The Jurisdiction of Every Office Attached to the Seat of Gov
“All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.” -
4 U.S.C. § 72.
Date: 10/27/2016 6:52:32 PM ( 5 y ) ... viewed 738 times
United States law 4 U.S.C. § 72 provides the litmus test for the jurisdiction of every office attached to the seat of government; which includes the Department of Justice and any other "offices attached to the seat of government".
4 U.S.C. § 72 is concerned with “where” offices of the United States can exercise their authority. The breakdown of this law is as follows:
1. ALL offices attached to the seat of government are contemplated in this law and not just some offices – this includes the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), etc.;
2. The provisions of 4 U.S.C. § 72 are made mandatory by Congress by its use of the word “shall.” In other words, this is not an optional consideration for any United States officer or Agency.
3. The “exercise” of ALL government offices is by default limited to “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere.” In other words, “the District of Columbia” is the starting place for jurisdiction not the exception;
4. An exception can be made to the limited jurisdiction of ALL offices attached to the seat of government to “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere.” As set forth in 4 U.S.C. § 72, authority to act outside “the District of Columbia” must be “otherwise expressly provided by law.” In other words, if Congress intends to extend the authority of a particular office of the United States to areas outside “the District of Columbia,” it shall “expressly” delegate and extend said authority in United States law.
5. Any “expressly” delegated exception to the limitations of an officer’s authority to that of “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere” is to be authorized by Congress in “law.” In other words, since Congress (Legislative Branch) has the exclusive authority to create law for the United States, said exceptions will be found only in United States law and not in Codes of Regulations (Executive Branch) or in Supreme Court rulings (Judicial Branch). Only Congress by United States law can authorize or extend the authority of any government office outside “the District of Columbia,” pursuant to 4 U.S.C. § 72.
One of the key words in 4 U.S.C. § 72 is the word “expressly.” This means that when Congress extends the authority of any office or officer of the United States outside “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere,” Congress will do it by “expressly” extending the Secretary’s authority and by leaving no doubt that said authority has been “expressly” extended by Congress to an area outside “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere.” (read "without United States") The definition of “expressly” from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. is as follows:
“In an express manner; in direct and unmistakable terms; explicitly; definitely; directly. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hill, 336 Mo. 17, 76 S.W.2d. 685, 689. The opposite of impliedly. Bolles v. Toledo Trust Co., 144 Ohio St. 195, 58 N.E.2d. 381, 396.”
As an example of how Congress has “expressly” extended the authority of the Secretary outside “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere” can be found is 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a) cited as follows:
(a) Jurisdiction. The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have the jurisdiction of a District Court of the United States, including, but not limited to, the diversity jurisdiction provided for in section 1332 of title 28, United States Code, and that of a bankruptcy court of the United States. The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal and civil proceedings in the Virgin Islands with respect to the income tax laws applicable to the Virgin Islands, regardless of the degree of the offense or of the amount involved, except the ancillary laws relating to the income tax enacted by the legislature of the Virgin Islands. Any act or failure to act with respect to the income tax laws applicable to the Virgin Islands which would constitute a criminal offense described in chapter 75 of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [26 USCS § § 7201 et seq.] shall constitute an offense against the government of the Virgin Islands and may be prosecuted in the name of the government of the Virgin Islands by the appropriate officers thereof in the District Court of the Virgin Islands without the request or consent of the United States attorney for the Virgin Islands, notwithstanding the provisions of section 27 of this Act [48 USCS § 1617].
As anyone [even a jury] can readily see, Congress in 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a) “expressly” extended the authority of the "The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have the jurisdiction of a District Court of the United States, including, but not limited to, the diversity jurisdiction provided for in section 1332 of title 28, United States Code, and that of a bankruptcy court of the United States." to the Virgin Islands just as Congress mandates in 4 U.S.C. § 72.
One should keep in mind that Congress has complete authority over the Virgin Islands and yet it still complied with the mandate of 4 U.S.C. § 72 and “expressly” extended the authority of the Secretary to the Virgin Islands in United States law. If Congress “expressly” extended the authority of the District Court of the United States (and by inferrence, the DOJ) for the Virgin Islands, then it is certain that Congress will also “expressly” extend the authority of the District Court of the United States in the same manner if Congress intends the District Court of the United States to exercise his authority in the several 50 union states.
It is obvious that the paperwork from the Department of Justice is an attempt to deceive naïve men and women into believing that they are "Citizens of the United States" and into "voluntarily" giving themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States and into parting with their property. Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. § 72, the jurisdiction of the "Department of Justice" and the "United States District Court" extend to “the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere.”
A jurisdictional statement is required from the Department of Justice to attach jurisdiction of the United States District Court to (any individual within the several states)). If the jurisdiction is contractual, then a clarification of the contract is required.
June 8, 2019 - "The Act of 1871 -- A Correct Analysis by Team Law" - By Anna Von Reitz
With all the hub-bub about The Act of 1871 circulating in the patriot community, I felt it was time to re-publish (for about the tenth time) the actual breakdown of what happened to The Act of 1871 after its initial repeal in 1874 ----- and to publish again the correct analysis of it all by Team Law, which was finished some years ago:
1871 - Act of 1871 ---“An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871 ---which was repealed in 1874 and then passed piecemeal via these actions---- “An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).
When looking at the intent of all this, given that the actual District of Columbia was set up in 1790 and fully chartered by 1801, the aim of the Act of 1871 is, it appears, merely to set up (a) “U.S. Corp”---
“That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the “District of Columbia”, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes … and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation.” – Act of 1871 verbiage---
So the Act of 1871 was to create a private corporation owned by the actual government of the District of Columbia--- the infamous District of Columbia Municipal Corporation:
“Further, the only government created in that Act was the same form of private government any private corporation has within the operation of its own corporate construct....... U.S. Corp is not merely an incorporated municipality (District of Columbia); rather, it is a private corporation (District of Columbia Municipal Corporation) that was lawfully created by our original jurisdiction government.” ---- Team Law analysis.
February 22, 2017 -
"If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed."
March 24, 2017 -
"... The 'Department of Homeland Security' (D.H.S.), 'Immigration and
Customs Enforcement' (I.C.E.), and the 'Federal Bureau of Investigation' (F.B.I.)
et al., are not mentioned in the Constitution for the United States of America ('title' at
end of the Preamble). They are not delegated 'Powers' therein, and such authority as
they might legally possess (is) derived by way of Article IV., Section 3., Clause 2. of
the said Constitution; to wit:
'The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make
all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory
or other Property belonging to the United States; ...'
In a 'nutshell', all those 'alphabet soup' agencies created by Acts of Congress (such
as the F.B.I.), or by Executive Orders (such as D.H.S.) are in fact LIMITED to the
'Territory or other Property belonging to the United States'; i.e., Federal Areas.
This federal territory excludes the several States of the Union, such as California state."
Acts of Congress are always limited to a proprietary jurisdiction which is most clearly established in the third Organic Law: known as "The Northwest Ordinance ". This includes the following re: State -
July 20, 1868; Statutes at Large, Vol. XV., Page 166, Sec. 104:
"...and the word "State" to mean and include a Territory and the District of Columbia".
 See the 12th paragraph:
 In a privately circulated email by Arthur Stopes, III.
Legislative Analyst and Writer (L.A.W.)
Director, Center for Unalienable Rights Education (C.U.R.E.)
Berkeley, California state.
jurisdiction, seat of government, united states, District of Columbia, congress, 4 U.S.C. § 72, the Act of 1871, U.S. Corp, territory of the United States, body corporate for municipal purposes, municipal corporation, private corporation, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, Team Law
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page