Source: http://famguardian1.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:56:14+00:00

Document:
Sovereignty-Rousas John Rushdoony. Theological perspective on sovereignty.
The Sovereignty of God (OFFSITE LINK) -book by Pastor John Weaver. God is HIGHER than government.
Q14: Did God Create Us Unable to Keep His Law?
Q4 & Q4: How and Why Did God Create Us?
The creator of a thing is always the owner of the thing.
Governments can only tax or regulate that which they create.
Government didn’t create human beings and therefore can’t regulate or tax them UNTIL they volunteer to occupy an office in the government that WAS created by that government. Otherwise, slavery and involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment will be the result.
The regulated or taxed office within the government that a person occupies can only be exercised on federal territory or in all places EXPRESSLY authorized per 4 U.S.C. §72.
To prevent people who know the above from avoiding the scam of being taxed or regulated, corrupt governments will try to make their CREATION, which is PUBLIC OFFICE, look similar or identical to things that it didn’t create and are PRIVATE. For instance, they will try to make a PRIVATE human and one using a Social Security Number BOTH APPEAR PUBLIC when in fact they are not. This is how they unlawfully convert the PRIVATE property of innocent Americans into PUBLIC property that they can STEAL, tax, and regulate.
Hiding the above mechanisms is obviously a scam, but the only way you will ever escape them is to understand how this mechanism works. That is what we will teach you in this section.
God created the people (as individuals).
The people (as individual sovereigns) created the state Constitution and the states. The state constitutions divided the state government into three branches: executive, judicial, and legislative. The states also instituted their own internal franchises, including state corporations and state citizens.
The states created the federal constitution and the federal government. The federal constitution divided the federal government into three branches: executive, judicial, legislative.
The federal government created federal States, corporations, and privileged “U.S. citizen” status through legislation.
4.3. U.S. citizens/idolaters. These are people who have surrendered their sovereignty to the government and choose to be government slaves/serfs/subjects.
"The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone..."
“The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. ..."
The general rule with regard to the respective powers of the national and the state governments under the Constitution is not in doubt. The states were before the Constitution; and, consequently, their legislative powers antedated [and are superior to] the Constitution. Those who framed and those who adopted that instrument meant to carve from the general mass of legislative powers, then possessed by the states, only such portions as it was thought wise to confer upon the federal government; and in order that there should be no uncertainty in respect of what was taken and what was left, the national powers of legislation were not aggregated but enumerated-with the result that what was not embraced by the enumeration remained vested in the states without change or impairment. Thus, 'when it was found necessary to establish a national government for national purposes,' this court said in Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 , 124, 'a part of the powers of the States and of the people of the States was granted to the United States and the people of the United States. This grant operated as a further limitation upon the powers of the States, so that now the governments of the States possess all the powers of the Parliament of England, except such as have been delegated to the United States or reserved by the people.' While the states are not sovereign in the true sense of that term, but only quasi sovereign, yet in respect of all powers reserved to them they are supreme-'as independent of the general government as that government within its sphere is independent of the States.' The Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 124. And since every addition to the national legislative power to some extent detracts from or invades the power of the states, it is of vital moment that, in order to preserve the fixed balance intended by the Constitution, the powers of the general government [298 U.S. 238, 295] be not so extended as to embrace any not within the express terms of the several grants or the implications necessarily to be drawn therefrom. It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation. The question in respect of the inherent power of that government as to the external affairs of the Nation and in the field of international law is a wholly different matter which it is not necessary now to consider. See, however, Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 212 , 11 S.Ct. 80; Nishimur Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 , 12 S.Ct. 336; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 , 705 et seq., 13 S.Ct. 1016; Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 396 , 53 S.Ct. 457, 86 A.L.R. 747.
The determination of the Framers Convention and the ratifying conventions to preserve complete and unimpaired state self-government in all matters not committed to the general government is one of the plainest facts which emerges from the history of their deliberations. And adherence to that determination is incumbent equally upon the federal government and the states. State powers can neither be appropriated on the one hand nor abdicated on the other. As this court said in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, 'The preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.' Every journey to a forbidden end begins with the first step; and the danger of such a step by the federal government in the direction of taking over the powers of the states is that the end of the journey may find the states so despoiled of their powers, or-what may amount to the same thing-so [298 U.S. 238, 296] relieved of the responsibilities which possession of the powers necessarily enjoins, as to reduce them to little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain. It is safe to say that if, when the Constitution was under consideration, it had been thought that any such danger lurked behind its plain words, it would never have been ratified.
And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law-the lawmakers being the people themselves, in whom under our system all political power and sovereignty primarily resides, and through whom such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess. The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. 'We the People of the United States,' it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Ordain and establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with the dignity and character of law. The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let the matter rest here, but provided explicitly-'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' (Const. art. 6, cl. 2.) The supremacy of the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification. That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in pursuance of the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, must apply the supreme law and reject the inferior stat- [298 U.S. 238, 297] ute whenever the two conflict. In the discharge of that duty, the opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must be given great weight, Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 544 , 43 S.Ct. 394, 24 A.L.R. 1238; but their opinion, or the court's opinion, that the statute will prove greatly or generally beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 549 , 550 S., 55 S.Ct. 837, 97 A.L.R. 947.
Each sovereign is on an equal footing with every other sovereign: the People, the States, and the Federal Government. Each of these are legal “persons” and each are equal under the law. The rights of one man are equal to the combined rights of ALL men working in either a state or the federal government. This is the essence of equal protection of the laws which is the foundation of our constitution and our republican system of government. We covered this subject in depth earlier in section 4.3.2 if you would like to review.
We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front."
A sovereignty is a servant or fiduciary of all sovereignties above it and a master over all those below it. For instance, the states created the federal government so they are sovereign over it and may change it at any time by amending the constitution that created it, or by abolishing it entirely.
"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people."
8.2. Agents or fiduciaries within a sovereign must be willing and able at all times to identify the specific laws that give them the authority to act and be constantly aware of the limits of their delegated authority. If they are not, they run the risk of exceeding their delegated authority and injuring the rights of the master(s) they serve. All actions not specifically authorized by law are illegal by implication. All illegal actions by government officials that are outside their written delegated authority that result in an injury to the master(s) cause the actor to be personally liable for a tort and monetary damages because they are acting outside the authority of law.
8.3 A sovereignty or human being cannot delegate an authority to a subordinate that they themselves do not ALSO possess.
“Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest.
“Derivativa potestas non potest esse major primitive.
“Nemo potest facere per obliquum quod non potest facere per directum.
“Quod per me non possum, nec per alium..
 Wing. Max. 36: Pinch. Law, b. 1. c. 3, p. 11.
 4 Co. 24 b: 11 id. 87 a.
8.4. No sovereign can delegate to its fiduciaries the authority to do something that is a crime. For instance, if the people cannot murder, rob, or steal from their fellow man, then they certainly cannot delegate that authority to government, which means they cannot delegate to the government the authority to collect direct taxes upon individuals unless the persons paying the tax voluntarily consent to it individually, otherwise it is theft.
"In Calder v. Bull, which was here in 1798, Mr. Justice Chase said, that there were acts which the Federal and State legislatures could not do without exceeding their authority, and among them he mentioned a law which punished a citizen for an innocent act; a law that destroyed or impaired the lawful private [labor] contracts [and labor compensation, e.g. earnings from employment through compelled W-4 withholding] of citizens; a law that made a man judge in his own case; and a law that took the property from A [the worker]. and gave it to B [the government or another citizen, such as through social welfare programs]. 'It is against all reason and justice,' he added, 'for a people to intrust a legislature with such powers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that they have done it. They may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence [a “nontaxpayer”] into guilt [a “taxpayer”, by presumption or otherwise], or punish innocence as a crime, or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private [employment] contract [by compelling W-4 withholding, for instance], or the right of private property. To maintain that a Federal or State legislature possesses such powers [of THEFT!] if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in all free republican governments.' 3 Dall. 388."
The Constitution is a trust document and creates a public trust. Public officers are the “trustees” within that trust and when they abuse their authority, they are executing a “sham trust” for their own personal gain. It is a violation of fiduciary duty for a sovereign or any agent within a sovereign to put a higher priority over its own needs than over any of the masters it serves above it. This is called a conflict of interest and it is against the law. See for instance 18 U.S.C. §208.
"Whatever these Constitutions and laws validly determine to be property, it is the duty of the Federal Government, through the domain of jurisdiction merely Federal, to recognize to be property.
“And this principle follows from the structure of the respective Governments, State and Federal, and their reciprocal relations. They are different agents and trustees of the people of the several States, appointed with different powers and with distinct purposes, but whose acts, within the scope of their respective jurisdictions, are mutually obligatory. "
Sovereign immunity also extends to all entities or corporations created by a government sovereign. For instance, the case of Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830) revealed that the states could not tax a bank corporation created by an act or law of the United States government. The reasoning in that case was that the states could not destroy the federal government because the power to tax necessarily involved the power to destroy.
A sovereignty may not tax or regulate or control its creator or grantor, or any sovereignty or agent of that sovereignty above it or at the same level as it, without the explicit and individual consent of that sovereign.
“While the power of taxation is one of vital importance, retained by the states, not abridged by the grant of a similar power to the government of the Union, but to be concurrently exercised by the two governments, yet even this power of a state is subordinate to, and may be controlled by, the constitution of the United States. That constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. They control the constitutions and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them. The people of a state give to their government a right of taxing themselves and their property at its discretion. But the means employed by the government of the Union are not given by the people of a particular state, but by the people of all the states; and being given by all, for the benefit of all, should be subjected to that government only which belongs to all. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends are objects of taxation; but those over which in does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission; but does not extend to those means which are employed by congress to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the United States. The attempt to use the taxing power of a state on the means employed by the government of the Union, in pursuance of the constitution, is itself an abuse, because it is the usurpation of a power which the people of a single state cannot give. The power to tax in volves the power to destroy; the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; and there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control. The states have no power, by taxation [117 U.S. 151, 156] or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. Such are the outlines, mostly in his own words, of the grounds of the judgment delivered by Chief Justice MARSHALL in the great case of McCulloch v. Maryland, in which it was decided that a statute of the state of Maryland, imposing a tax upon the issue of bills by banks, could not constitutionally be applied to a branch of the Bank of the United States within that state. 4 Wheat. 316, 425-431, 436.
13.2. State and federal taxation of corporations. See 26 U.S.C. Subtitles D and E and Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1911).
13.3. A sovereign may only tax the entities that it creates. The U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625 (1896) reveals, for instance, that states can only tax corporations that they create.
“Whether the United States are a corporation 'exempt by law from taxation,' within the meaning of the New York statutes, is the remaining question in the case. The court of appeals has held that this exemption was applicable only to domestic corporations declared by the laws of New York to be exempt from taxation. Thus, in Re Prime's Estate, 136 N. Y. 347, 32 N. E. 1091, it was held that foreign religious and charitable corporations were not exempt from the payment of a legacy tax, Chief Judge Andrews observing (page 360, 136 N. Y., and page 1091, 32 N. E.): 'We are of opinion that a statute of a state granting powers and privileges to corporations must, in the absence of plain indications to the contrary, be held to apply only to corporations created by the state, and over which it has power of visitation and control. ... The legislature in such cases is dealing with its own creations, whose rights and obligations it may limit, define, and control.' To the same effect are Catlin v. Trustees, 113 N. Y. 133, 20 N.E. 864; White v. Howard, 46 N. Y. 144; In re Balleis' Estate, 144 N. Y. 132, 38 N. E. 1007; Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113, 38 N. E. 512; Dos P. Inh. Tax Law, c. 3, 34. If the ruling of the court of appeals of New York in this particular case be not absolutely binding upon us, we think that, having regard to the purpose of the law to impose a tax generally upon inheritances, the legislature intended to allow an exemption only in favor of such corporations as it had itself created, and which might reasonably be supposed to be the special objects of its solicitude and bounty.
"Territory: A part of a country separated from the rest, and subject to a particular jurisdiction. Geographical area under the jurisdiction of another country or sovereign power.
A portion of the United States not within the limits of any state, which has not yet been admitted as a state of the Union, but is organized with a separate legislature, and with executive and judicial powers appointed by the President."
14.2. States of the union have territorial jurisdiction within their respective borders over all land not ceded by an act of the legislature of the state to the federal government. They have no jurisdiction outside of their borders.
14.3. The federal government has legislative territorial jurisdiction only over: 1. The federal zone; 2. All areas or enclaves within the union states that have been ceded to it by an act of the state legislature under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution; 3. Its own territories, possessions, and property, wherever situated; 4. Its own domiciliaries, which includes citizens and residents. Under most circumstances, the federal government has no legislative jurisdiction within states of the Union because the federal constitution reserves “police powers” to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
14.4.1.1. Taxes on importation, but not exportation. See 26 U.S.C. §7001 and U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
14.4.1.2. Claims arising out of bankruptcy proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §1334; Pauletto v. Reliance Ins. Co., 64 CA.4th 597 (1998), 602, 75 CR.2d 334, 337 --state courts lack jurisdiction in action for malicious prosecution based on defendant's having filed adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court: "it is for Congress and the federal courts, not state courts, to decide what incentives and penalties shall be utilized in the bankruptcy process".
14.4.1.3. Claims under Sherman Antitrust Act. See 15 U.S.C. §4.
14.4.2. Federal property and “employees”. See Constitution Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.
14.4.3. Frauds involving the mail. See Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7.
14.4.4. Treason. See Constitution, Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2.
14.4.5. Patent and copyright claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1338(a) and Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.
14.4.6. Admiralty and maritime claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1333 and Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10.
Jurisdiction of each government sovereignty over subjects or sovereignties underneath it is created by oath of allegiance, which we will discuss later in section 5.2.1.
15.1. In order to preserve their sovereignty, the people at the top of this hierarchy should not swear an oath of allegiance to any government, because by doing so, they come under the jurisdiction of the laws of that government and have to surrender their sovereignty. See section 5.2.1 for further details and also see Matt. 5:33-37, which says that Christians should not swear an oath to anything.
15.2. Each officer of both the state and federal governments takes an oath of allegiance to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Failure to live up to that oath amounts to perjury of one’s oath, which can result in removal from office.
15.3. If is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and a conflict of interest to take oaths to TWO masters or to occupy a public office that requires an oath to two different masters or sovereignties. Hence, it is a violation of the Constitutions of most states to simultaneously serve in a public office in the state government as well as the federal government.
SEC. 7. A person holding a lucrative office under the United States or other power may not hold a civil office of profit [within the state government]. A local officer or postmaster whose compensation does not exceed 500 dollars per year or an officer in the militia or a member of a reserve component of the armed forces of the United States except where on active federal duty for more than 30 days in any year is not a holder of a lucrative office, nor is the holding of a civil office of profit affected by this military service.
16.1. Federal government may not offer franchises to states of the Union. Only federal “States” defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) can be party to federal franchises.
16.2. Federal government may not offer franchises, licenses, or privileges to anyone domiciled in a sovereign state of the Union and protected by the Constitution. Another way of saying this is that those who took an oath to support and defend your rights cannot make a business out of enticing you into surrendering them in exchange for anything, whether real or perceived.
16.3. State governments may not offer franchises, licenses, or privileges to domiciled within the state whose domicile is not on federal territory. Another way of saying this is that those who took an oath to support and defend your rights cannot make a business out of enticing you into surrendering them in exchange for anything, whether real or perceived.
A sovereignty that wants to influence or control a subordinate sovereignty that is not immediately underneath it must do so by using the sovereignty below it as its conduit or agent.
In the realm of commerce, both state and federal sovereignties are treated just like any natural person and recovery of debts is accomplished within courts of equity.
Human beings domiciled inside the federal zone above do not fall into the category of “The People” because the federal zone is not a constitutional republic, but a totalitarian socialist democracy. They ARE NOT parties to the Constitution and therefore are not protected by it. See section 4.8 earlier for further clarification on this subject. “The People” referred to in the diagram instead are those natural persons residing in and born within the 50 union states who claim their correct status as either “state nationals” or “nationals” as described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B) and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) . Persons who claim to be “U.S. citizens” or who are in receipt of government privileges as elected or appointed officers of the government have also forfeited their sovereignty and their position in the above diagram to fall at the same level as corporations and federal “States”.
A state sovereignty cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress or of any other subordinate sovereignty beyond those clearly enumerated in the Constitution.
TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 4 > Sec. 106.
(a) No person shall be relieved from liability for any income tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax, by reason of his residing within a Federal area or receiving income from transactions occurring or services performed in such area; and such State or taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect such tax in any Federal area within such State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area.
The CREATOR of a thing is the ONLY one who has the power to DEFINE exactly what it means. You should NEVER give the power to define ANYTHING you put on a government form in the hands of a government worker, because they will ALWAYS define it to place you under their jurisdiction and benefit themselves personally. That means you should NEVER submit any government form without defining ANY and EVERY possible “word of art” on the form so that you will not waive any rights or benefit them.
23.2. Reserve all your constitutional rights and waive none.
23.3. Document the duress and the source of the duress that caused you to apply. Contracts or consent procured under duress are unenforceable.
23.4. Change your status to foreign and alien in relation to the offeror and therefore beyond their civil jurisdiction.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter B > PART I > Sec. 6671.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter D > Sec. 7343.
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
There is no liability statute anywhere in Subtitle A making anyone responsible to pay income taxes.
Subtitle A income taxes can only be voluntary and can never be enforced.
All payroll tax withholding is entirely consensual and voluntary and cannot be coerced. See 26 U.S.C. §3402(p) and 26 CFR §31.3401(p)-1.
“(1) That a corporate franchise is a distinct subject of taxation, and not as property, but as the exercise of a privilege.
“(2) That it may be taxed by a State or Country which creates it.
“(3) It may be taxed by a State or Territory in which it is exercised, although created by a foreign country.
“(4) It may be taxed by the United States, whether created by the United States or a foreign country or by a State, Territory, or district of the United States.
“(5) The franchise of the corporation may also be taxed by a State, although created by the United States, unless created as part of the governmental machinery of the United States.

References: §72
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §208
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §7001
 §1334
 v. 
 §4
 §1338
 §1333
 §110
 §1101
 §1101
 §3402
 §31