Author #2
Forum Replies Created
Thanks for that observation. A person who was naturalized to become a “national” but formerly had “permanent resident” status while domiciled in a state of the Union on other than federal territory was NOT within the “United States” that is defined in the I.R.C. at 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). Federal jurisdiction over residence of aliens extends into states of the Union, whereas tax jurisdiction on other than imports and exports does NOT according to the constitution. This is clarified in section 16.1.2 of the following document:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form 05.020
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
Your premise is mistaken because you assume the term “United States” has the same meaning in ALL contexts, which simply isn’t true.
1. In the context of “permanent residents” defined in 8 U.S.C. and control over their stay here, it means the entire American Union, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While under our constitution and form of government the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the states, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship, are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations. As said by this court in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 413, speaking by the same great chief justice: ‘That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects is the government of the Union. It is their government, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to [130 U.S. 581, 605]?? be in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes her government is complete; to all these objects, it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.?
[. . .]
?The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one. The powers of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be hampered, when needed for the public good, by any considerations of private interest. The exercise of these public trusts is not the subject of barter or contract.?
[Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)]
2. In the context of anyone OTHER than “permanent residents” only in the context of their presence here, it includes only the federal zone. This is confirmed by 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), which defines the “United States” in the context of the I.R.C. to mean the federal zone and exclude states of the Union.
As far as item #7 being satisfied by filing a return as a “permanent resident”:
A person who filed a 1040 tax return that indicated “gross income” and thereby connected their earnings to a “trade or business” was filing a false return if he was not in fact and in deed engaged in a “trade or business” AND a “public office” in the United States government. The filing of that return was not a product of informed choice, but rather an ignorant reaction to lies in IRS publications and deliberate misinformation by the government.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…Responsible.htm
An action that is a product of false or fraudulent conduct of government parties does not constitute a “voluntary” action. Note the word “voluntary” in Item 7 of your discussion. Once you know the laws on this, the formerly “false” return becomes a fraudulent return in retrospect. What are you going to do to reconcile or remedy this now fraudulent act?
RebelYell,
That is not our understanding. Both naturalized and natural born persons are “nationals” and “nonresident aliens”. Please justify that remark with evidence of the following form:
1. The form number with the problem.
2. Reason why you believe this problem exists.
3. Changes to the form that you believe would fix the problem.
Author #2
I don't see any amended 1099 forms on the family guardian website. However, the following offsite link has AMENDED 1099 forms where the year at the top of the form can be changed by filling in a field.
http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Form1099/CorrectingIRSForm1099.htm
Scot,
We at Family Guardian are of the informed opinion based on the evidence in the “Why you are a national” pamphlet that:
1. There is nothing wrong with being a Constitutional citizen.
2. There is EVERYTHING wrong with being a statutory citizen.
3. The term “citizen of the United States” has multiple meanings depending on the context. The context that causes the confusion is WHICH of the three “United States” one is a citizen of as revealed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt. The ONLY “United States” mentioned in the Constitution is the one that means states of the Union and excludes federal territory. Hence, THAT United States in the context of “citizen of the United States” EXCLUDES those domiciled on federal territory. We avoid the controversy over context entirely by avoiding the term “United States” when used in combination with “citizen” and refer to ourselves as a citizen of the state of the Union we were born in.
4. Most neophytes in the freedom community inadvertently confuse a constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment citizen with a statutory citizen, and this leads eventually to them being unable to become a stateless or sovereign person in a federal court.
5. Most people malign being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen because they are ASSuming it is the same as being a statutory citizen per 8 USC 1401, and we think they are WRONG. They are wrong because they have not studied the citizenship issue carefully enough to recognize the context of the term “citizen of the United States” that they are presuming when they do this. Citizenship is a complicated issue and it is easy to get confused about mainly because the definitions of the words depend on the context in which they are used.
Read the “Why You Are a 'national'” pamphlet and tell us what you think is wrong with it. It should clear up all the confusion you have.
We suspect that Lambskin, as confirmed by Reb, is a mole spreading disinformation. All such disinformation is really just opinion and that is why you may be confused: Because you are relying on opinion instead of fact to reach an informed, legally defensible belief about the subject. We agree with Reb that lambskin is probably a mole, and we warned you he was at:
Scot,
Input on what? You didn’t describe what your issue is. These forums are a mock court and to post here, you should have a case or controversey that you can demonstrate with evidence. In any court, the moving party has the burden of proof. You initiated this thread so you are the moving party who has the burden of proof, and that proof must be court admissible evidence, whether a law, statute, court ruling, etc.
The ONLY appropriate place to start to answer such a question is for you to describe EXACTLY:
1. What you think is wrong with that pamphlet.
2. Why you think statutory and constitutional citizens are synonymous.
3. What evidence you base your assertion on.
All the issues or questions you have are already in the pamphlet that you seem to have problems with. We are not here to entertain you or to replace your own reading of that pamphlet, but to answer specific, pointed questions about what exactly is wrong with that pamphlet. Only you know what those questions are and it is meaningless to try to second guess the conflicts that are in your mind created by the pamphlet. You have to verbalize them before they can be resolved.
Below is a link to the pamphlet for you to point out conflicts of law or errors in the pamphlet:
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf
The above pamphlet also appears in its entirety within the Legal Notice of Change in Domicile/Citizenship that you reference. In particular, your argument is dealt with directly in section 15.3 of the above pamphlet.
This issue has already been argued ad nauseum in these forums as well. Please read and rebut the argument and post your objections here:
http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=3951
Those who believe the Fourteenth Amendment is a threat to their freedom need to read the following document, which thoroughly debunks the false presumptions upon which they base such a misguided belief:
Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/PolicyDocs/FourteenthAmendNotProb.pdf
If you think the above presentation is false, please present the EVIDENCE upon which you base such a belief. Otherwise, these forums are not the proper place to promote religious or political dogmas that cannot be substantiated with LEGAL evidence.
Lambskin,
Very well said. Couldn't agree more. His reference to “oaths” is confirmed by Great IRS Hoax, section 5.2.7:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatI…reatIRSHoax.htm
On the subject of whether availing ourselves of the “benefits” and “privileges” of using the Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. confers jurisdiction upon the court that did not otherwise exist, I respectfully disagree. Below are some reasons why, from the Annotated Edition of the United States Code, Under Constitution Article III:
Quote:Federal jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon court by consent of parties, nor may its absence be waived.? Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. U.S., D.Conn.1991, 759 F.Supp. 87.? ? ? ? ? ? United States district court has only limited jurisdiction, depending upon either the existence of a federal question or diverse citizenship of the parties, and where such elements of jurisdiction are wanting district court cannot proceed, even with the consent of the parties.? Wolkstein v. Port of New York Authority, D.C.N.J.1959, 178 F.Supp. 209.
? ? ? ? ? ? Parties may not by stipulation invoke judicial power of United States in litigation which does not present actual “case or controversy.”? Sosna v. Iowa, U.S.Iowa 1975, 95 S.Ct. 553, 419 U.S. 393, 42 L.Ed.2d 532;? Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Craft, Tenn.1978, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 436 U.S. 1, 56 L.Ed.2d 30.
? ? ? ? ? ? Parties may not confer jurisdiction either upon the Supreme Court of the United States or a United States District Court by stipulation.? California v. LaRue, U.S.Cal.1972, 93 S.Ct. 390, 409 U.S. 109, 34 L.Ed.2d 342, rehearing denied 93 S.Ct. 1351, 410 U.S. 948, 35 L.Ed.2d 615.
? ? ? ? ? ? Parties may not by stipulation invoke judicial power of the United States in litigation which does not present an actual case or controversy.? Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church and State v. City and County of Denver, C.A.10 (Colo.) 1980, 628 F.2d 1289, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 3114, 452 U.S. 963, 69 L.Ed.2d 975.
? ? ? ? ? ? Federal courts are not bound by factual stipulations that impact on their jurisdiction;? hence, courts are not bound by stipulations on which existence of a “case or controversy” might turn.? Occidental of Umm al Qaywayn, Inc. v. A Certain Cargo of Petroleum Laden Aboard Tanker Dauntless Colocotronis, C.A.5 (La.) 1978, 577 F.2d 1196, certiorari denied 99 S.Ct. 2857, 442 U.S. 928, 61 L.Ed.2d 296.
? ? ? ? ? ? Parties cannot invoke jurisdiction of federal court by stipulating to jurisdictional requirement of standing.? Vannatta v. Keisling, D.Or.1995, 899 F.Supp. 488, affirmed 151 F.3d 1215, certiorari denied 119 S.Ct. 870, 142 L.Ed.2d 771.
You can find the above quote and others at:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…urisdiction.htm
Nonresident aliens are exempt from backup withholding. This is explained in the article below. See:
http://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/W-8BEN/AboutIRSFormW-8BEN.htm
If I were in that situation, I would hand them an AMENDED W-8BEN or preferably an Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status showing I was a nonresident alien not engaged in a “trade or business” as described in 26 CFR 1.871-1( 😎 (i). That form is below, Form #02.001:
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The backup withholding requirement only applies to “U.S. persons” domiciled in the federal zone or “United States”, which is defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) to mean the District of Columbia. In effect, they are assuming you are a “U.S. person” employed with the federal government in the District of Columbia and your job is to challenge them on that assumption. NRAs are specifically exempted by 26 U.S.C. 3406(g) and 26 CFR 31.3406(g)-1(e), as described in the above article on the W-8BEN and by IRS publication 515.
If they argue with you about whether you are a nonresident alien, hand them SEDM form #05.006 at the link above. Backup withholding is further explained below, starting on p. 34:
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/WithngAndRptng.pdf
All the information you need is in this post. Don't ask us how to do this, but read it and figure the rest out yourself.
Layed,
You obviously DIDN’T read the entire document, because the current version says in section 1 how to correct your citizenship status with the government. It says to file the Legal Notice of Change in Citizenship/Domicile and Divorce from the United States. Didn’t you read that section of the document or look at the Legal Notice form? The Legal Notice form is available at the link indicated on the current version of:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
Please exercise due diligence before posting needless questions to this forum that are already answered in the document itself, and please make sure you are using the latest version of all documents you read and have read the latest version before you post questions about said document to this forum.
Earl,
Thanks for the feedback. I'll relay this information to the authors, and they will make the needed changes in the next revision of the affected documents.
See:
http://ruttergroup.com/cartlist.htm
Federal Civil Trials and Evidence. This is the same thing the Judge uses. The Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial is also good.
See also:
http://www.jamespublishing.com/products.htm
Look at the Federal Criminal Practice Guide.
To look up laws to write your briefs, see:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef…alResrchSrc.htm
Additional free tools are available at:
http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
If you don't want to learn the law or use the courts to defend your rights yourself without hiring a licensed government whore attorney, then prepare to bend over and lose all your rights:
Quote:“My [God's] people are destroyed [and enslaved] for lack of knowledge [and the lack of education that produces it].?[Hosea 4:6, Bible, NKJV]
Quote:“But this crowd that does not know [and quote and follow and use] the law is accursed.? [John 7:49]See also my signature below, which tells it all.
Good luck.
JWR,
Thanks for that update. Amazing!
Amen, Dr. Bing!! I second the motion. On your main them, Mark Twain said the following:
Quote:?Don't go around saying the world owes you a living [or anything else for that matter]. The world owes you NOTHING. It was here first.?[Mark Twain]
It is precisely the kind of ignorant, lazy dependency you describe that the got us into this huge mess to begin with: People being too damn lazy to take personal responsibility for either governing or supporting or defending themselves.
Quote:?The hand of the diligent will rule, but the lazy man will be put to forced labor [slavery!].??[Prov. 12:24, Bible, NKJV]
If the government “manufactures” a bunch of sheeple in the FOOL FACTORY called our “public schools” who are deliberately ill equipped to think critically or govern or support themselves, then they certainly aren't going to be in a position to love or help a neighbor in legitimate need, which is what the Bible commands us to do. This weakness becomes yet one more excuse for the the government to step in and compete with churches and families illegally, and thereby destroys the separation of church/family and state.
Only the educated and vigilant are free, and freedom is NOT a spectator sport. Invest in your head…knowledge and information are the ONLY thing they can't take away from you without killing you. The most dangerous man on the planet, as far as the government is concerned, is a man who knows enough about law to defend his own liberty in court, who knows what his rights are, and has a gun he doesn't hesitate to use lawfully to defend them.
Bruce,
Hilarious!! You're funny. ROTFLMAO!
You're absolutely right: Your average, domesticated victim of the public FOOL, and mean “School” system just begs for the nose ring, now don't they? 😆 But here is what YHWH says about that nose ring:
Quote:?Woe to the rebellious children,? says the Lord, ?Who take counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; who walk to go down to Egypt, and have not asked My advice, to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharoah, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!? Therefore the strength of Pharoah [and the thieves in the District of Criminals] shall be your shame, and trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your humiliation?Now go, write it before them on a tablet, and note it on a scroll, that it may be for time to come, forever and ever: that this is a rebellious people, lying children, children who will not hear the law of the Lord; who say to the seers, ?Do not see,? and to the prophets, ?Do not prophesy to us right things? Speak to us smooth [politically correct] things, prophesy deceits.? Get out of the way, turn aside from the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us [by removing him from public monuments and public schools].??
Therefore thus says the Holy One of Israel:
?Because you despise this word, and trust in oppression and perversity, and rely on them, therefore this iniquity shall be to you like a breach ready to fall, a bulge in a high wall, whose breaking comes suddenly, in an instant.? And He shall break it like the breaking of the potter?s vessel, which is broken in pieces; He shall not spare.? So there shall not be found among its fragments a shard to take fire from the hearth, or to take water from the cistern.??
[Isaiah 30:1-3, 8-14, Bible, NKJV]
Debbie,
The choice to record the documents or not is up to you. If you want privacy, don't do it. If you don't, then record it. Our preference is NOT to record it, but to make several original versions that are all signed at the same time and notarized, and then keep them in several safe places in case one or more get destroyed.
The advantage of not recording is that the marriage is totally private, which can be an advantage if one spouse anticipates legal problems and the other spouse might be helping them protect assets by taking custody as separate property.
If it is recorded, it would normally be recorded with the County Recorder. If your country recorder won't accept it, then visit an adjacent county recorder who would.
