fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
You looked on the WRONG website. This is famguardian.org, not sedm.org.
The security agreement on sedm.org is at section 4.17:http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
WARNING:
1. We don’t answer questions about sedm.org content.
2. We can’t and won’t help you prepare the above document.
3. If you download and use the above document, you and the person you are acting on behalf of become subject to the disclaimer and license agreement at:
http://sedm.org/disclaimer.htmYou and the person you are acting on behalf of also become subject to the Member Agreement, Form #01.001, protecting the above document and everything on that site:
http://sedm.org/Membership/MemberAgreement.htm4. Please post all future inquiries about sedm.org content on THAT site and not THIS site.
5. Please take note that the document itself says not to contact EVEN sedm for help or instructions on how to fill it out.
-
For those interested in studying the “status of aliens” further, see:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 2.4.3
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf -
-
If you would like details on the “missing piece” of the puzzle that they forgot and which is EXTEMELY important to understand, see:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Menard has come a long way over the years. He gets most of it now.
-
Neo. Thanks for your EXCELLENT synopsis of the fraudulent identity theft of the average American over the years. Looks like the SEDM folks have memorialized it at:
Tax Return Evolution, SEDM Exhibit 09.036
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX09.036.pdf
EXHIBITS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Exhibits/ExhibitIndex.htm
-
Bing,
Thanks for sharing. We agree completely. This subject is dealt with further in:
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm -
1. STATEMENT: Therefore, I think your material would be clearer if you drop the phrase “Constitutional alien” and just state for your readers that the term “alien”, when unqualified, is a political status that means a person with a foreign nationality. Do you agree?
RESPONSE: We agree.
2. STATEMENT:Is there actually any section of code which defines “alien” as an American with a domicile without the federal zone?
RESPONSE: You have already identified the section that comes closest, which is 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3).
26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.
(c ) Definitions
(3) Individual.
(i) Alien individual.
The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-1(c ).
(ii) Nonresident alien individual.
The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b )(1)(B ), an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and Sec. 301.7701(b )-7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under Sec. 301.7701(b )-1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made an election under section 6013 (g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.
“alien” is someone who is not a “citizen or national of the United States”. The GEOGRAPHICAL “United States” is limited to federal territory per 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). Hence, it is someone with a legislatively foreign and alien and includes both state citizens and foreign nationals. HOWEVER, even this status cannot exist without a domicile on federal territory, because domicile or at least physical presence is the origin of all civil statuses.
3. STATEMENT: I do not see any advantage in trying to describe yourself as statutory “alien” but I suspect that your motive for doing so was to justify how an American could have a civil status of “Legal Alien Allowed to Work” for Block 5 of the SSA SS-5 form. Is my assumption correct for your motivation for describing ourselves as “statutory aliens”?
RESPONSE: You are correct. The I-9 form does not provide a status associated with state citizens and all statuses indicated appear to be civil rather than political. This is true of most federal forms, in fact. Hence, the Amended I-9 form we provide clarifies this omission:
I-9 Form Amended, Form #06.028
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/i-9Amended.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex-SinglePg.htm
There has been much discussion on this subject on the Family Guardian sister site at:
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=75134. As far as who is an “alien” per 8 USC 1101(a)(3), here is the definition:
8 U.S.C. 1101 Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
[SOURCE: ]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101]
The term “United States” as used above includes that defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38) as:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1101. [Aliens and Nationality]
Sec. 1101. – Definitions
(a)(36) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(a)(38) The term ”United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
______________
8 CFR 215.1: Controls of Aliens Departing from the United States
[Title 8, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 8CFR215]
TITLE 8–ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER I–IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 215–CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATESSection 215.1: Definitions
(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii.
Therefore:
1. “State” means federal territory.
2. “United States” means federal territory.
3. Those domiciled in constitutional states are “aliens” as defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(3) and “nationals” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21).
4. “national of the United States” as used in 8 USC 1101(a)(3) is domiciled on federal territory.
5. “national and citizen of the United States” as used in 8 USC 1401 and 8 USC 1101(a)(3) is domiciled on federal territory.The only thing possibly but not actually inconsistent is:
4.1. Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 13.7
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf4.2 Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011, Section 7
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htmThese diagrams show the affect of naturalization and expatriation shown in that diagram. Constitutional citizens are statutory “aliens” while those who are Statutory “U.S. nationals” are NOT. Therefore, the box “Constitutional citizens/nationals” should also have 8 USC 1101(a)(3) within the box while those who are Statutory “U.S. nationals” should NOT. We avoid putting 8 USC 1101(a)(3) in the “Constitutional Citizens/nationals” box so people don’t become too confused, but it does apply.
5. Please identify the specific instances where is says ” those taking the NRA Position are NOT resident aliens pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(b )(1)(A) and that the aliens mentioned in this section of code have a foreign nationality”. We would like to fix all such references to prevent further confusion.
6. One might be tempted based on this treatment to declare that those born within and domiciled within constitutional states are not “non-citizen nationals” per 8 U.S.C. 1452, but in point of fact:
6.1. That section references Americans born abroad as well as those born on federal territory in 8 USC 1401.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/14526.2. They use the term “citizen of the United States” in describing citizenship, rather than “national and citizen of the United States” found in 8 U.S.C. 1401. Clearly, the “citizen of the United States” mentioned there is a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen, whereas the “national and citizen of the United States” is the territorial citizen.
6.3. They use the term “subject to THE jurisdiction of the United States”, and the U.S. Supreme Court defined that phrase as meaning “subject to the POLITICAL jurisdiction” rather than the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction. The concept of citizenship is based on “jus soli”, which is birth within allegiance to the king.
“The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here [the COUNTRY, not the statutory “United States”], is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States[***]. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.’ Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; U.S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl.Comm. 74, 92.”
[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]If you would like to read all the Statutes At Large references found in 8 USC 1452, see:
http://whatistaxed.com/statutes_at_large.htmFinally, thanks again for your due diligence and attention to detail. Your constructive comments will help and have helped many.
[code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 8, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 8CFR215]
TITLE 8–ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER I–IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 215–CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES
Section 215.1: Definitions
(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii.
Therefore:
1. “State” means federal territory.
2. “United States” means federal territory.
3. Those domiciled in constitutional states are “aliens” as defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(3) and “nationals” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21).
4. “national of the United States” as used in 8 USC 1101(a)(3) is domiciled on federal territory.
5. “national and citizen of the United States” as used in 8 USC 1401 and 8 USC 1101(a)(3) is domiciled on federal territory.
The only thing possibly but not actually inconsistent is:
4.1. Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 13.7
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
4.2 Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011, Section 7
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm
These diagrams show the affect of naturalization and expatriation shown in that diagram. Constitutional citizens are statutory “aliens” while those who are Statutory “U.S. nationals” are NOT. Therefore, the box “Constitutional citizens/nationals” should also have 8 USC 1101(a)(3) within the box while those who are Statutory “U.S. nationals” should NOT. We avoid putting 8 USC 1101(a)(3) in the “Constitutional Citizens/nationals” box so people don’t become too confused, but it does apply.
5. Please identify the specific instances where is says ” those taking the NRA Position are NOT resident aliens pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(b )(1)(A) and that the aliens mentioned in this section of code have a foreign nationality”. We would like to fix all such references to prevent further confusion.
6. One might be tempted based on this treatment to declare that those born within and domiciled within constitutional states are not “non-citizen nationals” per 8 U.S.C. 1452, but in point of fact:
6.1. That section references Americans born abroad as well as those born on federal territory in 8 USC 1401.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/14526.2. They use the term “citizen of the United States” in describing citizenship, rather than “national and citizen of the United States” found in 8 U.S.C. 1401. Clearly, the “citizen of the United States” mentioned there is a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen, whereas the “national and citizen of the United States” is the territorial citizen.
6.3. They use the term “subject to THE jurisdiction of the United States”, and the U.S. Supreme Court defined that phrase as meaning “subject to the POLITICAL jurisdiction” rather than the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction. The concept of citizenship is based on “jus soli”, which is birth within allegiance to the king.
“The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here [the COUNTRY, not the statutory “United States”], is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States[***]. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.’ Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; U.S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl.Comm. 74, 92.”
[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
If you would like to read all the Statutes At Large references found in 8 USC 1452, see:
http://whatistaxed.com/statutes_at_large.htmFinally, thanks again for your due diligence and attention to detail. Your constructive comments will help and have helped many.
-
One comment from a reader on the above article. We didn’t write this:
I read Adask’s article. In light of the Constitutional “jurisdiction”, they can use casino chips, and require casino chips in back payment… Adask is confused re US vs USA and the jurisdictional issue.
The question he should be asking is : what am I lawfully required to discharge a debt with, without any evidence that I entered your casino?…
-
We wish to thank all those who participated in this valuable discussion. It helped improve the materials on this site.
For the benefit of our readership, it looks like the gist of this debate has been memorialized and rebutted in the following resource on the SEDM sister site, which we did not write but which we approve of whole heartedly:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 28.6.12
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm -
Upon further careful reflection on this issue, the debate on this subject should have ended within only two or three posts. Stija’s whole argument revolves around the proposition that I.R.C. Subtitles A and C describe a constitutional, Article 1, Section 8 tax. The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees and by taking a position in opposition to the court, Stija is calling them a LIAR:
“Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L.Ed. 98, was an action of trespass or, as appears by the original record, replevin, brought in the circuit court for the District of Columbia to try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general purposes on that District. 3 Stat. at L. 216, chap. 60. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in one as legislating [182 U.S. 244, 260] for the states; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under art. 1, 8, giving to Congress the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,’ which ‘shall be uniform throughout the United States,’ inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States [described in the Constitution]. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States. The fact that art. 1 , 2, declares that ‘representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . according to their respective numbers’ furnished a standard by which taxes were apportioned, but not to exempt any part of the country from their operation. ‘The words used do not mean that direct taxes shall be imposed on states only which are represented, or shall be apportioned to representatives; but that direct taxation, in its application to states, shall be apportioned to numbers.’ That art. 1, 9, 4, declaring that direct taxes shall be laid in proportion to the census, was applicable to the District of Columbia, ‘and will enable Congress to apportion on it its just and equal share of the burden, with the same accuracy as on the respective states. If the tax be laid in this proportion, it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax in proportion to the census or enumeration referred to.’ It was further held that the words of the 9th section did not ‘in terms require that the system of direct taxation, when resorted to, shall be extended to the territories, as the words of the 2d section require that it shall be extended to all the states. They therefore may, without violence, be understood to give a rule when the territories shall be taxed, without imposing the necessity of taxing them.’”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
Hence, since the District of Columbia is included within the definition of “United States” and all SIMILAR jurisdictions found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), then the tax imposed under I.R.C. Subtitles A and C:
1. Is NOT an Article 1, Section 8 tax.
2. Extends ONLY where the GOVERNMENT extends, as pointed out above. Sources WITHIN the government, in fact, are defined in the at 26 U.S.C. §864(c )(3) as “sources within the United States”.
3. Is a tax on instrumentalities of the national government and not private humans.
4. It is neither CONSTITUTIONAL nor UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but rather EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL. It is an EXTRA-constitutional tax because the Constitution doesn’t protect what happens by consent to PUBLIC officers within the government. All those serving in public offices do so by consent and it is a maxim of law that you cannot complain of an injury for things you consent to.
5. While it is NOT a constitutional but an EXTRA-constitutional tax, if tax terms such as “direct, indirect, excise” used within the constitution WERE used to describe it, then it would have to be described as follows:
5.1. Is a direct, unapportioned tax on INCOME as property. All direct taxes are on property. Note also that the ONLY place it can be administered as a “DIRECT TAX” is the District of Columbia, which is why the terms “United States” and “State” are both defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as the District of Columbia and no part of any state of the Union. This is also why the ONLY remaining “internal revenue district” within which the I.R.S. can lawfully enforce pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7601 is the District of Columbia.
5.2. It is a DIRECT TAX because it involves both real estate and personal property or the “benefits” of such property. This definition of “direct” derives from Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894).
5.3. It is a direct tax upon PROPERTY owned BY THE GOVERNMENT because in POSSESSION of the government at the time of payment.
5.4. The earnings of public offices are property of the government, because the OFFICE is owned by the government and was created by the government. The creator of a thing is always the owner.
5.5. The “income” subject to the tax is payments FROM the government.
5.6. It is an excise on the SOURCE of income.
5.7. The SOURCE is the specific place the activity was accomplished, which is ALWAYS the government or a “U.S. source”. A “U.S. source” means an activity WITHIN the government. Hence “INTERNAL revenue code”. See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/source.htmSource of Earned Income
The source of your earned income is the place where you perform the services for which you received the income. Foreign earned income is income you receive for performing personal services in a foreign country. Where or how you are paid has no effect on the source of the income. For example, income you receive for work done in France is income from a foreign source even if the income is paid directly to your bank ac-count in the United States and your employer is located in New York City.
If you receive a specific amount for work done in the United States, you must report that amount as U.S. source income. If you cannot determine how much is for work done in the United States, or for work done partly in the United States and partly in a foreign country, determine the amount of U.S. source income using the method that most correctly shows the proper source of your income.
In most cases you can make this determination on a time basis. U.S. source income is the amount that results from multiplying your total pay (including allowances, re-imbursements other than for foreign moves, and noncash fringe benefits) by a fraction. The numerator (top number) is the number of days you worked within the United States. The denominator is the total number of days of work for which you were paid.
[IRS Publication 54 (2000), p. 4]
5.8. It is INDIRECT in the sense that all indirect taxes are excise taxes upon activities that can be avoided by avoiding the activity. However, it becomes DIRECT, a THEFT, and slavery/involuntary servitude if the government:
5.8.1. Refuses to recognize or protect your right to NOT volunteer and not become a public officer.
5.8.2. Refuses to acknowledge the nature of the activity being taxed, or PRESUMES that it is NOT a public office.
5.8.3. Refuses to correct false information returns against those NOT engaging in the activity, and thereby through omission causes EVERYONE who is the subject of such false reports to essentially be elected into a public office through a criminally false and fraudulent information return.
5.8.4. Enforces it outside of the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress or against those who are not public officers and officers of a corporation as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ).
5.9. The reason that direct and indirect can BOTH describe it, is that the constitution doesn’t apply in the only place the activity can lawfully be exercised (per 4 U.S.C. §72), which is federal territory. It doesn’t fit the constitution because it doesn’t apply to the PRIVATE people who are the only proper subject of the constitution.
6. It is PRIVATE law and SPECIAL law, rather than PUBLIC law, that only applies to specific persons and things CONSENSUALLY engaged in activities on federal territory as AGENTS of the government ONLY. That is why the entire Title 26 of the U.S. Code is identified as NOT being “positive law” in 1 U.S.C. §204: Because it doesn’t acquire the “force of law” or become legal evidence of an obligation until AFTER you consent to it. It is a maxim of law that anything done to you with your consent cannot form the basis for an injury or a remedy in a court of law. On the OTHER hand, if everyone fills out IRS Form W-4’s and ACTS like a government statutory “employee”, then for all intents and purposes it applies to EVERYONE and at least LOOKS like it is public law, even though it isn’t.
7. Because it is PRIVATE and SPECIAL LAW, it is what the United States Supreme Court called “class legislation” in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894). The specific “class” to which is applies is that SUBSET of all “citizens” who are lawfully serving in an elected or appointed public office.
8. The activities SUBJECT to the tax must also occur on federal territory in order to be the lawful subject of any congressional civil enactment.
8.1. All civil law is prima facie territorial.
8.2. The separation of powers doctrine, 40 U.S.C. §3112, 28 U.S.C. §1652, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 all forbid the enforcement of federal civil law outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress or within a constitutional state of the Union.
8.3. If territory is divorced from the activity and the tax is enforced outside of federal territory, then the activity subject to tax becomes an act of private contract governed by the local CIVIL laws of the jurisdiction in which the activity occurred. And because it is private business activity, then there is a waiver of sovereign immunity AND it must be heard in a LOCAL state court having jurisdiction over the domicile of the public officer and NOT in a federal court. These facts are plainly stated in 40 U.S.C. §3112.
9. If it is enforced or offered in a constitutional state, then:
9.1. An “invasion” has occurred under Article 4, Section 4. By “enforced”, we mean that the ACTIVITY subject to the tax occurs within a constitutional state of the Union. Hence, “INTERNAL” in the phrase “INTERNAL Revenue Service”, meaning INTERNAL to the government and INTERNAL to federal territory.
9.2. The franchise is being illegally enforced:
“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.
But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.”
[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]
The sad part is that none of this discussion was even necessary, because even Stija already debated and agreed on all the above. By starting this thread, he indirectly admitted that he FORGOT that whole debate.
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7201
This information was also already discussed in the following, which he also apparently overlooked.
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Section 7
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm -
Stija hasn’t answered where the definition of “United States” or “State” expressly includes states of the union within 26 USC 7701(a)(9), (a)(10), 5 USC 110(d), and 28 USC 1332(e) per the rules of statutory construction. Every other discussion beyond that point is moot. Stija has therefore been banned from the forums because he:
1. Was warned to produce evidence and avoid opinions and warned that he would be banned if he violated the notice.
2. Continued after the warning to express bad emotions about our position without supporting facts.
3. Has called people names by saying they have their head up their ass.
4. Refuses to answer basic questions that would document the fallacy of his beliefs.
5. Uses the word “f r I v o l o u s” rather than incorrect, and refuses to PROVE that the argument is incorrect WITH LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE rather than simply beliefs.
6. Continues to make presumptions about the subject not substantiated by evidence and which are therefore a violation of due process of law.
7. Ignores, refuses to read, and calls irrelevant a 500 page legal memorandum of law proving the Nonresident Alien Position position filled with legal references that the government recognizes as legal evidence. Instead he calls it nonfactual speech even though the disclaimer specifically says that the GOVERNMENT sources only are factual. See:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020FORMS PAGE:http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdf
8. PRESUMES that just because a court refuses to hear an issue or calls it “f rivolous”, then it must be wrong. This is clearly NOT true, because the closer you get the truth, the less judges can say or want to say about it. Silence is proof that our arguments are correct, and calling something “f rivolous” WITHOUT evidence is the equivalent of silence. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b )(6). Corporations are not allowed to invoke the Fifth Amendment, and all governments are corporations. A refusal to deal with this critical issue is a breach of fiduciary duty by the judge and results in the commission of the crime of YOU impersonating a public officer. Judges cannot refuse to speak on such an important issue when their silence can and does produce a crime.
That is an abuse of the courtroom for political purposes which is obstructing justice and turning this forum and mock court into a political rather than legal or factual discussion.
We welcome and always have welcomed dissent based on facts and evidence as a way to continually improve content on this site. That is why these forums were instituted, in fact. In this case, however, there is no evidence here from Stija of the critical issue before us, which is jurisdiction based on what the statutes expressly say about geographical terms. Three forum rules were repeatedly and willfully broken by Stija even after he was warned, which is why he forced us to ban him from these forums. We MUST enforce the forum rules consistently and impartially just like any judge must do. Anyone else who tries the same tactic must therefore also be banned:
Forum Rules
2. Use cuss words or four letter words. ;
3. Use the word “frivolous” to describe any of the arguments of other board members. Instead, use the word “incorrect” and then provide evidence and law to document why you believe this.;
4. Denigrate or criticize or use derogatory nicknames for other board members
We have left the forums open for further comment by less irrational members because we want to be proven wrong, but ONLY with EVIDENCE rather than inadmissible OPINION.
Stija is welcome back PROVIDED that he apologizes for his rudeness and irrationality and agrees to stick to the facts and the law and NOT his emotions. Otherwise, the Bible says to avoid scoffers, which he has proven himself to be.
“A scoffer does not love one who corrects him, Nor will he go to the wise.”
[Prov. 15:12, Bible, NKJV]
“A proud and haughty man— “Scoffer” is his name; He acts with arrogant pride.”
[Prov. 21:24, Bible, NKJV]
“Cast out the scoffer, and contention will leave; Yes, strife and reproach will cease.”
[Prov. 22:10, Bible, NKJV]
These forums as a mock court are not the place to share emotions or personal opinions on legal subjects. Any good judge would and should sanction and strike the pleadings of any litigant who wastes the time a resources of the court on political subjects such as Stija because true constitutional courts cannot operate in such a political mode or entertain the “political questions” that give rise to them.
Lastly, the goal of these forums is not to be “right” or to be better than anyone else. The goal is to educate, enlighten, and empower people with an accurate and complete understanding of the truth found in the law, and how to apply that truth to liberate themselves and their families from government oppression.
-
1. STATEMENT:There is United States residence (domicile)–see 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (10) which YOU PRESUME IS and CONFLATE WITH federal domicile.
RESPONSE: We are still waiting for an EXPRESS inclusion of constitutional states of the Union in the definitions you quote consistent with the rules of statutory construction, which you repeatedly refuse to provide.
2. As promised, all forums relating to this discussion are now locked and no more discussion is permitted because you refuse to satisfy the burden of proof in producing a definition of U.S. within 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) that expressly includes states of the Union.
When you find that evidence EXPRESSLY adding states of the Union under the rules of statutory construction, please PM me with it so I can reopen the discussion. Until them, all future pleadings and posts on these subjects are stricken from the record in advance because they obstruct justice with presumption, omission, and delay.
If you continue to post new topics on the NRA position without providing such evidence, you will be locked out permanently. Scoffers and political statements and nonresponsive statements are unwelcome in this courtroom.
-
Pub 570 says this about “U.S. nationals”, which appear on the 1040NR. Therefore those in possessions may be U.S. nationals if they choose:
•A U.S. national (a citizen of American Samoa, or a Northern Mariana Islander who chose to become a U.S. national);
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p515/ar02.html#en_US_2013_publink1000224903Hence, if you live there, you can elect to be a U.S. national and therefore an NRA.
Resident of a U.S. possession. A bona fide resident of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), or American Samoa who is not a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national is treated as a nonresident alien for the withholding rules explained here. A bona fide resident of a possession is someone who:
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p515/ar02.html#en_US_2013_publink1000224903They probably wouldn’t argue with you if you ELECTED to be a public officer us citizen, but that technically would be a crime in violation of 18 USC 911 and 912.
We already know that all “residents” and therefore “bona fide resident” per 26 USC 7701(b )(1)(A) are ALIENS, and NOT “nonresident aliens”.
-
Your have the burden of proof. Prove with evidence that:
1. You can have a civil STATUTORY status under the national legislature to which obligations or privileges attach without a federal domicile.
2. There is such a thing as a “national domicile” recognized in law separate and apart from the CONSTITUTIONAL status of “citizen of the United States”. You were already asked for this by neo and myself and didn’t provide it, and therefore admitted it didn’t exist. Now you contradict yourself yet again.
3. That there is any delegation of authority whatsoever in regards to territories or possessions. The constitution is SILENT on such entities, as you already pointed out, except 1:8:17. All it says is that jurisdiction is exclusive and nothing more.
“Under these circumstances it is little wonder that the question of annexing these territories was not made a subject of debate. The difficulties of bringing about a union of the states were so great, the objections to it seemed so formidable, that the whole thought of the convention centered upon surmounting these obstacles. The question of territories was dismissed with a single clause, apparently applicable only to the territories then existing, giving Congress the power to govern and dispose of them.
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
Obviously, The territories are covered by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. But in regards to courts, it is silent as pointed out by SCOTUS in Mookini.
You’re the one making presumptions. The reason you find problems is that you respond before I am finished with my post and my thinking.
-
As far as territorial courts:
The term ‘District Courts of the United States,’ as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a ‘District Court of the United States.‘ Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 154, 25 L.Ed. 244; The City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460, 25 L.Ed. 1061; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268, 10 S.Ct. 762, 34 L.Ed. 107; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182, 183, 11 S.Ct. 949, 35 L.Ed. 693; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476, 477, 19 S.Ct. 722, 43 L.Ed. 1041; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101, 102, 34 S.Ct. 38, 58 L.Ed. 137; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163, 53 S.Ct. 574, 77 L.Ed. 1096. Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended.
[Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201, 58 S.Ct. 543, 82 L.Ed. 748 (1938) ]
If you think possessions are not legislatively foreign, then why are:
1. The people in them non-citizen nationals of the United States per 8 USC 1191(a)(22)(B ) or can ELECT to be so?
http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm2. They are listed as NRAs in IRS Pub 570 and 515?
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p570/index.htmlNOTICE that:
1. “possession source income” is NOT treated as “U.S. source income”, thus implying that “U.S.” does NOT include possessions, UNLESS of course you ELECT to be a ‘U.S. citizen” public officer WITHIN the “United States” federal corporation and therefore DOMESTIC:
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p570/ch02.html2. The above pubs authorize people in possessions to ELECT to be a U.S. citizen OR a U.S. national, which simply proves my point that “U.S. citizen” is just a voluntary public office franchise and not a constitutional citizen or even a human being for that matter.