fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Excellent! Thanks for the update!
-
If either of one's parents were naturalized BEFORE their child was born or were born in a state or territory of the United States before their child was born, then the child is automatically a citizen and need only apply for recognition and a passport.
If the mother was naturalized AFTER the child was born and was a permanent resident at the time of birth, then the child is a permanent resident. Whatever citizenship status the parents had at the time of birth of the child is what the child inherits. Any changes to that citizenship AFTER the child was born do not affect the child.
In your case, your mother was a permanent resident at the time of your birth and didn't become naturalized until after your birth. Therefore, you are a inherit that status as a permanent resident, even though your mother subsequently became naturalized after you were born.
If the fictitious person you described wants to become a citizen, they have to be naturalized. Right now, they are a permanent resident if they want to be, which is a bad status to be because all taxpayers are resident aliens of the federal zone.
Next time, please be a lot more careful in your posts to check the spelling and grammar. Your post was littered with all kinds of errors that we had to fix. This website is discredited by being associated with the careless or illiterate.
-
stija,
Thanks for pointing that out. You read our mind.
At least SOMEONE is paying close attention to what is on this website. 🙄
As a side note, the BEST form editing program by far is Adobe Livecycle Designer, now up to version 8.2. You can do ANYTHING you want to the form and never have to worry about the occasional crashing that you find in Nitro PDF. It costs more, but it's worth it.
-
Franklin,
You're absolutely right. Mega dittos.
And furthermore, whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified is entirely IRRELEVANT to tax liability, because, as the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held, the income tax both before and after the Sixteenth Amendment, continues to be an excise tax upon avoidable activities which, in the case of the I.R.C. Subtitle A income tax, is a “public office” and a “trade or business” in the U.S. government. This is analyized in section 7.1 of the following:
Flawed Tax Arguments To Avoid
http://famguardian.org/Publications/Flawed…ArgsToAvoid.pdf
Readers of these forums should also take note that the Disclaimer and Copyright/Software/User License Agreement protecting all of the information contained on this website and all communications with, to, or about members of the fellowship specifically identifies the written law as the only basis for belief about one's obligations and that no one may rely on anything we say or write or say as either fact, as admissible evidence, or as actionable in any legal proceeding:
http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm
Therefore, unless there is some major violation of law, there is no way we could ever be the subject of the kind of injunction or the ruling that Benson was victimized by.
-
😆
-
See:
Silence as a Weapon and a Defense in Legal Discovery, Form #05.021
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The above form requires an account on Member Subscriptions, but it covers the issue thoroughly.
-
Franklin,
Thanks for that update. Language similar to what you suggest already appears at the beginning of the following form:
Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The direct link is at:
http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf
The language reads as follows:
Quote:Citations of federal statutory law in this document should not be construed by the Recipient as the undersigned human being seeking the protection of those laws, having any intention to engage in commerce subject to regulation within the jurisdiction of the sovereign, or of “purposefully availing” him/her self of the commercial “benefits” of any government franchise. Any citations of statutory law or regulations are solely for the purpose of putting the Recipient on NOTICE of what is expected and required of their behavior by the laws that limit and regulate that behavior. All statutory civil law attaches to those domiciled or “resident” within the jurisdiction of the sovereign and the Submitter of this form is a nonresident party who never made an election to become subject to said laws by consensually choosing a domicile therein and thereby becoming a “citizen” or a “resident” under the civil laws of the forum. Instead, he/she/it is and always has been a nonresident and a transient foreigner with no delegated authority to contract extraterritorially with foreign sovereigns such as the “United States” federal corporation (“U.S. Inc” per 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(A)). It is also constituted fraud and perjury on the party of anyone who attributes to him/herself/it the status of a “resident” party as a human being who is neither an alien nor who maintained a physical presence in the forum during the periods that are or might be the subject of the attached tax forms. -
Franklin,
That's a fabulous and succinct analysis of Romans 13 and we agree with it. Apparently, SEDM agrees with it as well, because here is a quote from an analysis of the same subject, where they AMPLIFY Romans 13 with explanatory words consistent with the legislative intent of scripture elsewhere. We like your amplification better, though:
Quote:“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the [righteous but not unrighteous] authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the [godly/righteous] authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist [godly/righteous] will bring judgment on themselves. For [godly/righteous] rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. [But unrighteous rulers encourage, promote, and even subsidize evil.] Do you want to unafraid of the [godly/righteous] authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he [the godly ruler, not the Satanic ruler] is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil [meaning, violate ONLY God's law], be afraid [of godly/righteous rulers who administer that law]; for he does not bear the sword in vain [unless he is an evil ruler]; for he [the godly/righteous ruler] is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil [violations of God's laws]. Therefore you must be subject [ONLY to godly/righteous laws or rulers, but NOT unrighteous or evil laws or rulers], not only because of wrath but also for conscience' [Holy Spirit's] sake [enlightened by God's Law]. For because of this [righteous rulers administering only God's laws] you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all [godly/righteous rulers] their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor [but do not subsidize or condone evil in your government if it is violating God's Laws].[Romans 13:1-7, Bible, NKJV]
SOURCE: Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007, Section 4.2.2; http://sedm.org/Forms/SelfFamilyChurchGovn…OfAuthority.pdf
Your study of our materials appears to really be organizing your thinking around the absolute Truth of God's Word. The following document puts it a little simpler but also takes the same approach as your post. It is targeted at pastors and analyzes WHO is “Caesar” in a biblical sense. The main source of corruption within Christianity coming from Romans 13 is a misunderstanding of who Caesar is. This document proves that “Caesar” in at least an American sense, according to our Fouding Fathers and the U.S. Supreme Court, is US and not our servants in the government!
What Pastors and Clergy Need to Know about Government and Taxation: Who is Caesar?, Form #12.006; http://sedm.org/Forms/SelfFamilyChurchGovn…OfAuthority.pdf
We like much of Rushdoony's religious research, and especially his “The Biblical Institutes of Law” book, for its very scholarly treatment of the bible as a law book. However, we agree that his approach towards government is inconsistent with biblical doctrine for the reasons you point out. This seems so obvious to us that we can't fathom how he could have missed it. Furthermore, if Rushdoony really believed what he wrote in his book, we would also have to conclude that he would have called the founding fathers “traitors” for rebelling against the king of England and that we ought to return to British rule. Nevertheless, we have reused much of his work, such as the following two articles on this site:
1. The Unlimited Liability Universe
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituali…ityUniverse.htm
2. Why All Man-Made Law is Religious in Nature
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…adeLawRelig.htm
At least ONE pastor agrees with everything you said, and we LOVE his presentation! It's too bad there aren't MANY more of him, because if there were, we wouldn't see the problems we have in today's society:
Additional exhaustive information on the subject you covered can be found at:
Liberty University, Section 5.2: http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
Amen, brother!
-
Today (4/22/09), we noticed that the Common Law Venue Website came back up with all the original content it had when it disappeared last month.
-
Bing,
Hilarious!
-
Neo,
Interesting comments.
1. We don't contend that people need passports to travel internationally, meaning enter or leave the “United States”. In the context of international travel, the term “United States” means a nation in the international family of nations, or more properly the “United States*” as describe in the following pamphlet:
Why You are a “national” or “state national” and not a “U.S. citizen”
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…hyANational.pdf
2. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in the above pamphlet that the term “United States” only has ONE meaning when used in the Constitution when referring to a geographic sense.
Quote:“As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.”[O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)]
Notice the word “THE meaning”, not “one of the meanings”. Yes, the term “United States” also refers to the government in the Constitution, as you point out, but when it refers to a geographic sense, the meaning excludes federal territory.
3. The term “United States” on a passport means all three of the “United States” mentioned, including both statutory and constitutional senses. You won't find that in the statutes, but it is the only logical conclusion one can reach, because they issue passports that have the language you describe to those inhabiting (“domiciled”) in all three of the “United States” mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven an Allison v. Evatt. From an international perspective, which is the only perspective in which a passport means anything, all three of the “United States” are implied on the passport, because for the purposes of foreign relations only, whether one is domiciled on federal terrritory or a state of the Union, one is still part of the “United States” in an international sense.
4. I agree that it is more feasible to say that one is not the “citizen” or “resident” mentioned in 26 U.S.C., because all such “persons” are officers within the government engaged in the trade or business franchise. The only thing the government can legislative for are the things it creates, and it didn't create people, but it creates offices and corporations that it can tax and regulate.
Quote:“The power to tax involves 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 [THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT] a power to control the constitutional measures of another [WE THE PEOPLE], which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control.”[Van Brocklin v. State of Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151 (1886)]
“What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand.”
“The great principle is this: because the constitution will not permit a state to destroy, it will not permit a law [including a tax law] involving the power to destroy. ”
[Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830)]
5. I don't agree that the TSA officers are public officers. Certainly, the IRS would like to believe that, but if you look at the legal requirements one must meet in order to in fact BE a public officer found in section 11 of the following, they don't satisfy the criteria:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm
Don't confuse being an “officer” in an ordinary sense with being a “public officer” in a legal sense. The two are NOT synonymous. Only a very small subset of all government “officers” in an ordinary sense are “public officers” in a legal sense. This sort of deliberate confusion is the main method of unlawfully spreading tax slavery and of destroying the separation between what is public and what is private.
-
Neo and Bing,
Both of your assessments are accurate and consistent with the law as far as we understand. Those readers wishing to confirm the above excellent analysis by these two posters with legal evidence are encouraged to read the following:
Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032
-
Franklin,
Great post! Thanks.
😆
-
Lambskin,
Thanks for sharing your observations.
1. That's an interesting perspective you have on the 1099 as being a lien. Now that you explained it, it makes more sense. You would be right that a 1099 constitutes a lien in the case of a human being or a nonresident entity if in fact they had assessment authority based on that instrument. In fact, they do not:
Why the Government Can't Lawfully Assess Human Beings With an Income Tax Liability Without Their Consent, Form #05.011
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
All assessments are done on “resident” tax return forms such as the “1040” rather than nonresident forms such as the “1040NR”. Filing a false report against either a human being or a nonresident party cannot and does not create a lien, but simply creates an opportunity to PROPOSE but not actually make an enforceable assessment. The IRS, in fact, admitted this fact to the Congressional Research Service, as pointed out in the above document.
The only reason people see it as a lien is because private third parties unlawfully and injuriously treat administrative notices as liens, when they are NOT, in fact, actual liens. This would include all variants of IRS form 668 listed below:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/IRS/IRSFormsPubs.htm
2. As far as the allegation that you are a “government mole”, I said you are a “suspected government mole”. No, I don't have evidence, which is why us use the “suspected” prefix. For details of why we in this fellowship believe you are a mole, see:
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1534
3. As far as depriving members of “their” property, nothing can be called property if there is no legally enforceable and valuable thing provided or possessed. All so-called government “benefits” are fraud and a Ponzi scheme, and therefore there is no “property” to lose by saying that members cannot participate in government “benefits”. This is exhaustively explained in:
The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The only thing that telling members that they cannot participate in government “benefits” can do is ensure that they don't become the party to any government franchise, such as the “trade or business” franchise that is the heart of the income tax fraud. That franchise cannot be enforced or even offered outside of the U.S. government, as you probably well know, and it is a gross violation of the separation of powers doctrine to either offer or enforce it against private parties domiciled in states of the Union not otherwise lawfully elected into public office. It's a scam, not a tax, if these constraints are violated, as I'm sure you know.
4. Thanks for the complements, but they mean nothing coming from government moles. The Bible says that flattering lips work ruin, so your comments fall on deaf and suspecting ears.
Quote:“A lying tongue hates those who are crushed by it, And a flattering mouth works ruin.” [Prov. 26:28, Bible, NKJV]“May the LORD cut off all flattering lips,And the tongue that speaks proud things,” [Psalms 12:3, Bible, NKJV]
5. As long as you keep advancing that redemption scam crap in these forums, you're going to be suspect. Yes, nearly everything the government does and says is a lie and a scam when you look at it closely, but imitating that scam for commercial purposes is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's nothing but trouble, and the reasons are clear:
Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.02
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
6. You said:
Quote:“What I espouse is to simply take it to the next level – complete withdrawal – not only in participation but the credit already extended and any future accrual as well. “How exactly is that accomplished? We would all love to hear your story on this subject if there is a better way to do it than the forms available on this website.
Thanks for your participation on these forums if you can add any light to this subject. Many have become the unjust targets of tax injunctions for offering or attempting this sort of thing, and if there is a method to do it that will not invite government ire, we are all ears.
-
Franklin,
Thanks for that affirmation. We're glad you are blessed by this interchange. 🙄 This lively interchange is also helping to organize our research on the subject and refine the argument in the fire of debate to its barest and purest essentials. This will be helpful later, when the materials will undoubtedly be used and/or imitated by our hundreds of thousands of readers in a legal setting.
These forums are definitely serving the purposes of their creation, which are:
1. Organizing and assembling new research of our readers.
2. Improving the debate skills of all participants, including us.
3. Refining the research on this site to remove inaccuracies or confusion.
4. Inviting peer review.
5. Teaching what the law says and showing how it can be applied to everyday situations with clarity and wisdom.
Thank you, neo, for helping us sharpen our sword and organize our research. Your efforts are not in vain and definitely are not falling on deaf ears.
Quote:“Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.”[Prov. 9:8, Bible, NKJV]
“Rebuke is more effective for a wise man than a hundred blows on a [ignorant and presumptuous] fool.]
[Prov. 17:10, Bible, NKJV]
“A wise man will hear and increase learning, And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,”
[Prov. 1:5, Bible, NKJV]
These forums and the research and feedback of others like neo are helping transform uninspiring facts and data into useful weapons of war that hopefully will be PROPERLY and conscientiously used in both state and federal courtrooms across America in defense of our God given rights. This is a job a REAL government is supposed to do, but the one we have REFUSES to do because they love money more than they love truth or justice or equal protection.
Go get'em, readers!