this
by lies, by controlling the outcome of lies in Media, by convincing the
public of their agendas, as the public are too busy to worry about
things that do not effect them directly in their every day activities.
Please help us help you. We are All the children of God. He will help
us defeat this Beast called the New World Order, if we take the
appropriate steps ourselves, having faith that we will be inspired and
guided to the right things to say and do.
Our biggest problems in the USA, is that the US Inc, has made sure the
Patriots do not gain enough wealth to be a true thorn in their side. We
need funding in order to counter the media campaign control over the
populations of the states.
I pray for your safety and ours. I pray for peace, but fear for wars,
and constant evil every day. I respect the enemy for its intelligence
and their ability to control the thoughts of the people so easily. But
I know that with God as our General and King, we shall prevail.
Even as David faced Goliath in the Bible, so shall we face the New
World Order. May God Help us, and allow Jesus Christ, his Son, to
intervene in our behalf, and destroy the foundations of lies, that the
US Inc and the New World Order have constructed their mansions of
power. That through those cracks in the foundations of lies, the truths
will come forward; and millions of people around the world will be made
aware of our awful state; and awaken with courage and strength to fight
this evil, head on!
I am planning on running for Sheriff of Cache Valley Utah in 2009, when
the current New World Order Sheriff’s term will expire. I am meeting
with people around the county to gain support for my election. As a
Sheriff is the highest elected law officer in the nation, as
long as he is in his county. Even the Federal agents, US inc Department
of justice, the FBI, DEA, BATF, etc...do not hold rank over an elected
Sheriff in the county where he is voted to office.
As Sheriff, I will arrest anyone (State, federal, county etc...) who
enforces laws against the Constitution or Supreme Law for governments.
I will arrest the press, who print lies. I will do all I can with the
energy of the county Patriots behind me, to create a safe place in
Northern Utah, where the truth is known by all people, thus allowing
them to decide on what to do in order to save this nation with Liberty
and Justice; while allowing other nations to be free also.
David J. D’Addabbo
Private Investigator for the People,
Christian Patriot Preacher,
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
David J. D'Addabbo,
a Sovereign Individual,of the State of Utah,
Preserving All Rights.
The Office of the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA),
the IRS executives (All,who will not surrender their names),
US Treasury Special Agents Andrew Austin and Matt Richards,
(ALL as Civil Servants, to the people of the United States of America).
Added Discovery Evidence, in Support of the Plaintiff's
Motion For Appeal: Of Dismissal by US District Court, District of Utah,
Northern Division, honorable Judge Ted Stewart
Case Number: 1:08cv 02 TS,
The Plaintiff submits this very, important part of his discovery
material to this court. It would have been produced into the case on
the 5th of August, 2008, but the honorable Judge Stewart of the US
District Court, District of Utah Northern Division, on July 15/16, 2008,
dismissed the case, and disregarded the hearing scheduled by the court.
All at a total surprise and to the destruction of justice, voiding
constitutional protected rights (by forbidding governments to
"infringe" in any way) of the Plaintiff's right to a trial by a jury.
This Document is called by the employees of the IRS, the PINK PAPERS!.
It is to be kept inside the company and not allowed out for public
This copy is part of the evidence that supports the Plaintiff David J.
D'Addabbo in his civil rights case, now in the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Denver Colorado; wherewith the case now is up for an appeal.
The Appeal is due to the illegal closing of the case by US District
Court, District of Utah, judge Stewart; due to the Plaintiff having no
subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. However, the Plaintiff states
that He has plenty of subject matter jurisdiction and was going to
enter it into the case during a scheduled hearing for August 5th 2008.
WARNING: The Plaintiff fears for his life, his family, his property,
and does also fear for the Judges, who will be approached by the IRS
executives, to destroy this evidence, close this case and support the
continual evils, upon the nation's people. I pray, that this court
stand for justice, and hold to the sword of Justice, all those claimed
as Defendants in this case, by allowing this case to be submitted with
ALL it's discovery materials, Leaving out NOTHING, to a jury of
American people. Wherewith, the Plaintiff has requested protection
orders prior to this appeal; and does so seek those orders again; from
this court of Appeals against ALL of the Defendants, because of the
danger surrounding this investigation and most important court case.
* NOT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION *
Note: The following is a form, passed around by the IRS employees:
REPORT ON DEFENDING OUR TAX EXEMPT WAGES PURPOSE:
Due to the increasing desire for revenue, our people inside the
Internal Revenue Service are being advised to file tax returns for
wages. This under the guise that it doesn't look equitable if we don't
pay taxes on our wages, yet actively collect them from the common
people. This situation is becoming more acute due to the recent
unauthorized mention on National News that warnings have gone out to
IRS agents who have not been filing. We have spent so much time trying
to convince the general public they must pay taxes, apparently our
supervisory hierarchy have decided we must lose the one perk we get for
being a parish in this society. Recognize that many of them file,
solely for purposes of making themselves politically acceptable in
their aspirations for higher public offices.
Our own Department Counsel (attorney) seems to be leaning toward making
payment of taxes a requirement for new IRS employees, and was only
minimally helpful in preparing this report. But as there are those of
us who do not aspire politically nor who wish to give up
our perks and pay taxes on wages like common people, we have provided
this in house report, which covers basics of just WHY you don't have to
file if your income is primarily wages, WHY it is not a crime, and the
basic defenses for your personal lawyer.
While I doubt anyone in the supervisory hierarchy will risk exposure of
our perks and this information to the common people, we must be
prepared to protect ourselves from our own organization. With that in
mind, and with some help from our legal advisors, we have
prepared this unofficial intradepartmental report.
Note: by David J. D'Addabbo, All of the criminal offenses suggested to
be illegal by the IRS, are only valid
crimes IF THE PERSON IS SUPPOSE TO PAY INCOME TAXES; AND NOT A CRIME IF
PERSON IS NOT SUPPOSE TO PAY INCOME TAXES. MOST AMERICANS ARE TO PAY
INCOME TAXES ONLY AND IF THEY VOLUNTARILY PAY IT!! IT IS NOT MANDATORY
FOR MOST AMERICANS TO PAY INCOME TAXES, AS THE SALARIES, EARNINGS, WAGES
ARE NOT ABOVE THEIR ABILITY TO EARN A LIVING WITHOUT BEING TAXED UPON
EARNINGS. A corporation for profit, must pay income taxes ONLY, because
they willingly, without force, (just
as a direct tax is legal on items purchased, because you willingly
purchased an item, knowing it had a tax on
it...) formed a corporation, thus corporations are taxable for incomes
they earn. Free agency is therefore
established by the persons willingly joining as a board member, or
forming a corporation, vs being a private
sovereign individual who does NOT HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAXES ON THEIR
The IRS commits FRAUD, when they refuse to produce a full and explained
contract to each individual who is not a corporation. The words "you do
not have to pay this income tax, it is 100% voluntary..." must be
included in the forms, letters, to be a fully disclosed
contract. To NOT have this verbiage, explaining the options to the
public, by non disclosure of contract obligations, agreements, etc...
the IRS is, has and will continue to commit FRAUD, EXTORTION, LIE,
PERJURE THEMSELVES IN COURT, STEAL, RUIN
FAMILIES, FARMS, RANCHES, HOMES, PROPERTY TAKEN, THREATEN WITH
COERCION, DURESS, AND VINDICTIVE
PERSECUTION ON EVERYONE (ESPECIALLY David J. D'Addabbo) that brings
forth to the public, the secretes of their organizations, companies and
combinations of secret government supporting agencies..... ALL ARE
GUILTY OF CRIMINAL AND
TREASONOUS ACTS UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
End of Quote by David J. D'Addabbo.
There are both Civil and Criminal sanctions for violations of the
Internal Revenue Code, which is found in Title 26, U.S. Code. We will
address the criminal side, but the elements of criminal tax evasion and
civil tax fraud are identical, (See Gray v Cir., C.A.6 1983, 708 F
2d 2243, cert denied 104 S.Ct 1709) and we must remember, that
government invocation of the civil penalty does not bar a criminal
proceeding for the imposition of fines or imprisonment. (Spies v U.S.
N.Y. 1943, 63 s Ct 364, 317 U.S. 492) Among the more
common Criminal offenses for which an individual might be charged are:
1. Aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, inducing, or procuring
commission of an offense against the United States (Title 18 U.S.C.
sect 2) This includes one who contributes consciously to the commission
of an offense against the provisions of the code. (See 47B.CJS
sec 1255 and note 33)
2. Any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat a tax is guilty
of a felony (Title 26 U.S.C. sec 7201) (See 47B CJS 1256 at note 43).
3. Any person who willfully fails to keep records required for Federal
income tax purposes may be providing the Government with an indictable
offense. (Title 26 U.S.C. Sec 7203 & 5603).
4. Any person required to file an income tax return who willfully fails
to do so is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Title 26 U.S.C. sec 7203; Spies v
U.S. N.Y. 1943, 63 S.Ct. 364) (See 47B CJS 1258 note 86.)
5. Any person who willfully fails to pay a tax required by law is
guilty of a misdemeanor. (Title 26 U.S.C. sec 7203) (Sansone v U.S. Mo.
1965, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 380 U.S. 343.)
6. Any person who willfully supplies false or fraudulent information to
his employer with respect to the withholding tax requirements is guilty
of a punishable offense. (Title 26 U.S.C. sec 7205 as amended.)
Economic Recovery Act of 1981 increased the penalty to
$1,000. The Excuse that Fed. Reserve notes are not dollars was a valid
defense (U.S. v Tissi, C.A. Mo 1979, 601 F2d 372.)
7. Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement,
or other document which declares that it is made under the penalties of
perjury and which such person does not believe to be true and correct
as to every material matter is guilty of a felony. (Title 26 U.S.C.
7206 (1)) (See 47B CJS sec 1261 note 44)
8. Any person who willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels,
or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with
any matter arising under the Internal Revenue laws, or a return,
affidavit, claim or other document, which is fraudulent
or is false as to any information whether or not such falsity or fraud
is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required
to represent such return, affidavit, claim or document is guilty of a
felony. (Title 26 U.S.C. sec 7206 (2)) (See 47B CJS sec 1262)
9. A person who attempts to interfere forcibly with the administration
of the Internal Revenue laws by a federal office or employer acting in
an official capacity is guilty of a punishable offense. (Title 26
U.S.C. Sec 7212 (a)) (See 47S CJS sect 1265.)
10. Revenue officers or employees who commit specific acts or omissions
constitute criminal offenses. (See 47B CJS sect 1271.)
11. Taxation of Firearms, Bombs, Stills, etc. are incorporated in the
tax code. (Firearms; Title 26 U.S.C. sec 5871, 5849, 5861, 5811, 5812,
5852, 5841.) (Bombs Title 26 U.S.C. 5845, 5861, 5845.) (Stills &
Alcohol U.S.C. 5601 et seq.)
The most common criminal charges we as individuals and employees of the
IRS might face from those attempting to tax our wages are "Tax
Evasion," and "Willful failure to file."
1. Income is not specifically defined in our manuals nor is defined in
I.R.S. Code. Congress did not define it.
2. Income has always been defined by the courts as to exclude wages.
3. Therefore persons whose income (NOT WAGES) in 1992 filing singly
with less than $5,900 need not file a return or pay a tax.
4. If an individual has earned dividends, interest from bank accounts,
or other moneys which are less than the minimum established, ($5,900
for one filing separately and under 65 in 1992), he/she need not file,
nor pay any tax. He/she is exempt, as wages need not be counted.
5. Make sure your supervisor is aware of the implications to his
advancement if he reports you and you are forced to make this
6. Make sure the prosecutor and your lawyer are both aware of the
implications should the case not be nol prossed, as this information
will become public, and the Assistant U.S. Attorney probably won't be
in line for any kind of promotion for endangering the proverbial
"goose" when you are found not guilty, and the information goes public
to a media already promoting the tax reform.
7. If you are actually tried Criminally, stress to the Judge your
reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court in not filing or paying taxes on
WAGES, and cite either the Sullivan, Bishop or Cheek case, which states
that willfulness is negated if you rely on a previous decision
of the U.S. Supreme Court.
8. If you are tried Civilly, have your lawyer move for "Summary
Judgment", using the citations that follow or others of which he may be
TAX LAW ORIGINS AND
Congress has had power to lay and collect income taxes from the time of
the adoption of the Constitution, (Brushaber v Union Pac. R.R.Co. N.Y.
1916, 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 U.S.1) This power was subject to the
requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the
several states according to population. (Pollock v Farmers Loan and
Trust Co. N.Y. 1895, 125 S.Ct 673, 157 U.S. 429) The alleged difficulty
of meeting this requirement led to the adoption of the Sixteenth
Amendment to the Constitution, effective Feb. 25, 1913,
giving congress power to "lay and collect taxes on income, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
states, and without regard to any census or enumeration" (Evans v Gore,
Ky 1920, 40 S.Ct. 550, 253 U.S. 245) (Kasey v C.I.R., C.A. 9 1972, 457
F2d 369 Certiorari denied 93 S.Ct 197, 409 U.S. 869)
It did not limit or expand the power of Congress to tax under the
constitutional provisions authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes
but instead merely provided for taxation of income without
apportionment. (Brushaber v Union Pac. R.R.Co. N.Y. 1916, 36 S.Ct.
236, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed 493; Simmons v U.S., CA Md 1962 308 F2d 160.
Pledger v CIR CA 5, 1981, 641 F2d 287, certiorari denied 102 S.Ct. 504,
454, U.S. 964, 70 L.Ed. 2d 379)
The Brushaber court ruled that the 16th Amendment separated the source
(capital) from the income (profit) permitting the collection of an
indirect (excise) tax on income, but leaving the source (wages, salary,
compensation, fees for service, first time commissions
and capital) untouched and free of tax. If these things were to be
taxed, it could only be construed as a direct tax, unquestionably in
violation of the Constitution, making the entire tax on income void.
There still remains the question as to what is constitutionally
allowable as "income" which can be taxed, as Congress is not
constitutionally free to define "income" in any way it chooses.
(Simpson v U.S. D.C. Iowa 1976, 423 F.Supp 720, reversed on other
grounds, Prescott v Commissioner of Internal Revenue C.A. 561 F2d 1287)
Further, the labels used do not determine the
extent of the taxing power. (Simmons v U.S. C.A. Md 1962, 308 F2d 160.
Richardson v U.S. C.A. Mich 1961 294 F2d 593 certiorari denied 82 S.Ct.
640, 360 U.S. 802, 7 L.Ed. 2d 549.)
To reiterate, the tax authorized under the original U.S. Constitution
has not changed except as to separate the source of "income" from the
income itself, permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on
income, by leaving the source (wages, salaries, fees for service, and
first time commissions) free of tax (Brushaber supra) despite how some
politicians interpret the 16th Amendment.
(Note: The Brushaber court referred to an earlier case, Pollock v
Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895) which declared the
Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional, as it's effect would have been
to leave the burden of the tax to be born by professions, trades,
employments, or vacations; and in that way, what was intended as a tax
on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor.
This result the court held could NOT have been contemplated by
(Note: There are also the questions as to both the ratification and the
constitutionality of the 16th Amendment, but neither has been ruled on
by the U.S. Supreme Court and why clutter up a good defense?)
Since the general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue
Code, (U.S. v Ballard 535 F2d 400 (1976)) and the U.S. Supreme Court
has ruled the congress may not, by any definition it may adopt,
conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter
the Constitution, from which alone it derives it's power to legislate,
and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully
exercised. (Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 1889(1920))
Since the Rules contained in the I.R.S. Manual, even if codified in the
code of Federal Regulations, do not have the force and effect of law
(U.S. v Horne, C.A. Me. 1983, 714 F2d 206) and the power to promulgate
regulations does not include the power to broaden or narrow the meaning
of statutory provisions beyond what Congress intended, (Abbot, Procter
& Paine v U.S. 1965 344 F2d
333, 170 Ct Cl 408) and regulations cannot do what Congress itself is
without power to do; they must conform to the Constitution. (C.I.R. v
Van Vorst, C.C.A. 1932, 59 F2d 677)
Since the ultimate appellate court is the U.S. Supreme Court, we must
look to them for a definite answer on the question of conformance and
affirmation of our little secret that wages are not classified as
income which can be taxed.
The Court has recognized that... "it becomes essential to distinguish
between what is, and what is not "income".." Eisner v Macomber, 252
U.S. 189 (1920) and determined the "..."income" as used in the statute
should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes
in, the true function of the words "gains" and "profits" is to limit
the meaning of the word "income"." (So Pacific v Lowe, 238 F 847.)
(U.S.Dist Ct. S.D. N.Y. 1917); 247 U.S. 30 (1918)).
The Court determined that
"....the definition of income approved by the Court is: The gain
derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be
understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of
capital assets. " (Eisner Supra)
"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act
means, gain ....and in such connection gain means, profit… proceeding
from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and
coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use,
benefit and disposal" (Staples v U.S. 21 F.Supp 737 (U.S. Dist Ct ED
In the case of Lucas v Earl, 281 US 111 (1930), the U.S. Supreme Court
stated unambiguously that;
"The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services
are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the
individual who has performed the services which produced the gain is
without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions
of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed
to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Dept.
which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal
services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned
by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by
the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages or compensation for
personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which
is to be included is gains, profits and income DERIVED from
salaries, wages or compensation for personal service.
The Court ruled similarly in Goodrich v Edwards, 255 U.S. 527 (1921)
and in 1969, the Court ruled in Connor v U.S. 303 F supp 1187, that,
"whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential
feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment
became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v Macomber supra,
it was true under sect 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and
it is likewise true under sect 61 (a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If
there is not gain there is not income ...
Congress has taxed INCOME and not compensation."
"... one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for
them." (Edwards v Keith, 231 F111, 1916).
Even at the State level, we find courts following the lead of the U.S.
"There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation
for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within
the meaning of the law. (Oliver v Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d
reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.
(Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v Matthews, 345 Pa. 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280,
Since the above cases are the undisputable law with respect to what is
or is not income, we find the word income does not mean all monies that
come into the possession of an individual, but profit or gain FROM the
money one takes in, such as interest, stock dividends,
profit from an employee's labors, but not from an individual's wages,
which are compensation for his labor. This means that the average
person in America, who has no large investments or riches upon which he
receives interest, dividends, etc, in excess of the amounts
listed above (1992) but merely works for wages, has income insufficient
in amount to be required to file a tax
HANDLING A JURY TRIAL:
While you might be better off with bench trial, which may never be
tried due to the nature of the suit, there may be a time when you are
tried by jury. Even if you get a jury trial that is outraged by an
agent not paying taxes you cannot be condemned. Both Tax Evasion and
Failure to File require "willfulness." Again we look to the U.S.
Supreme Court, and find that, "The requirement of an offense committed
willfully is not met, therefore if a taxpayer has relied in good faith
upon a prior decision of the court." (U.S. v Bishop, 412 U.S.
346, 1973 at 2017, 93 S.Ct. 2008), and (U.S. v Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259,
Since any reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent person filing a
return, invoking this argument MUST rely on U.S. Supreme Court's
interpretation of "income" that person when brought into court may rely
on the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to negate the
element of "willfulness". Make sure those jury instructions are made to
the jury, and bring them up in testimony if you like. As if this was
not enough, any question in a juror's mind can be swayed in your favor
with this citation:
"Statutes levying taxes should be construed in case of doubt, against
the government and in favor of the citizen." (Miller v Gearing 258 F
IF HANDLING YOUR OWN
Make sure to read 47B C.J.S. Section 1283 among other sources regarding
parameters of jury instructions.
1. Determine what returns you are being charged with evading or "not"
filing, as "Income tax liability for any one year constitutes a single
cause of action" (Lewis v Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281)
2. Determine whether they are beyond a statute of limitations to sue
since Congress has consented to a defense to which in effect is a
statute of limitations, (Lucia v U.S. C.A. Tex. 1973, 474 F2d 565) and
under the Code, (Title 26 USCA sect 6502) a suit is barred
when not brought within the statutory limitation period, and move to
dismiss any counts which are past the statute of limitations.
3. Refuse to produce anything the government does not already have on
us from payroll. We may refuse any I.R.S Summons not judicially
enforced, as long as the attack is in good faith the statute we usually
refer to (Title 26 USC 7210) which prescribes criminal
punishment for anyone refusing to obey an Internal Revenue summons for
production records, was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Reisman
v Caplink, 375 U.S. 440. The court stated:
"Non compliance is not subject to prosecution thereunder, when the
summons is attacked in good faith." And by the same token, it seems
that one who makes a good faith challenge to specific questions on a
1040 tax return is not subject to successful prosecution."
The courts have also stated that "Broad Discretions given tax officers
with regard to investigations is for legitimate tax investigations and
is not a license for official harassment of the citizenry. (U.S. v
Cutter, 374 F Supp 1065.)
While we are insiders and not merely citizenry, and will feel heat at
work, we are still citizens, and any prejudice or pressure put on us
can be handled. They cannot "read our rights" while our supervisors are
"talking to us" as enumerated in the Mathis Decision, No 726, May 6,
1938, 3 910 S Winterhaven Fl) If no rights given us then we move to
suppress the evidence gathered through conversation.
4. Prepare motion to dismiss, using this document as reference.
5. Prepare requests for Jury instructions or Requests for findings of
fact and rulings of law.
6. Make sure the submitted Jury instructions contain what you want to
argue in front of the Jury. (See U.S. v Watkind, Fed Case No 16.649 (3
Cranch, CC 441 U.S. 1829) as "Counsel will not be permitted to argue
before a jury questions of law not involved in the instructions asked
and submitted to the court."
DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC
CHARGES AND CURRENT LAW:
Under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, (Title 26 USCA Sec
7201), any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat a tax is
guilty of a felony (See notes 43 at C.J.S. 1256),
The essential elements of the offense are:
a. Willfulness, (U.S. v Garbor, C.A. Fl. 1979, 607 F2d 92) means a
voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty (See 47B CJS 1256
note 45) which may be shown through consistent patterns of not
reporting large amounts of income. (See 47B CJS 1256 note 46) a bona
fide mistake, negligence, carelessness, or misunderstanding is not
sufficient. So while intent is a necessary element of the statutory
offense, (See 47B CJS 1256 Note 48) there is no requirement of a
showing of evil motive beyond a specific intent to violate the law.
(See 47B CJS 1256 Note 49)
b. The existence of a tax deficiency.
c. An affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of a
tax. (An intent to evade taxes is the equivalent of an intent to
defraud the government. (U.S. v Miller, C.A. Cal 1976 545 F2d 1204,
certiorari denied 97 S.Ct 1549, 430 U.S. 930).
Generally, conduct which is likely to mislead or conceal is sufficient
to raise an inference of an affirmative willful attempt, such as is
required to constitute the offense of attempt to evade or defeat tax
(See 47B CJS Sec 1256 att Note 67), and if the tax evasion motive
plays any part in the conduct of the taxpayer, the offense may be made
out even though such conduct may also serve other purposes, such as the
concealment of other crime (CJS Supra at Note 68). Any affirmative act
which the taxpayer might do where the effect and
reasonable purpose would be to evade or defeat the tax will constitute
the offense (CJS Supra at Note 69)
The filing of a false return is an independent crime and also one
aspect of the more comprehensive offense considered here (CJS. Supra at
Note 70), and the crime is complete when a fraudulent is knowingly and
willfully filed with intent to evade and defeat part or all of the
tax (CJS Supra at Note 71). Where the necessary intention is present,
the offense may be committed not only by the filing of a false original
return (CJS Supra at Note 72), but also by the filing of false amended
returns, proofs, or affidavit, even though such instruments are not
required to be filed (CJS Supra at Note 73). The crime may be committed
by taking fraudulent deduction (CJS Supra at Note 74), as well as by
fraudulently failing to report income received (CJS Supra at Note 75).
When no wagering excise tax return has been filed, an individual cannot
be criminally prosecuted for willfully attempting to evade or defeat
the tax, notwithstanding fact that wagering taxes may be due and owing
(CJS Supra at Note 75.5).
The word "willfully" when used in the Revenue Code which renders
certain acts criminal, has the same meaning in the felony provisions as
it does in the misdemeanor provisions. (47B CJS sect 1254 at Note 23)
This word as used in the Code's criminal provisions
connotes a voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty
((47B CJS 1254 at note 24) at Note 25) and is not equated with mere
carelessness or recklessness (U.S. v Swanson C.A. Iowa 1975, 509 F 2d
1205). Even gross negligence is not sufficient to establish
willfulness (478 CJS 1254 at Note 27) The willful requirement is not
met if the defendant has relied on good faith on a prior decision of
the U.S. Supreme Court (47B CJS 1254 at Note 28).
I.R.S. statutory offenses, where the law contains the words, "with
intent to evade", the intent is material to the offense. (U.S. v Buzzo,
Mich 18773, 18 Wall. 125, 21 L.Ed 418)
A) The offense is not committed unless the taxpayer has actual
knowledge of the existence of the obligation and a wrongful intent to
evade it. (47B CJS 1256 at Note 50)
B) The requirement of willfulness is not met if a taxpayer has relied
in "good faith" on a prior decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (47B CJS
1256 at Note 51).
C) A persons mistaken belief that his method of recording income is
proper is a defense (47B CJS 12566 at Note 52).
D) Reliance on the advice of counsel in a tax evasion case is not a
complete defense, but only a circumstance indicating good faith which
may be considered on the issue of willfulness (47B CJS 12566 at Note
55). Essential to the claim of reliance on counsel is a showing
that the reliance be in good faith, and that the advice be obtained
after full disclosure of all the facts to which the advice pertains
(47B CJS 1256 at Note 56). There must also be a showing that the
taxpayer actually relied on the advice, believing it to be correct (47B
CJS 1256 at Note 57).
E) A tax return is not criminally fraudulent simply because it is
erroneous; willfulness is an essential element of crime of income tax
evasion. (U.S. v Garner, C.A.F1 1979, 607 F 2d 92)
F) It is not an offense for the taxpayer so to handle his affairs, as
to avoid or reduce tax liability, provided his acts are legal.
Continental Oil Co. v Jones, D.C. Rohl 1939, 26 F. Supp 694, affirmed
113 F2d 557, certiorari denied 61 S. Ct. 64, 34 U.S. 687.
G) Good faith listing of three billion dependents on his W-4 was ruled
proper. U.S. v Snider, 502 F 2d 645, (1974).
A) It is no excuse that defendant had kept no books, disclosing his
income and expenses (U.S. v Zimmerman, C.Ca III 1940, 108 F2d 370, or
that the income in question was derived from unlawful sources (47B CJS
1256 at Note 54).
B) Merely aggravating and daring the government to enforce the code
does not create immunity from, or constitute a defense to prosecution
(U.S. v Stout, C.A. III 1979, 601 F2d 325, Certiorari denied 100 s Ct
481, 444 U.S. 979.)
C) Excuse that Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars was not a valid
defense (U.S. v Tissi, C.A. Mo 1979, 601 F2d 372).
TAX EVASION VERSUS
WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE:
The felony of attempting to evade or defeat a tax may include one or
several of other offenses against the Code (47B CJS 1256 at Note 63),
the misdemeanor of failure to pay the tax. The difference is that an
attempt to evade or defeat a tax involves some commission of some
affirmative act in ADDITION to willful omission (Sansone v U.S. Mo
1965, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 380 U.S. 343)
WILLFUL FAILURE TO
Any person required to file an income tax return who willfully fails to
do so is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Title 26, sec 7203; Spies v U.S.
N.Y. 1943, 63 S. Ct 364.) (See 47B CJS 1258 at note 86.,)
Except it is not mandatory to file an income tax form, due to it being
a voluntary tax and full disclosure of the instrument was not disclosed
fully to the individual (IRS held back the words "This income tax is
THE ELEMENTS THE
GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE ARE:
1. Defendant failed to file a return (47B CJS 1258 at Note 89).
2. He must be a person required to make a return (47B CJS 1258 at Note
3. He must have done so willfully (47B CJS 1258 at Note 90).
The word "willfully" in the Statute means a voluntary, intentional
violation of the known legal duty to file a return (47B CJS 1258 at
Note 5), and the taxpayer's motives in failing to file such are
immaterial and irrelevant (47B CJS 1258 at Note 96). Some cases have
construed the statute as not requiring an intent to defraud the
government or other similar bad purpose or evil motive (47B CJS 1258 at
Note 97), while other cases have held that Failure to file a return
"willfully" means that the act must have been activated by a bad
purpose or evil motive (47B CJS 1258 at Note 98).
Willfulness means a voluntary intentional violation of a known legal
duty (47B CJS 1256 at Note 45) which may be shown through consistent
patterns of not reporting large amounts of income.
An act may be done knowingly and intentionally whether as the immediate
act, of the person charged, or his authorized act through an employee.
(Prather v U.S. 1834, 9 App D.C. 82).
He must have actual knowledge of the existence of the obligation, and a
wrongful intent to evade it. (47B CJS 1258 at Note 91).
Defendant's good faith belief that he need not file his tax return (47B
CJS 1258 at Note 99), or a good faith misunderstanding or an
inadvertence on his part (47B CJS 1258 at Note 91) has been said to
constitute justification for failure to file a return.
It has been held that a taxpayer, who in good faith, declines to
acknowledge his income on an income tax return, asserting instead his
Fifth Amendment privilege, has been held not guilty of willfully
failing to file a tax return, since he sincerely believes that such 5th
Amendment filling is not legal (47B CJS 1258 at Note 77).
Tax forms which do not contain financial information upon which the
taxpayers liability can be determined, (47B CJS 1258 at Note 93) such
as forms containing only one's name, address, social security numbers,
and occupation (47B CJS 1258 at Note 94), do not constitute "returns"
within the meaning of the statute.
NOTE: By David J. D'Addabbo: Again, the non disclosure of contract or
instrument by the holder or assigner of the contract or instruments
(forms, letters, etc...) must fully disclose obligations of the signer
of such contracts or instruments, for those contracts or
instruments to become legal and binding to the laws of contracts.
The IRS commits Fraud, by theft, extortion, etc... when they use, BY
ILLUSIONS OF LAW, the demand by force; that everyone must pay taxes on
their incomes. It simply is not true, and they know it; yet every day,
they steal with force and evil intentions; money from those who badly
need that money, to support their families!
Thus they have betrayed the people of the United States of America; and
by Fraud and Extortion; through ORGANIZED CRIME; they control the
people's outcome in the courts, with the aid of the Federal Reserve
Bank for Profit, the governments, and in secrete
combinations of companies, like the DOJ (including some corrupted
judges), the US treasury, the IRS, BATF, DEA, and others, TREASONOUS
CRIMES IN CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION....End of Quote, by
David J. D'Addabbo.
a) A taxpayer is not excused from the offense because he had not
previously been prompted or notified of his duty to file a return (478
CJS 1258 at Note 2), because he disagreed with the law (47B CJS 1258 at
Note 3), or because he believed in good faith that the statute (47B CJS
1258 at Note 4) or the Federal Reserve System (47B CJS 1258 at note 5)
b) Defendant's fear of self incrimination for previous violations of
the Code is no defense to a charge of failure to file a return (47B CJS
1258 at Note 6).
Subsequent conduct of the defendant cannot relieve him from criminal
liability for failure to file a return (47B CJS 1258 at Note 8). It is
no defense that the defendant intended to file a return and to pay his
taxes in the future (47B CJS 1258 at Note 9), and even the fact that
the taxpayer voluntarily filed delinquent returns does not preclude
prosecution (47B CJS 1258 at Note 10).
c) Compromise of Civil liability. The prosecution is not barred by a
compromise of the civil liability (47B CJS 1258 at Note 11).
As you can see, by negating wages as income, only profit or gain need
to be considered, making most persons ineligible for filing. There is
no willful act, no omission, no intent, and no income ... hence no case
for the prosecution, and even if confronted by an angry jury, by
relying on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, YOU MUST BE ACQUITTED AS A
MATTER OF LAW. If you are not acquitted, your lawyer will for a
Judgment not withstanding the verdict, and/or appeal, from which you
will, be eventually found not guilty.
End of Pink Papers.
David J. D'Addabbo
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on 6th of August, 2008 I sent true copies of
Added Discovery Evidence, in Support of the Plaintiff's
Motion For Appeal: to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal Case for the
Plaintiff; and I do certify, that I had previously sent the request
(notice) for Appeal in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 24th,
2008, aforma pauperis filled out, and also on 08-05-2008,
Originals & copies of supporting subject matter jurisdiction, Entry
of Appearance, Pro Se, Proof of service, Pro Docket Statement, for the
Plaintiff, to ALL of the following:
10th Circuit Court of Appeals,
Clerk, Main Office,
Bryon White United States Courthouse,
1st Floor. 1823 Stout Street.
Denver, Colorado, 80202-2505
United States District Court,
Northern division of Utah,
Clerks Office, Judge Stewart.
350 South Main Street.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-2180
Brett L. Tolman, US Attorney
Attorney for the United States
185 South State Street, Suite 300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Others sent this notice for evidence in future hearings if needed.
Their names are with held due to possible
intimidation from the IRS and others who do not want this case to go to
Other trusted Congressmen and women.
Other trusted law enforcement and elected officials, Federal, State,
County & City.
Other sovereign Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming state
___________________________ Name of Plaintiff.
The Pen is only mightier than the sword,
if you also own a sword.UCC 1-308,
All Rights Preserved Without Prejudice;
David J. D'Addabbo