An Excerpt From Treatise on Taxation

An excerpt from:

Treatiseon

TaxationAlan Lewis Painter

Advanced Student, Organic Laws InstituteCommon Law © 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TERRITORIAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES TODAY ____ 1________________The Law in California and in Arizona 1

The Law in the State of California and in the State of ________________________________________Arizona 2

____________________________The State of California 2_________________________________State of Arizona 9

TERRITORIAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES TODAY

Today, there are “free and independent” states, such as Arizona, California, New Mexico, New York, etc. So, what are the territorial States? The State of Arizona, the State of California, the State of New Mexico, the State of New York, etc. I’m going to talk about California, Arizona, the State of California and the State of Arizona. There are some dis-tinctions to be made between the State of California and the State of Arizona. Ultimately, they are very much the same, but they look a bit different, and the differences are instruc-tive.

The Law in California and in Arizona At this time, the English common law is the law in both California and Arizona. After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo became effective, California and subsequently Ari-zona were admitted into the Senate (the Congress) of the United States of America and, thereby, into the perpetual Un-ion of sovereign, “free and independent” states established by the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the “United States of America”.

1

The Law in the State of California and in the State of Arizona

The Constitution of the State of California and the laws passed pursuant to that Constitution are the law in the State of California. The Constitution of the State of Arizona and the laws passed pursuant to that Constitution are the law in the State of Arizona. The State of California and the State of Arizona were admitted (at separate times) by a Congress of the United States into this (United States) Union established by the Constitution of September 17, 1787, which is the su-preme Law of the (territorial) land(s) in the State of Califor-nia and in the State of Arizona. The English common law is not the law in the State of California or in the State of Ari-zona.

The State of California We can look to the Constitution of the State of Cali-fornia for verification that the State of California is a subdivi-sion of this Union, the United States, as stated above.

State of California ConstitutionArticle III, State of California

Sec. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

That language is similar to language found in the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, specifically Article 4:

“The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall for-ever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, sub-ject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the

2 An excerpt from “Treatise on Taxation”

United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. The in-habitants and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of government, to be apportioned on them by Congress ac-cording to the same common rule and measure by which appor-tionments thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes for paying their proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and di-rection of the legislatures of the district or districts, or new States, as in the original States, within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.”

Article III §1 of the State of California Constitution tells us that the State of California is the kind of federal territory (i.e., a territorial State) that is made a permanent part of the Confederacy by Article 4 of the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787. It is also a place where taxes may be laid and collected by the (Confederacy) Congress. Thus, the State of California is a place where taxes may be laid and collected. Eleven sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California, alone, define the phrase “in this State” (a legal term, since it has a statutory definition) in identical words.

State of California CodesRevenue and Taxation Code—R.T.C.

Division 1. Property Tax DivisionPart 10. Aircraft Assessment and Taxation

General Provisions and Definitions§5304. “In this State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California, and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

Division 2. Other Taxes

TERRITORIAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES TODAY 3

Part 1. Sales and Use TaxesChapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions

§6017. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.”

Division 2. Other TaxesPart 2. Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Law

Chapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions§7321. “In this state” or “in the state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.”

Part 3. Use Fuel Tax LawChapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions

§8609. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior lim-its of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

Part 6. Private Railroad Car TaxChapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions

§11205. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

Part 13. Cigarette TaxChapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions

§30013. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

Part 19. Energy Surcharge Surcharge LawChapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions


§40006. “In this state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within those limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

Part 20. Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge LawChapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions


Part 22. Hazardous Substances Tax LawChapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions


Part 23. Integrated Waste Management Fee LawChapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions


Part 31. Diesel Fuel Tax LawChapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions

§60017. “In this state” or “in the state” means within the exterior lim-its of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.

Since the “State of California” has been defined in the State of California Constitution to be federal territory, and since “in this State” has been shown eleven times in the State of Cali-fornia Revenue and Taxation Code alone to refer to the same territory, the effect of those sections is to limit taxation to


that federal territory, since the Articles of of Confederation do not provide authority for taxation in the United States of America (geographically, the “free and independent” states. The State of California’s juror qualification law affords us another means of determining what the “State of Califor-nia” is.

State of California CodesCode of Civil Procedure

Title 3. Persons Specially Invested with Powers of a Judicial Nature

Chapter 1. Trial Jury Selection and Management Act§203

(a) All persons are eligible and qualified to be prospective trial jurors, except the following:

(1) Persons who are not citizens of the United States.(2) Persons who are less than 18 years of age.

(3) Persons who are not domiciliaries of the State of California, as de-termined pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 2020) of Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Elections Code.

(4) Persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction wherein they are summoned to serve.

(5) Persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in office or a felony, and whose civil rights have not been restored.

(6) Persons who are not possessed of sufficient knowledge of the English language, provided that no person shall be deemed in-competent solely because of the loss of sight or hearing in any de-gree or other disability which impedes the person’s ability to communicate or which impairs or interferes with the person’s mo-bility.


(7) Persons who are serving as grand or trial jurors in any court of this state.

(8) Persons who are the subject of conservatorship.

(b) No person shall be excluded from eligibility for jury service in the State of California, for any reason other than those reasons pro-vided by this section.

Notice the back-handed way of stating juror qualifications, i.e., everyone is eligible to be a juror except those who aren’t, ac-cording to the above provision. Wouldn’t it be simpler to positively state the qualifications? The qualifications are that one must be:

➤ a citizen of the United States (a subject of territorial government),

➤ minimally 18 years of age (the age of majority in a ter-ritorial State),

➤ a domiciliary of the State of California (a territorial State), and

➤ a resident of the jurisdiction (a territorial State) wherein they are summoned to serve.

Notice the requirement to be a domiciliary of the State of California and the requirement to be a resident of the ju-risdiction wherein one is summoned to serve. A State of Cali-fornia Court would, logically, be located in the State of Cali-fornia. A domicile is a permanent home, and a residence is a temporary home. The thrust of these two requirements is that the prospective juror must have a permanent home in the ter-ritorial State and must actually be living there when called to serve. The significance of these requirements is that those people who are charged with crimes normally live in Califor-nia, the “free and independent” state; and yet when charged


with crimes, they are summoned to a territorial-State court that observes territorial-State law and that must impanel ju-rors with principle domiciles in that territorial State that are actually living in that territorial State. That is the equivalent of being charged with a Canadian crime while in Mexico and being summoned to a court located in Canada that observes Canadian law and that impanels Canadian jurors. The obvi-ous problem is that there is a jurisdictional mismatch. When one is in Mexico, one is not subject to Canadian law, Cana-dian courts or Canadian jurors. Lastly, in the Business and Professions Code, as if we need more, we find:

State of California CodesBusiness and Professions Code

General Provisions§21. “State” means the State of California, unless applied to the different parts of the United States. In the latter case, it includes the District of Columbia and the territories. (Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 399.)

Here again, the “State of California” is inferred to be a subdi-vision of the United States (federal territory), and “State” re-fers to that particular federal territory. It is quite clear from the above that the “State of Cali-fornia” is a territorial State, not a “free and independent” state. Furthermore, federal territory (which includes territo-rial States) is the only place where taxation may occur as an exercise of the (Confederacy) Congress’s proprietary Power (the authority of the owner over its property). The importance of this is: The State of California exer-cises localized federal proprietary Power when it enforces taxation: be it in the form income taxes, drivers license fees,


motor vehicle registration fees, property taxes, etc. How-ever—this is the crucial point—it improperly exercises that proprietary Power in California, a “free and independent” state, where it has no authority. To be clear: For the inhabi-tants of California, the imposition of those taxes is an at-tachment of a “foreign” power. This should sound familiar. In the Declaration of In-dependence of July 4, 1776, it was complained that:

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his as-sent to their acts of pretended legislation… For imposing taxes on us without our consent;….”

Today in 2015, 239 years later, we are experiencing exactly the same problem, albeit in a somewhat different guise.

State of Arizona Let us now turn our attention to the State of Arizona. A search of the State of Arizona Constitution turns up no definition for “State of Arizona”. In fact, said definition is also not to be found in the Arizona Revised Statutes. Nonetheless, the following is found.

Revised StatutesTitle 1. General Provisions

Chapter 2 Law and Statutes§1-215

14. “Includes” or “including” means not limited to and is not a term of exclusion.

37. “State”, as applied to the different parts of the United States, includes the District of Columbia, this state and the territories.


39. “United States” includes the District of Columbia and the territo-ries.

“State” is specifically defined in subsection 37 as “ap-plied to parts of the ‘United States’”, and it was shown earlier in this treatise that the “United States” is federal territory; in other words, “State” is not defined in terms of the “United States of America”. Note also in subsection 37, “State” includes “this State”, which must be the “State of Arizona” since all statutes in the State of Arizona Revised Statutes flow from the State of Arizona Constitution. Often in statute law, “includes” and “including” are defined as terms of exclusion (meaning that everything but what is listed is excluded). However in the State of Arizona Revised Statutes, in subsection 14, those terms are specifi-cally defined to not be terms of exclusion. Rules of statutory construction, both federal and State, require that items in a list (as in subsection 37) must have something common; in that subsection, the items are all territorial in nature. Thus, in subsection 39, the definition of “United States” can be ex-panded to encompass all territorial States (50 of them), of which the “State of Arizona” is one. While the phrase “in this State” is used in State of Ari-zona statutes, it is not in itself a legal term defined in statute. However, we do find five instances in the Revised Statutes of “State” being defined; thus, “State” is a legal term.

State of Arizona Revised Statutes30. Power

Chapter 1. Arizona Power AuthorityArt. 1. Administration


30-101. DefinitionsIn this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

12. "State" means the state of Arizona.

35. Public FinancesChapter 3. Public Indebtedness

Art. 3.1. Tax anticipation Notes35-465. Definitions

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:


38. Public Officers and EmployeesChapter 5. social Security and Retirement

Art. 4. Public Safety Personnel Retirement System38-842. Definitions


46. "State" means the state of Arizona, including any department, office, board, commission, agency or other instrumentality of the state.

41. State GovernmentChapter 9. Civil Rights

Art. 8. Public Accommodation Services41-1492. Definitions



45. WatersChapter 10. State Water and Power Plan

Art. 1. In General


45-1702. DefinitionsIn this article, unless the context otherwise requires:


Thus, “State” = “State of Arizona” = territorial State. Just like in the State of California, we find a juror qualification law in the State of Arizona Revised Statutes:

Revised Statutes21. Juries

Chapter 2. JurorsArt. 1. Qualifications and Excuses

21-201. QualificationsEvery juror, grand and trial, shall be at least eighteen years of age and meet the following qualifications:1. Be a citizen of the United States.2. Be a resident of the jurisdiction in which the juror is summoned to serve. A citizen whose name and address appears on the master jury list as required by section 21-301 is presumed to be a resident of the juris-diction for the purposes of this section.

3. Never have been convicted of a felony, unless the juror's civil rights have been restored.

4. Is not currently adjudicated mentally incompetent or insane.

Relative to California’s juror qualification law, it was sug-gested that the structure of the statute was inverted and that it would be easier to understand if it were positively stated. Note that the State of Arizona’s juror qualification law is posi-tively stated and that it is much easier to understand. That said, the juror qualifications in the State of Arizona are nearly identical to the State of California’s juror qualifications. The qualifications are that one must be:


➤ a citizen of the United States (a subject of government),➤ minimally 18 years of age (the age of majority in a ter-

ritorial State), and➤ a resident of the jurisdiction (a territorial State)

wherein they are summoned to serve. The State of Arizona’s juror qualification law only re-quires that a juror be a resident of (have a temporary domicile in) the State of Arizona. Again we see the equivalent of being charged with a Canadian crime while in Mexico and being summoned to a court located in Canada that observes Canadian law and that impanels Canadian jurors. And again, the obvious problem is that there is a jurisdictional mismatch. When one is in Mex-ico, one is not subject to Canadian law, Canadian courts or Canadian jurors. Thus, while in Arizona, one is not subject to State of Arizona law or State of Arizona courts with impan-eled State of Arizona jurors. While State of Arizona law looks a bit different than State of California law and seemingly is not as specific, the dif-ference is cosmetic. Functionally, there is no difference. The State of California is a territorial State locally exercising the Confederacy’s proprietary power in California, a “free and independent” state. Likewise, the State of Arizona is a territo-rial State locally exercising the Confederacy’s proprietary power in Arizona, a “free and and independent” state. As with the State of California, the State of Arizona exercises localized, federal, proprietary Power when it en-forces taxation: be it in the form income taxes, drivers license fees, motor vehicle registration fees, property taxes, etc. Fur-thermore, it improperly exercises that proprietary Power in


Arizona, a “free and independent” state, where it has no authority. Moreover, for the inhabitants of Arizona, the im-position of those taxes is an attachment of a “foreign” power.


An Excerpt From Treatise on Taxation

Documents

Transcript of An Excerpt From Treatise on Taxation