fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
1. Even those in receipt of a CONSTITUTIONAL franchise and therefore POLITICAL privilege such as voting don’t automatically acquire a CIVIL status under federal law by doing so. They have to accept a STATUTORY franchise and have a domicile on federal territory BEFORE they may do so. We already talked about how civil status extinguishes when domicile extinguishes and we even gave you a SCOTUS cite proving that, in the case of marriage.
2. An NRA is one who has no domicile or resulting civil status under federal STATUTORY law. As we said, the acceptance of a CONSTITUTIONAL franchise such as voting does not automatically impute a CIVIL status under federal statutory law. You’re making presumptions again.
Again, CIVIL status and POLITICAL status are two opposing and completely different contexts. Most civil statuses under federal law are STATUTORY franchises not expressly granted by the constitution, such as public offices. Hence, they are EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY rather CONSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL in nature. All such offices existing under such franchises are artificial entities domiciled on federal territory. You are confusing contexts again.
Please go back and reread:
Why You are a “national”, State national, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Sections 2 through 4
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf -
ANSWERS:
1. District courts cannot act under Article III except against constitutional states or constitutional citizens. They can only do what legislation expressly authorizes in respect to a federal state and are not bound by Article III in any way. As you already said, Article III and the rest of the constitution only deal with CONSTITUTIONAL states and the inhabitants thereof and are silent on federal states, territories, and possessions.
2. When it gives up those powers through legislation. However, even then the powers can be returned to them by changing or revoking the legislation. The only exception is that when they extend the protections of the Bill of Rights, they cannot afterward REVOKE those rights by legislation. This was covered in Downes v. Bidwell. Constitutional rights, by definition, are non-revocable.
CONCLUSIONS:
People in possessions like American Samoa and Swain’s Island:
1. Are independent and self-governing, just like the Constitutional states.
2. Make and enforce their own laws and they are therefore legislatively foreign in respect to the U.S. government, just like Constitutional states.
3. Are nonresident aliens and statutory non-citizen nationals OF THE UNITED STATES per 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(B ).
That is NOT to say that people in Constitutional states don’t have standing to sue a federal actor. However, all such standing is provided NOT by the Federal Tort Claims Act or any other “Act of Congress”, but exclusively the Constitution, which itself is self-executing and needs no enacting legislation for violation of rights. Those in possessions or territories, on the other hand, have no such remedies at their disposal because they are not protected by the Bill of Rights or any part of the Constitution. As the SCOTUS said in Downes v. Bidwell, they are more like “British Crown Colonies than republican states of America”.
The Federal Tort Claims Act not only PROVIDES statutory remedies, it LIMITS them with a statute of limitations. Congress in respect to a state protected by the Constitution, CANNOT limit any remedy provided by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that Congress:
1. Can simply pass a law to nullify the very document from which ALL of its authority to even exist derives.
2. The servant can rewrite its delegation order, the Constitution, without the permission of their boss.
Nonsense.
-
No. It is a STATE constitutional and not statutory PUBLIC right. All civil statuses are associated with domicile in the place to which the status attaches. You can only have a domicile in ONE place at a time and if you have a domicile in a constitutional state, then you don’t have a domicile on federal territory. They are mutually exclusive. Those without a domicile on federal territory cannot have any civil status there, including “voter” or “jurist”.
The only federal voters are domiciled on federal territory. He has to accept CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship but not STATUTORY citizenship. He can vote as a state CONSTITUTIONAL citizen. But he needs to be careful to specify that he is not a STATUTORY citizen domiciled within a federal enclave in the state and is NOT exercising a federal franchise such as SS.
-
1. We are not implying that anything in the constitution CONVEYS private rights. The Bill of Rights RECOGNIZES but does not CREATE private rights. All franchises convey PUBLIC rights. The RECIPIENT of the PUBLIC right is always a private human
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,- ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.”
[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]Those who vote or serve on jury duty are PUBLIC while exercising PUBLIC rights and PRIVATE at all other times. The franchise is limited to a specific circumstance and not ALL circumstances. Like excise taxes, it relates ONLY to a specific activity and not ALL activities.
2. Here is an example of voting, which is a constitutional franchise privilege, being identified as a franchise.
“Long ago in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1071, 30 L.Ed. 220 the Court referred to ‘the political franchise of voting’ as a ‘fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.’ Recently in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561—562, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1381, 12 L.Ed.2d. 506, we said, ‘Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.’ There we were considering charges that voters in one part of the State had greater representation per person in the State Legislature than voters in another part of the State.
[Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections Butts v. Harrison, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d. 169, 1965 WL 130114 (1966)]
When not serving as voter, you are PRIVATE. Only when on OFFICIAL duty are you PUBLIC. It is only a franchise to ensure that aliens can’t vote and to ensure that felons don’t vote either. The purpose is public protection, and I endorse that type of regulation. -
ANSWERS:
1. 28 USC 1652:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/16521.1 The phrase “several states” in 28 USC 1652 uses LOWER case, and therefore refers to legislatively FOREIGN states relative to national jurisdiction.
1.2 Uses the same language “several states” found in the constitution, and therefore implies the constitutional sense. Nowhere else but in a constitutional sense is that phraseology ever used that we have been able to find.
1.3 The notes under this section mention common law. We know from Erie v. Thompkins that there is no federal law, so they could only be referring to Constitutional state actions.
2. 28 U.S.C. 1332(e)
2.1 The term “State” in 28 USC 1331(e) is upper case, and therefore refers to a SUBSET of the national government rather than states of the Union, as described in:
Disclaimer, Section 4
http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm#4.__MEANINGS_OF_WORDSDISCLAIMER
4. MEANING OF WORDS
Key to Capitalization Conventions within Laws. Whenever you are reading a particular law, including the U.S. Constitution, or a statute, the Sovereign referenced in that law, who is usually the author of the law, is referenced in the law with the first letter of its name capitalized. For instance, in the U.S. Constitution the phrase “We the People”, “State”, and “Citizen” are all capitalized, because these were the sovereign entities who were writing the document residing in the States. This document formed the federal government and gave it its authority. Subsequently, the federal government wrote statutes to implement the intent of the Constitution, and it became the Sovereign, but only in the context of those territories and lands ceded to it by the union states. When that federal government then refers in statutes to federal “States”, for instance in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) or 4 U.S.C. §110(d), then these federal “States” are Sovereigns because they are part of the territory controlled by the Sovereign who wrote the statute, so they are capitalized. Foreign states referenced in the federal statutes then must be in lower case. The sovereign 50 union states, for example, must be in lower case in federal statutes because of this convention because they are foreign states. Capitalization is therefore always relative to who is writing the document, which is usually the Sovereign and is therefore capitalized. The exact same convention is used in the Bible, where all appellations of God are capitalized because they are sovereigns: “Jesus” ”, “God”, “Him”, “His”, “Father”. These words aren’t capitalized because they are proper names, but because the entity described is a sovereign or an agent or part of the sovereign. The only exception to this capitalization rule is in state revenue laws, where the state legislators use the same capitalization as the Internal Revenue Code for “State” in referring to federal enclaves within their territory because they want to scam money out of you. In state revenue laws, for instance in the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) sections 17018 and 6017, “State” means a federal State within the boundaries of California and described as part of the Buck Act of 1940 found in 4 U.S.C. §§105-113. See the following URL to see what we mean: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=rtc&group=17001-18000&file=17001-17039.1
[Disclaimer, Section 4]
2.2 The term “State” is capitalized in 28 U.S.C. 1332(e), to DISTINGUISH it from that found in 28 U.S.C. 1652, just like in 4 U.S.C. 110(d).
2.3 28 U.S.C. 1332(e) does not expressly include states of the Union. Read it:
28 U.S.C. 1332(e)
(e) The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Where are the CONSTITUTIONAL states of the Union they? By the Exclusio rule they are purposefully excluded unless EXPRESSLY included. Didn’t you read it, or do you just want to waste our time and hurt us with presumptions.
CONCLUSIONS:As we said before, Famguardian and SEDM do not contain ONLY presumptions. We explained why with evidence and you didn’t disagree with equally weighty evidence so you agree.
We take our job of educating and informing the public very seriously. Every possible human effort has therefore been made to ensure that the information available through this website is truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law. However, all information contained on this website originating from OTHER than government sources and which the courts themselves recognize as admissible evidence under the rules of evidence, along with any communications with, to, or about the author(s), website administrator, and owner(s) constitute religious and political speech and beliefs, and not facts. As such, nothing on this website originating from our own opinions, beliefs, speech, writing, or testimony is susceptible to being false, misleading, or legally “actionable” in any manner. Since materials on this site spoken by us and all communications associated with, to, or about it are religious and political speech and beliefs, none of it is admissible in any court of law pursuant to F.R.E. 610 unless accompanied by an affidavit from a specific person attesting to its truthfulness and accuracy, and such materials are only actionable to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON and no others in such a circumstance. Nothing here other than the governments OWN speech or publications can truthfully be classified as fact without violating the First Amendment rights of the publishers and author(s). It is provided for worship, law enforcement, education, enlightenment, and entertainment and for no other purpose. Any other use is an unauthorized use for which the author(s), website administrator(s), and owner(s) assume no responsibility or liability. Users assume full, exclusive and complete responsibility for any use beyond reading, education, and entertainment. We must do it this way because our Member Agreement says that the ONLY thing you can rely on as a basis for good belief is your own reading of what the law actually says.
[SEDM Disclaimer, ]http://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]
Therefore, everything originating from the government in their materials, including statutes, regulations, rules, and court cases IS evidence, and there is far more of that supporting our position than you have presented so far.
Using inflammatory and accusatory language without all the facts will get you nowhere. Now I know why you lost in court. If you want to keep losing, don’t change your tactics.
-
RESPONSES:
1. Post 3:
1.1 STATEMENT: Second, the United States in 26 USC 7701 is the constitutional United States because IRC is promulgated on Congress Art. I:8:1 constitutional authority thus IT CAN ONLY be the constitutional United States.
REBUTTAL: FALSE. Produce the EXPRESS inclusion of the constitutional states in the GEOGRAPHICAL context consistent with the rules of statutory construction. You still can’t and therefore the exclusio unius rule applies. Neo is right. If it really is an article I power:
1.1.1 Why is it heard in an Article 1 franchise court as described in 26 USC 7441 instead of an Article III court? This implies that even when heard in a district court, its still an Article I rather than III function. Article 1 courts only deal with matters INTERNAL to the executive branch of the government. See Freytag v. Commissioner.
1.1.2 Why is there no express delegation of Article III powers to any district court except Hawaii?
1.1.3 Why do the geographical terms limit it to NOT include constitutional states?
1.1.4 Why are the taxes upon PUBLIC “persons” and PUBLIC OFFICES. Article 1 deals ONLY with PRIVATE humans, not artificial entities.
1.2 STATEMENT: “2. 28 USC 1332 deals with states of the union just like 28 USC 1652 Rules of Decision Act deals with states of the union. Or does it not Admin?”
REBUTTAL: Prove it! 28 USC 1332(e) does not EXPRESSLY include states of the Union and therefore expressly EXCLUDES them per rules of statutory construction. No presumptions and no statue worshipping religion in these forums. Only FACTS. The law is the delegation order that limits government power and it HAS to be in there or it doesn’t exist.
2. Post 4:
2.1 STATEMENT: “4. 28 USC 1332 CANNOT be invoked to deal with public rights because to invoke a diversity of citizenship one must be an Art. 3:2 proper constitutional state citizen. Thus it can be invoked only by private parties who are indeed state citizens”.
REBUTTAL: FALSE: The definition of “States” in 28 USC 1332(e) excludes constitutional states. This statute is for diversity within territories, because the constitution is silent on territories.
CONCLUSION:
We’re still waiting for proof that constitutional states are EXPRESSLY included. No presumptions PLEASE.
“The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.”
[Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 , 238, et seq., 31 S.Ct. 145; Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1 , 5-6, 49 S.Ct. 215]
“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.“
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
“The United States Supreme Court cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute.”
[Federal Trade Com. v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 360 U.S. 55, p. 55, 475042/56451 (1959)]
This forum, like the other one recently started, will have all additional posts by you beyond now DELETED unless and until you produce legal evidence proving that the states are EXPRESSLY include or confirming they are included by the SCOTUS. Every other form of continuing verbal diarrhea from you will be DELETED because its a political rather than factual discussion and these forums are a mock court. A judge would sanction you for talking without supporting evidence or sharing inadmissible opinions, and that is how we sanction people here. You’re trying to delay or obstruct justice and we won’t tolerate it. Its called “striking the pleadings”. If you continue in this line, your account will be locked and you will be locked out. We don’t tolerate this kind of abuse in our courtroom.
-
ANSWER:
1. You need to start looking on SEDM for answers BEFORE posting here because just about any subject you have questions about relating to NRA is ALREADY covered there. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it as an authority is why you haven’t been able to answer that question before posting it here.
2. If you had looked on SEDM for the answer FIRST as we insist, here is what you would have found:
Voter Registration Attachment, Form #06.003
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/VoterRegAttachment.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. The reason you keep having conflicts in your mind that you can’t resolve is that:
3.1 You PRESUME that whether its a constitutional franchise or a statutory franchise, persons under either are humans. They are NOT.
3.1.1 Constitutional franchises all relate to and are granted to otherwise PRIVATE humans.
3.1.2 Statutory franchises all relate to PUBLIC offices, which can be granted both to humans and artificial entities. Example: Corporations.
3.2 Voting, elections, and jury service are constitutional franchises. See 18 U.S.C. §201(a)(1), which identifies jurists as public officials, but only while SERVING as jurists and at no other time. They convey PUBLIC rights to PRIVATE people for SPECIFIC purposes and not ALL purposes. Hence, they ONLY relate to humans. Corporations CANNOT vote or serve on juries because they are not physical humans, but artificial juristic persons. This is consistent with the fact quoted in our previous debate that “citizens” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment are all HUMNANS and cannot be corporations. Don’t believe us. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court says on this subject:
3.3 One can be a CONSTITUTIONAL voter or jurist WITHOUT connecting themselves to any statutory franchise. The voter and juror registration process unconstitutionally subverts this requirement by insisting on statutory franchise as a prerequisite to registering. For instance, voters are pulled from the driver license pool in most states AND driver licensing and sometimes voting require SSNs, even though this is unconstitutional because you cannot server as a public officer in the state government and national government at the same time.
4. Sure, voters and jurists are public officers, but ONLY in the context of that ONE duty and for no other purpose. If they did use these as a gateway for other franchises, that would discourage participation in the political process. That is why:
4.1 Poll taxes based on domicile are not allowed: Because it presumes that things these public officers do while NOT acting as a public officer in their private affairs are taxable. They are NOT. You can be a public officer as a jurist and a voter and for NO OTHER PURPOSE, just like you can be a state CONSTITUTIONAL citizen but not a franchisee for any other purpose.
4.2 Tax liability under I.R.C. Subtites A and C are NOT based on domicile but “residence”, and then they define “residence” essentially as apublic office in the national government. They also try to fool you into PRESUMING that “residence” and “domicile” are synonymous. This is covered in:
Why Domicile and Becoming a Taxpayer Require Your Consent, Sections 11.4 and 11.5.2
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm5. Having a domicile within a constitutional “State” STILL does not put one within the jurisdiction of a STATUTORY “State” under national FRANCHISE law such as that found in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. 110(d). Hence, even a state domiciled state citizen is NOT a “person” or even “domestic” for the purposes of federal law. States short circuit this process by demanding SSNs or TINs to make the applicant effectively a public officer AS THE APPLICANT, which is clearly unconstitutional and illegal in most states because it violates the dual office prohibition.
6. The SCOTUS has declared that citizenship is the MOST VOLUNTARY of all acts. Hence, we see no reason why you can’t qualify the EXTENT of that volunteering process by, for instance, declaring oneself a CONSTITUTIONAL but not STATUTORY citizen and to define the type of “citizen” you want to be as someone who has NO obligations under statutory law other than “electing” or serving on jury. If that isn’t enough, some people go back in time and cite the original state constitution and exclude all others after it to ensure that they are a constitutional rather than statutory citizen. No constitution repeals the previous one, so there are LOTS of types of citizens one can choose for states that have multiple versions of their constitution. To those who argue with this approach, show us:
6.1 WHERE it says you CANNOT do this. We haven’t found it and we know people who have used this approach in court with no negative effect.
6.2 Where in the present constitution it says it repeals all prior constitutions. This NEVER happens.
7. We have found no requirement that simply because one declares themselves a CONSTITUTIONAL state “citizen”, that they automatically are a STATUTORY citizen even under state law. If citizenship REALLY is the most voluntary of acts, it must be the case that you can qualify WHICH of the two types (or BOTH) of citizens you want to be in a state context. The feds and the states play the same confusion between statutory and constitutional “citizen” status to fleece the public with their franchises:
7.1 They create a STATUTORY/FRANCHISE status and name it “citizen”, even though it isn’t created through constitutional authority and is really just a public office. FDR started this in 1933 when he required all “U.S. citizens” to turn in all their gold and forgot to tell them that he meant federal corporations instead of constitutional citizens.
7.2 Because the state created the status, they own it and all who exercise it.
7.3 Since it has a similar sounding name, then people PRESUME it is the same as a constitutional citizen, even though it ISN’T, and pursue it or its “benefits”.
I’m sure you know that he who creates a thing is the owner of the thing, and some creations have similar names but are not the same, just like there are FOUR types of “U.S. citizens” because there are at least FOUR meanings of “United States”, as we have already exhaustively discussed. Ultimately, though, this process is a TROJAN HORSE to hijack your status and STEAL from you by lending franchise property such as a status.
8. Even as a state citizen, one is not necessarily a “citizen” under any federal law. The connection happens usually through the SSN or TIN and few other methods because it is evidence of the existence of federal agency and acts as a de facto license to exercise that agency. You naturally PRESUME that if one is a POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL citizen, they are automatically a STATUTORY citizen under federal law, even though they are NOT because all such citizens are domiciled on federal territory. In the I.R.C. a state citizen and human is NOT a “citizen” unless they serve in a public office. The OFFICE then is the “citizen” because the corporate PARENT is a STATUTORY citizen.
All of this is explained in the following, which you refuse to read. We are getting tired of rewriting it here and will answer no further questions about NRA unless and until you indicate you have read it in its entirety. Your refusal to read or learn SEDM materials shall not become our problem. See section 2.3 for WHO the “taxpayer” is in the I.R.C. It isn’t a human.
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
9. Even in the case of federal elections, you don’t vote DIRECTLY on federal issues, but INDIRECTLY. The representatives do the REAL voting on issues and you just ELECT them. Because these people indirectly represent you, then you don’t participate directly in the law enactment process and therefore also aren’t DIRECTLY bound by it as a person with a foreign domicile.
10. All CONSTITUTIONAL “citizens” are human beings and NOT offices or artificial entities. Here is the proof.
“Under our own systems of polity, the term ‘citizen’, implying the same or similar relations to the government and to society which appertain to the term, ‘subject’ in England, is familiar to all. Under either system, the term used is designed to apply to man in his individual character and to his natural capacities — to a being or agent [PUBLIC OFFICER!] possessing social and political rights and sustaining social, political, and moral obligations. It is in this acceptation only, therefore, that the term ‘citizen’, in the article of the Constitution, can be received and understood. When distributing the judicial power, that article extends it to controversies between ‘citizens’ of different states. This must mean the natural physical beings composing those separate communities, and can by no violence of interpretation be made to signify artificial, incorporeal, theoretical, and invisible creations. A corporation, therefore, being not a natural person, but a mere creature of the mind, invisible and intangible, cannot be a citizen of a state, or of the United States, and cannot fall within the terms or the power of the above mentioned article, and can therefore neither plead nor be impleaded in the courts of the United States.”
“Sir Edward Coke has declared, that a corporation cannot commit treason, felony, or other crime; neither is it capable of suffering a traitor’s or felon’s punishment, for it is not liable to corporeal penalties — that it can perform no personal duties, for it cannot take an oath for the due execution of an office; neither can it be arrested or committed to prison, for its existence being ideal, no man can arrest it; neither can it be excommunicated, for it has no soul. But these doctrines of Lord Coke were founded upon an apprehension of the law now treated as antiquated and obsolete. His lordship did not anticipate an improvement by which a corporation could be transformed into a citizen, and by that transformation be given a physical existence, and endowed with soul and body too. The incongruities here attempted to be shown as necessarily deducible from the decisions of the cases of Bank of the United States v. Deveaux and of Cincinnati & Louisville Railroad Company v. Letson afford some illustration of the effects which must ever follow a departure from the settled principles of the law. These principles are always traceable to a wise and deeply founded experience; they are therefore ever consentaneous and in harmony with themselves and with reason, and whenever abandoned as guides to the judicial course, the aberration must lead to bewildering uncertainty and confusion. Conducted by these principles, consecrated both by time and the obedience of sages, I am brought to the following conclusions:
1st. That by no sound or reasonable interpretation, can a corporation — a mere faculty in law, be transformed into a citizen or treated as a [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizen.
2d. That the second section of the Third Article of the Constitution, investing the courts of the United States with jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different states, cannot be made to embrace controversies to which corporations and not citizens are parties, and that the assumption by those courts of jurisdiction in such cases must involve a palpable infraction of the article and section just referred to.
3d. That in the cause before us, the party defendant in the circuit court having been a corporation aggregate created by the State of New Jersey, the circuit court could not properly take cognizance thereof, and therefore this cause should be remanded to the circuit court with directions that it be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.”
[Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Company, 55 U.S. 80, 99 (1852) from dissenting opinion by Justice Daniel]
CONCLUSIONS:Its ALL about context. Switching contexts is how they fleece you. In psychological terms, this “bait and switch” is called a fallacy by equivocation. There are three things that determine jurisdiction: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, and CONTEXT. This is like the real estate field. Three things determine price in real estate: LOCATION, LOCATION, and LOCATION. The context determines who the creator of the things is and therefore who owns all “persons” that exercise the right or thing.
We’re not saying its easy to do this, but for those who want to do it, the above is the remedy. To avoid all the above difficulties, we think its safer not to vote or serve on jury service at all. But for those who are brave and armed with the above information, they may be able to have the best of both worlds.
DO NOT post any further questions on the NRA subject or the voting subject unless and until you have read the NRA position pamphlet and the Voter Registration attachment IN THEIR ENTIRETY. We are not interested in rewriting either in these forums.
-
RESPONSE:
1. Post 134:
1.1 STATEMENT:”The term states is the same term states used in the constitution–you know the same states that conferred sovereignty to the U.S. over subjects in Art. I:8:1-18. Thus, D.C. not being subjected by default to cl. 1 but cl. 17 instead is included explicitly in 7701 to avoid confusion and someone resorting to rules of statutory construction to avoid paying a tax in D.C. As far as 4 USC 110(d) goes, before I explain that one i’d like to point you to 4 USC 103 which requires assent from the states before lands can be purchased. By your rationale feds are requiring assent from themselves before they can purchase their own lands from themselves. RIDICOLUOUS. 4 USC 110(d) includes other things within the same general class of things into the term states because they are not states as that term is used in the constitution. But they are part of the nation. Neo and myself agreed that U.S. is geographically comprised of the 50 states, D.C. and territorial possessions. Thus, possessions are part of the union-nation and thus in the same general class as D.C. and the states, which is why they are explicitly included in 110(d) as states. But they are not states as that term is used in the constitution so they have to be EXPLICITLY included just like D.C. in 7701.”
RESPONSE: EVERYTHING included MUST be expressed. If it ain’t EXPRESSLY there, you can’t PRESUME its there. Otherwise the requirement for reasonable notice is violated and the courtroom turns into a church. Even territories and possessions within the meaning of 4 U.S.C. 110(d) can own their own land and be somewhat autonomous, depending on the privileges granted them by Congress within its exclusive jurisdiction. To suggest that they can’t and to suggest or presume that Congress owns all their land is presumptuous.
1.2 STATEMENT: “Mookini quoted red-faced text indicates that the context was CRIMINAL JURISDICTION which is strictly territorial. Nothing in Article I suggests a conferral of criminal jurisdiction by the states to the U.S. Thus your claim is moot wrt this thread and SMJ.”
REBUTTAL: You contradicted yourself. Because earlier you described CRIMINAL counterfeiting as NOT territorial but rather SMJ, then you turned around and said EVERYTHING criminal is territorial. You can’t have it both ways.
1.3 STATEMENT: “I live in a state and am a political citizen of it. The states need not be included in the statutes just like apples need not be included in apples friend. But D.C. needs to be included in states because it aint a state as that term is used in the Constitution. “
REBUTTAL: Wrong.
“”Ejusdem generis. Of the same kind, class, or nature. In the construction of laws, wills, and other instruments, the “ejusdem generis rule” is, that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. U.S. v. LaBrecque, D.C. N.J., 419 F.Supp. 430, 432. The rule, however, does not necessarily require that the general provision be limited in its scope to the identical things specifically named. Nor does it apply when the context manifests a contrary intention.
Under “ejusdem generis” cannon of statutory construction, where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of things, the general words will be construed as applying only to things of the same general class as those enumerated. Campbell v. Board of Dental Examiners, 53 Cal.App.3d 283, 125 Cal.Rptr. 694, 696.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 517]
Laws that DO NOT EXPRESSLY list all that is included violate the Constitutional requirement for Reasonable Notice and turn the legal field into religion:
Requirement for Reasonable Notice, Form #05.022
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableNotice.pdf1.4 STATEMENT: “26 CFR 1.1-1 imposes a tax on income of every individual resident and citizen of the United States. Residents and citizens of the United States are not public officers–I am one of them–and it imposes no duties on them directly but rather on their taxable income. If they have no taxable income, there is no duty to be imposed.”
REBUTTAL: You ducked the point. Look at the ENFORCEMENT provisions listed in the IRS Due Process Handout on p. 21, Section 8:
http://sedm.org/Forms/03-Discovery/IRSDueProcMtgHandout.pdfThe IMPOSITION of the tax in section 1 and the ENFORCEMENT of the tax in sections 6201, 6331, and 6672 are TWO separate things. NONE of the enforcement provisions have implementing regulations under 26 CFR Part 1. Therefore, per the Federal Register Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, they apply ONLY to public offices and instrumentalities. When confronted with this problem, the District Court in San Diego in the Hansen case produced no regulations and yet no proof that Hansen was a federal instrumentality, and therefore had to dismiss a contempt motion because of it. Why would they do this if he was WRONG?
44 U.S.C. §1505(a) and 5 U.S.C. §553(a) both indicate that the only case where an enactment of the Congress can be enforced DIRECTLY against persons domiciled in states of the Union absent implementing regulations is for those groups specifically exempted from the requirement. These groups include:
1. A military or foreign affairs function of the United States. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) .
2. A matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) .
3. Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof. 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1).
This is consistent with the fact that the only remaining internal revenue district under 26 U.S.C. 7601 is D.C. They can’t enforce OUTSIDE this district or against those not DOMICILED in this district. People domiciled in a CONSTITUTIONAL state are not domiciled in any “internal revenue district”.
1.5 STATEMENT: “You don’t for purposes of Title 8. What kind of a discriminatory question is that? How do you distinguish between a California domiciliary and a Texas domiciliary who are both U.S. citizens under Title 8?? I seriously do not understand what you are trying to prove with this question, but there is no difference. If one is granted national citizenship, then he is a citizen. The constitutional rights and protections apply to the land one is domiciled on, thus a citizen in Puerto rico does not enjoy the same constitutional protections as does a citizen in California, and a citizen in France has none.”
RESPONSE: 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ) associates the “citizen” found in 8 USC 1401 as the “citizen” found in I.R.C. But then the 26 CFR 301.7701-5 reg below contradicts that and says a citizen is a public officer. It can’t be both.
1.6 STATEMENT: 3112 agrees with you but Title 8 does not operate only within federal land.
REBUTTAL: Produce a definition anywhere in Title 8 that EXPRESSLY defines “United States” as including the 50 states and consistent with the ejusdem generis rule. You CAN’T, so what you said can’t be true. No presumptions PLEASE:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Section%2014.htmShow me a SCOTUS cite that agrees with your presumptions about “United States” in 26 USC 7701. They can’t be found. False. This isn’t a religious exercise and you can’t use presumptions:
“The United States Supreme Court cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute.”
[Federal Trade Com. v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 360 U.S. 55, p. 55, 475042/56451 (1959)]
“The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.”
[Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 , 238, et seq., 31 S.Ct. 145; Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1 , 5-6, 49 S.Ct. 215]
“But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the Lord, and he shall be cut off from among his people.”
[Numbers 15:30, Bible, NKJV]
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence [and presumptions] than does knowledge.”
[Charles Darwin (1809-1882) 1871]
“Believing [PRESUMING without checking the facts and evidence] is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers.”
[Bruce Calvert]
Saying that we are “twisting things” because we refuse to entertain your unsubstantiated presumptions is a cop out. PROVE IT. All presumptions are a violation of due process of law for those protected by the Constitution. Substituting PRESUMPTIONS for EVIDENCE effects a state sponsored religion where presumption acts as the legal equivalent of faith. The purpose of that faith is to create INEQUALITY and compel WORSHIP/OBEDIENCE toward civil rulers based on the inequality or superiority in the law. I won’t follow you down to Ghana and drink your state worshipping cult Koolaid.
CONCLUSIONS:You claim that a “resident” and “citizen” is someone in a state. The older regulations say they are PUBLIC OFFICERS!
26 C.F.R. §301.7701-5 Domestic, foreign, resident, and nonresident persons.
A domestic corporation is one organized or created in the United States, including only the States (and during the periods when not States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii), and the District of Columbia, or under the law of the United States or of any State or Territory. A foreign corporation is one which is not domestic. A domestic corporation is a resident corporation even though it does no business and owns no property in the United States. A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident foreign corporation, and a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident foreign corporation. A partnership engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident partnership, and a partnership not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident partnership. Whether a partnership is to be regarded as resident or nonresident is not determined by the nationality or residence of its members or by the place in which it was created or organized.
[Amended by T.D. 8813, Federal Register: February 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 21), Page 4967-4975]
[SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Resident-26cfr301.7701-5.pdf]
Note that the corporations or partnerships indicated above embrace ALL entities within the definition of “person” found in 26 USC 7343 and 6671(b ), and hence ALL “taxpayers” subject to IRS enforcement. For more examples, see and rebut:
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a Public Officer for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Keep drinking that Koolaid, stija.
As we predicted, you didn’t reconcile your approach with all the conflicts it proposes in the CONCLUSIONS section of our last post, because you CAN’T. Your theory can’t explain or reconcile all these conflicts, so it can’t be the truth. Even if you didn’t say the things listed there, they are still conflicts and they must still be reconciled for your theory to be vindicated. If they can’t, its a lie. It isn’t enough to say “I disagree with everything you say” . PROVE IT by applying your theory to EACH and EVERY one of the conflicts, within the constraints of the rules of statutory construction and the ejusdem generis rule. YOU CANNOT without showing your long Pinnochio nose to this community.
We didn’t pervert anything you said, but rather simply listed all the things you agreed to by your failure to deny and applied them directly to your theory to show they conflict. You can’t flee the battlefield on these issues and then complain about losing.
Also, you evaded the questions about citizenship because your answers were conditional and therefore nonresponsive. “if the law in Title 8 allows for that.” or “If the legal evidence allows for that” are non-answers and a cop out that protects the conflicts in your theory above.
You sit here and pass judgment on the Hansen injunction and call it frivolous but you don’t have a clue what it was really about:
1. It wasn’t about the NRA position. They NEVER raised the issue in this thread in the injunction.
2. Hansen never raised the NRA position in his defense. He stuck to the rules of statutory construction and the definitions of “person” in 26 USC 7343 and 26 USC 6671(b ), which they had no rebuttal to and therefore agreed with.
3. It was about the very issues above that you still can’t deal with, namely the need for implementing regulations and the rules of statutory construction. And by both their and your silence, both you and them agree that you are simply WRONG on the subject. That issues is exhaustively described in:
Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmUnfortunately, the above is a member subscription form that we can’t post or talk about here, but it has many defenses in it, some but not all of which appear here.
Before you shoot off your presumptuous mouth about how “frivolous” Hansen was, at least read the frigging case materials.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CaseStudies/CHansen/CHansen.htmLastly, its rather interesting that on the one hand, you attack the NRA position, but on the other hand, EVEN YOU have gotten the IRS to recognize you as an NRA while at the same time, you claim you are an Arizona citizen domiciled in Arizona throughout this discussion. I smell a rat. Why are you attacking the very position you yourself have used against the IRS? But of course, don’t answer this last question UNTIL you have dealt with ALL THE OTHER issues above. The easy stuff comes LAST after you take FULL responsibility to vindicate all of the conflicts described in your self-conflicting position explained above.
-
RESPONSES:
1. Post 124:
1.1. STATEMENT: R#1.1. The statutes clearly include states in every definition of the united states. This ministry is of the opinion that the states referred are the federal states, but Article I legislation deals with powers the states conferred to Congress, thus the only states it can include by default is the same states that granted them the powers. Because D.C. is not a part of states anymore, it needs to be included explicitly…and it is in 7701(a)(9) for example.
REBUTTAL: 7701(a)(9) defines “United States” as “the States”. The term “the States” is then defined as federal territories in 4 U.S.C. 110(d). 5 U.S.C. 110(d) is the basis for the Buck Act, which is the ONLY authority for state taxes, and it EXCLUDES CONSTITUTIONAL states.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701. [Internal Revenue Code]
Sec. 7701. – Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(9) United States
The term ”United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ”State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
TITLE 4 – FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 4 – THE STATESSec. 110. Same; definitions
(d) The term ”State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
1.2. STATEMENT: R#2.3. Title 8 includes states in United States.
REBUTTAL: Show me WHERE in the definitions the term “State” EXPRESSLY includes “the 50 states” or CONSTITUTIONAL states. It isn’t there and therefore is purposefully excluded. See: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Section%2014.htm
1.3. STATEMENT: R#2.4 “I state, in full accord with SCOTUS opinions, constitutional provisions and rules of statutory construction, that both 1303 and 7701 include states of the union in their definitions of United States.”
REBUTTAL: Show me precisely where in 26 U.S.C. 7701 and 42 USC 1301. “States” are defined as either the District of Columbia in 7701(a)(10) or federal territory in 4 U.S.C. 110(d).
1.4. STATEMENT: R#2.5 “Your allegation of IRC And SS being Article IV:3:2 legislation is: 1. Frivolous; 2. Not even supported by SEDM and famguardian materials;
3. A half assed attempt to wiggle out of this argument and curve fit the truth around this ministry’s material.”
REBUTTAL: Show me one piece of legislation that EXPRESSLY GRANTS Article III jurisdiction to the federal courts. In the absense of express delegation, then these courts MUST be NON-constitutional or EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL courts. The present courts don’t even have THE SAME NAME as those in Article III. They are called “United States District Courts” rather than “District Courts of the United States”. The Supreme Court said in Mookini that all “United States District Courts” are TERRITORIAL rather than CONSTITUTIONAL courts. A whole book has been written about this one subject: What Happened to Justice?, http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/WhatHappJustice/WhatHappJustice.htm
The term “District Courts of the United States,” as used in Criminal Appeals Rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, had its historic significance and described courts created under article 3 of Constitution, and did not include territorial courts.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938), Evidence Book 3, Exhibit 16]
[headnote 2. Courts, emphasis added]
____________________________________________________________________
Where statute authorized Supreme Court to prescribe Criminal Appeals Rules in District Courts of the United States including named territorial courts, omission in rules when drafted of reference to District Court of Hawaii, and certain other of the named courts, indicated that Criminal Appeals Rules were not to apply to those [latter] courts.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938), Evidence Book 3, Exhibit 16]
[headnote 4. Courts, emphasis added]
____________________________________________________________________
United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution [U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344]
[Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d. 1169 (5th Cir. 1972)]
[headnote 2. Courts]
1.5. STATEMENT: R#2.5. Again, this is where we completely disagree. For a while I drank the same Koolaid, but not anymore friend. You are flat out wrong and claiming a frivolity. BECAUSE these are passed on Article I powers, and because Art. I:8:1 powers are wrt states ONLY, the Congress needed to include D.C. explicitly because it was not part of any state anymore, and so they did. The states are included by default because Article I powers were DELEGATED to the United States BY THE FRIGGING STATES and not anyone else.
REBUTTAL: You can’t add things that aren’t EXPRESSLY there per the rules of statutory construction. That legislating from the bench. If they COULD put it there, they would have and since they didn’t, we have NO CHOICE but to assume that they are purposefully excluded.
“”When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945) ; Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”
[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]”
__________________________
KeyCite Notes
361 Statutes
361VI Construction and Operation
361VI(A) General Rules of Construction
361k187 Meaning of Language
361k194 k. General and Specific Words and Provisions. Most Cited Cases
Under rule of “ejusdem generis,” where general words follow specific words in statutory enumeration, general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by preceding specific words.
[Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 114-115 (2001), Headnotes under Westlaw
1.6. STATEMENT: R#3.1. I NEVER alleged Brushaber was either subject to IRC or subject to it because of citizenship. Brushaber was not subject to the IRC. Income earned by him in his involvement with a privileged entity was subject to the tax and the entity collected it and paid it which is when he sued. The moral of the story is that RESIDENCE was irrelevant. Also, he is not the NRA referred to in the T.D. 2313, and assuming so is dangerous.
REBUTTAL: Brushaber was mentioned in TD 2313 so why would he NOT be the subject of that TD. See appendix: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm
1.7. STATEMENT: R#3.3. I suggest you re-read the Alfonso Larrain court opinon or Slaughterhouse Cases which explain that a U.S. citizen can be domiciled in a state or without a state and how the former confers a second sovereign capacity wrt to state matters/concerns. So you’re wrong. A U.S. citizen can be domiciled wherever he affixes his domicile but if he does so without a state of the union, the law will commute a domicile in D.C. if be invokes a federal legal right.
RESPONSE: The law will NOT ALWAYS commute a domicile in D.C. if he invokes a federal right unless it is a STATUTORY or PUBLIC right as a public officer. See 26 USC 7701(a)(39) and 7408(d). If it is a constitutional right being vindicted, the law of the geographic place he is domiciled will apply per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. If he is domiciled in Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico has had the constitution extended to it by Congress without becoming a state, then the common law and constitution of Puerto Rico would be the ONLY rules of decision under Federal Civil Rule 44.1.
1.8. STATEMENT: R#5.1. Read 26 USC 7701, the language cannot be clearer. If not a citizen OR resident of United States, one is an NRA. I am a citizen resident–resident of AZ specifically–thus I am not a NRA. Proven.
RESPONSE: The rules of statutory construction forbid adding any thing or class of thing not EXPRESSLY appearing in the statutes. You can’t add whatever you want, even if the Constitution authorizes it. It HAS to be in the statute or it isn’t there.
1.9. STATEMENT: R#6.1. There is no conflict of any kind because sovereignty is split and what one govt controls the other cannot. Article I legislation is operative only wrt to individuals who accept the mission of involving themselves with the subjects regulated REGARDLESS of their civil status man.
RESPONSE: No. Article 1 legislative jurisdiction applies to those who accept the STATUS subject to regulation, regardless of whether they are engaged in the physical activity or not. Any other approach is theft, slavery, and eminent domain without compensation. Governments are FOUNDED to protect your right to NOT contract and NOT associate. You can only acquire a CIVIL status and therefore an association and COMPACT status with your EXPRESS consent.
1.10. STATEMENT: 7.1.4. United States is NOT defined as federal territory within 26 USC. It is defined as the 50 States and D.C. in 7701. That’s the jist of our disagreement really.
RESPONSE: See earlier reference to rules of statutory construction.
1.11. STATEMENT: 7.1.5.1-3. There are federal regulations wrt specific sections that impose a duty on non federal personnel. United States includes the whole geography of the union-nation plus D.C.
REBUTTAL: No there are NOT. Show me a regulation from part 1 of 26 CFR that applies 26 U.S.C. 1 to OTHER than a public officer. This is covered ad nauseum within: 1. Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032; 2. IRS Due Process Meeting Handout, Form #03.008.
1.12. STATEMENT: 7.1.7. They ignored Hansen and his RIDICULOUSLY FRIVOLOUS request. The court is under no duty to explain the law or address baseless requests.
REBUTTAL: The rules of statutory construction are NOT frivolous or baseless. A whole book documents them and you agree with them as mentioned earlier by your failure to DISAGREE.
Meaning of the words “includes” and “including”
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/FalseRhetoric/Includess.pdf2. Post 127:
2.1 STATEMENT: “How is one domiciled upon this theoretical “union-nation” land mass? There is no such thing as a national “union-nation” land mass that one can be domiciled upon. There is no legal basis for this anywhere. I understand how and why you have concluded this. I just don’t agree with it.”
RESPONSE: Agreed. I already made that point but Stija CONVENIENTLY ignored it and therefore admitted BOTH of us are correct on it.
REPHRASE OF PREVIOUS QUESTIONS:
Let me rephrase my questions about citizenship, because D.C. is obviously a special case as a territory protected by the constitution.
1. What would you call those in Puerto Rico who are ONLY TERRITORIAL “U.S. citizens” but not state citizens within Title 8 of the U.S. Code?
2. Does an 8 USC 1401 citizen also include Puerto Rico or American Samoa citizens?
3. Does 8 USC 1401 include citizens domiciled in a CONSTITUTIONAL state?
4. If 8 USC 1401 DOES include state citizens, by what authority can one acquire a civil status under statutory law of Congress without a domicile within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government?
5. If it does, how do you distinguish a Constitutional STATE citizen from a Territorial or Possession citizen in Title 8?
6. Even if I live in a constitutional state, what would you call me if I DO NOT consent to a civil domicile there?
SCOTUS said people in territories live under the equivalent of a British crown colony. I DON’T want a statutory citizenship status that could be confused with such people.
“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to ‘guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government’ (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, ‘a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,’ Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
I allege that since there is no SEPARATE “union-nation” mentioned in Title 8 of the USC, I can’t have a civil DOMICILE or STATUS anywhere within federal jurisdiction, and 40 USC 3111 and 3112 agree with me. I can’t and won’t have simultaneous allegiance to two competing governments and I would have a conflict of interest and violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act if I did.
“The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power which springs from the bankruptcy clause. United States v. Butler, supra.”
[Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, 298 U.S. 513; 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936)]
________________________________________________________________________
“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.“
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
CONCLUSIONS:
The only one drinking Koolaid is Stija.
1. He adds things or classes of things to the definition of geographical terms that don’t expressly appear. Its called legislating from the bench and its unconstitutional and a violation of due process of law. Such acts are also an act of state religion.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf2. He calls the rules of statutory construction and interpretation that are the foundation of our arguments FRIVOLOUS.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Includes.pdf3. He PRESUMES jurisdiction that doesn’t EXPRESSLY exist in statutes in violation of due process of law. That PRESUMPTION is the equivalent of faith toward a state-sponsored man-worshipping religion.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Presumption.pdf4. He says sovereigns can’t impose duties on others, and yet indirectly he advances the OPPOSITE by:
4.1 Imposing a status they do not expressly consent to against which PUBLIC rights and obligations attach.
4.2 Defining terms in such a way that people have to make themselves into public officers WITHOUT their consent.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Consent.pdf5. He agrees that courts can’t operate in a political mode, and yet he invokes a POLITICAL rather than CIVIL/STATUTORY status as the source of their jurisdiction. NONSENSE.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf6. He agrees that governments have no jurisdiction over private rights, and yet he imposes PUBLIC rights, statuses, and obligations against PRIVATE people without their consent. Then he implies that this is NOT slavery and that it does NOT violate the Thirteenth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment takings clause.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Consent.pdf7. He agrees that governments are instituted to protect PRIVATE rights, and yet sanctions and condones and protects the ABUSE of every type of GOVERNMENT property, including franchises, as a means to DESTROY and CONVERT PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights WITHOUT the EXPRESS and CONTINUING consent of the owner, when it is lent out to people. This includes SSNs, TINS, driver licenses, license plates, ID cards, and even sovereignty delegated by Article 1, Section 8. Nonsense.
8. He PRESUMES that POLITICAL and STATUTORY terms or statuses are equivalent. They ARE NOT.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf9. He vainly IMAGINES a “nation-union” jurisdiction that nowhere expressly appears in any statute or court ruling. That’s curve fitting. TAKE NOTE: We agree that such a union exists POLITICALLY. That is not the question. The issue is WHERE does it exists LEGISLATIVELY. CONSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL are not equivalent to STATUTORY/CIVIL. Different contexts.
10. When we try to apply his CONSTITUTIONAL arguments to STATUTORY context, they completely fall apart because of the definitions. The reason is because these two contexts are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE and NON-OVERLAPPING. This must be so because the ONLY thing Congress can regulate are PUBLIC rights of those who VOLUNTEERED to be public officers by CONSENSUALLY acquiring the CIVIL STATUTORY STATUS of “citizen” or “resident” and who were not punished or deprived in any way for NOT doing it. In other words, people who join the CLUB and thereby become subject to the CIVIL SOCIAL COMPACT.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf11. He agrees that governments can only pass laws to regulate their OWN public offices and property, and yet he refuses to explain how one can be a PUBLIC officer engaged in a PUBLIC right without their consent and without slavery that violates the Thirteenth Amendment. Recall that the Thirteenth Amendment applies EVERYWHERE including federal territory.
12. He PRESUMES that “United States District Courts” are article III or even CONSTITUTIONAL courts when they don’t even have the same NAME as constitutional courts. 26 USC 7441 says “Tax Court” is an Article I court, not an Article III court, therefore even when district courts hear tax matters, they are still acting in an Article I capacity.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm13. When you present him with evidence admissible under the rules of evidence and originating from the GOVERNMENT, such as statutes and court rulings (see SEDM materials), then he says they are religious and political speech that he won’t pay attention to. This protects his vain little fantasy. Then he says WE have our head up our ass. Ha, ha, ha, haaaaaa!
14. He asks for court cases against people (those with a legislatively foreign domicile or who are nonresidents) the courts have no jurisdiction over! And when no court cases are produced, he says they don’t exist. Nonsense. Do you think the SCOTUS is EVER going to clue people into any group of people or any status that they have no jurisdiction over? They won’t even grant such a case a cert. So it ain’t gonna happen, dude. That would let the cat out of the bag. No judge is stupid enough to instruct the public how to make his own services IRRELEVANT. The Certiorari Act passed by Taft ensured that this technique would become institutionalized in protecting the VERY tax he instituted with the Federal Reserve AND the Sixteenth Amendment. That’s why Congress appointed him later as the SCOTUS chief justice and approved his plans to make the SCOTUS building into a marble temple: Because HE CREATED a worldwide religion that everyone on the planet eventually would have to worship. See Great IRS Hoax, section 6.4.1: http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
15. He agrees that the United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a constitutional state, and yet he says that corporation is domestic and that the people on land protected by that corporation are domestic in relation to that SAME constitutional state. NONSENSE!
16. He wants you to believe that you can acquire a civil statutory status such as “taxpayer” to which Article 1, Section 8 obligations attach WITHOUT your consent, even though the courts themselves admit that they can’t declare you a “taxpayer”.
Specifically, Rowen seeks a declaratory judgment against the United States of America with respect to “whether or not the plaintiff is a taxpayer pursuant to, and/or under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14).” (See Compl. at 2.) This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment “with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,” a code section that is not at issue in the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; see also Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536-537 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal of claim for declaratory relief under § 2201 where claim concerned question of tax liability). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.
[Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005)]
You can’t have it both ways Stija. Your conflicting and dissonant views are what Orwell calls “double think”. They can’t be true because they conflict with themselves, with the written law, or with the rules of statutory construction. See:
Foundations of Freedom, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvnTL_Z5asc
Earth calling stija. You missed your calling. You should have been a federal judge because you sure are good at swallowing the propaganda Koolaid of the Supreme Court of Political Propaganda.
“Doublethink means the power of [hypocritically] holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
[George Orwell]
The reason the federal courts were silent on Hansen’s appeal is the VERY same reason you HAVE to be silent on the above issues: Because the minute you open your mouth on all of them and reconcile them all together as a whole is the minute you can’t avoid declaring yourself a liar.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
[U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021 (5th Cir. 1970)]
__________________________________________________________________________________
“Silence can be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities.”
[U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977)]
We don’t hate you. We hate LIES and DECEPTION and IGNORANCE. And they are lies because they conflict with either themselves or some part of the law as described above. The purpose of the rules of statutory construction, in fact, is to PREVENT such conflicts, which is why you insist on throwing them out or calling them “frivolous”.
It is, of course, true that statutory construction “is a holistic endeavor” and that the meaning of a provision is “clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme … [when] only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”
[United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d. 740 (1988)]
Remember, however, that the term “frivolous” is defined in the disclaimer applying to this site and EVERYTHING you have posted herein as “truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law”. Thank you, therefore, for agreeing with everything we said that you called “frivolous”. Checkmate.
http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htmIf you won’t even believe the U.S. Supreme Court justice who agreed with our approach in front of neo, and which I personally have witness of, then:’
1. You won’t believe ANYONE.
2. The problem is not FACTS, but your presumptions and foolishness.
3. Further discussion of this subject is absolutely pointless.
Lastly, we hope this lively debate will help your court case.
-
GENERAL COMMENTS:
In response to the following in Post 117: “Admin, any reference to SEDM or famguardian materials in your posts as authoritative source in support of your claims is going to be ignored. Feel free to attach a relevant court cite with a proper page or quote. If these forums are a mock court, then let’s treat them as such. I would never expect a court to find any of SEDM or famguardian material as legally binding and therefore it is not acceptable in a mock court forum either. “ we say the following:
References to SEDM materials are not necessarily non-factual or only beliefs in their entirety. You play word games. The SEDM/FG Disclaimers (http://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm) say so:
We take our job of educating and informing the public very seriously. Every possible human effort has therefore been made to ensure that the information available through this website is truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law. However, all information contained on this website originating from OTHER than government sources and which the courts themselves recognize as admissible evidence under the rules of evidence, along with any communications with, to, or about the author(s), website administrator, and owner(s) constitute religious and political speech and beliefs, and not facts. As such, nothing on this website originating from our own speech, writing, or testimony is susceptible to being false, misleading, or legally “actionable” in any manner. Since materials on this site spoken by us and all communications associated with, to, or about it are religious and political speech and beliefs, none of it is admissible in any court of law pursuant to F.R.E. 610 unless accompanied by an affidavit from a specific person attesting to its truthfulness and accuracy, and such materials are only actionable to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON and no others in such a circumstance. Nothing here other than the governments OWN speech or publications can truthfully be classified as fact without violating the First Amendment rights of the publishers and author(s). It is provided for worship, law enforcement, education, enlightenment, and entertainment and for no other purpose. Any other use is an unauthorized use for which the author(s), website administrator(s), and owner(s) assume no responsibility or liability. Users assume full, exclusive and complete responsibility for any use beyond reading, education, and entertainment. We must do it this way because our Member Agreement says that the ONLY thing you can rely on as a basis for good belief is your own reading of what the law actually says.
[SEDM Disclaimer, Section 1; SOURCE: http://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]
Why? Because:1. The source cited is legally admissible evidence under the rules of evidence, such as court cites, statutes, etc.
2. The Terms of Use and Service, Form #01.016 (http://sedm.org/Forms/01-General/TermsOfUseAndService.pdf) says that every government user who uses the materials as evidence against the ministry or any member stipulates to admit them into evidence under Federal civil rule 31 and that they are truthful, factual, and accurate for the court and government except that which they personally and individually rebut with evidence signed under penalty of perjury on the record of the proceeding. See Terms of Service, Form #01.016, Section 5, Item 6. No such rebuttal was ever submitted during the failed attempt to enjoin the ministry so the government therefore says everything is truthful and accurate.
3. The About Us page says in section 10: “This website has been reviewed for accuracy and approved as truthful, factual (for THEM, and not for US), and accurate by the Department of Justice, the IRS, and the Federal Judiciary, and is one of very few freedom websites of its kind which can claim that important distinction.”
http://sedm.org/Ministry/AboutUs.htm4. During a failed attempt to enjoin the site, both the U.S. Attorney and the IRS Agent admitted during a deposition that they downloaded and used the materials against the ministry and thereby consented to the Member Agreement and made everything truthful, factual, and accurate for them and the government as required by the Terms of Use and Service.
The only thing needed to make anything on either famguardian or sedm FACTUAL is an affidavit of the person submitting or using it, so it can be and often is factual, but only for the person submitting said affidavit and not the ministry. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll stipulate that everything the GOVERNMENT says is admissible as evidence that is contained in any and every FG or SEDM document is factual and truthful, which means every court cite and statute as a minimum, and every other type of source the Supreme Court cites in its only opinions, such as Black’s Law Dictionary, the Law of Nations, etc. Therefore you cannot escape addressing all such components of every document cited earlier by us from sedm or fg. You may NOT ignore those components of all such documents by falsely claiming that the documents are NONFACTUAL in their entirety.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES:
1. Post 116:
1.1. STATEMENT: “. . .do you have JUST ONE, either appellate or SCOTUS opinon supporting a NRA position you are promoting? Do you even have anything that contradicts my DUAL SOVEREIGN capacity pursuant to the 14th Amendment? If not, then it is pure political and religious belief non admissible in a court of law. “
REBUTTAL: SCOTUS is not the only authority on the subject. The rules of statutory interpretation allow courts to only interpose when the statutes are UNCLEAR as to their meaning. In the case of the I.R.C. and SS Act, they are very clear.
“”If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” [Chevron, 467 U.S. 842-43].
The following forms have hundreds of supreme court cites and statutes backing up the position and listed in the table of authorities, and hence are backed up not by what we say are facts, but by what THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF says are FACTS (under the Federal Rules of Evidence):a. Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020 (http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf);
b. Legal Basis of the term “Nonresident Alien”, Form #05.036 (http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalBasisForTermNRAlien.pdf).I’m not going to restate all these hundreds of cases and statutes here because it would serve no purpose other than to punish me for your arbitrary and unfounded refusal to address the factual content in those pamphlets. Have you found anything specifically incorrect or untruthful in the FACTUAL subset of content within these memorandums, and if so WHAT? Otherwise, a failure to deny constitutes an admission per your own rules.
1.2. STATEMENT: Questions for you: 1. Are you alleging that i do not have two political capacities?; 2. Are you alleging that i ever alleged to be domiciled on two different geographical locations?
RESPONSE: You have two political capacities, but congress doesn’t legislate against political status, but STATUTORY status created through domicile. You alleged to be domiciled within the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of more than one government, regardless of geography, which is serving two masters and having a criminal conflict of interest. Post 23 you said:
“Also, because of the above, a U.S. Citizen will always be domiciled within the U.S. nation-union one way or another. If he is in CA, then he is a U.S. Citizen domiciled in United States California judicial district for purposes of jurisdiction of the courts. If he is domiciled in France and resorts to claiming his U.S. citizenship for one reason or another, the Article I legislation will place him in the United States D.C judicial district most likely, for jurisdictional purposes of the courts.”
1.3. STATEMENT: Whether i am a U.S. citizen or Arizona citizen is IRRELEVANT to me incurring a taxable income and being subject to IRC laws. Do you know what subject matter legislation means?
REBUTTAL: That’s the same position that Pete Hendrickson has been taking and it hasn’t gotten him anywhere. It is not irrelevant per the geographical definitions in the SS and IRC franchises because CONSTITUTIONAL states are not EXPRESSLY included and therefore purposefully EXCLUDED per the rules of statutory construction. We already pointed this out. Anyone OUTSIDE the geographical boundaries defined is STATUTORILY alien and foreign and nonresident, notwithstanding whether an Article 1, Section 8 power or a 4:3:2 power is being exercised. The courts can only interpose when these definitions are unclear, per the rules of statutory construction, and they haven’t because they ARE clear. If they want the states to be included, they must be EXPRESSLY included, even in the case of Article I powers.2. Post 117:
2.1. STATEMENT: 2. No one is claiming that Article I legislative rights are operative territorially. Article I:8 is SUBJECT MATTER regulation, cl. 17 notwithstanding.
REBUTTAL: False. Congress cannot create post offices outside of the country united states. More importantly, the powers granted under 1:8 do not allow them to impose duties to effect those powers on any non-consenting humans, other than criminal laws of course such as counterfeiting. Instead, the duties can only be imposed CIVILLY upon consenting parties, or a theft and slavery has occurred. Thus, the powers with the exception of criminal provisions are special law for the public officers and offices EFFECTING these powers. They cannot be law for anyone else because no on else took an oath of office to be subject to them. The constitution is law for government, not for the people.
“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, 290H261 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, 291H295 U.S. 495, 549 , 550 S., 55 S.Ct. 837, 97 A.L.R. 947.”
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 292H298 U.S. 238 (1936)]2.2. STATEMENT: If it is subject matter jurisdiction, how can you be nonresident to it?
RESPONSE: Because:2.2.1 You own yourself, and the essence of ownership is the right to exclude ALL OTHERS, including governments, from using or benefitting from the use of the thing. A person who does not consent to ANY status under federal civil law, including resident, citizen, etc. is by definition a nonresident who can only become subject by their CONSENT in PURPOSEFULLY availing themselves of commerce within the jurisdiction of said government per the minimum contacts doctrine described in international shoe. They can’t take your property per the fifth amendment, including your person or labor, without your consent. You don’t need a status to be protected by the constitution because it attaches to the land instead of a status. Balzac v. Puerto Rico. Only the civil laws have a status prerequisite. That consent is manifested in part by BOTH CONSENTING to the civil status of “resident” or “citizen” AND having a coincident domicile in that place and thereby becoming subject to the civil laws of that jurisdiction. Otherwise, you remain a statutory but not constitutional alien and foreigner. This was described by SCOTUS in Newman-Green v. Afonso, 490 US 826 in which they called “nonresidents” by the term “stateless persons”:
“In order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State. See Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648-649 (1878); Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 (1834). The problem in this case is that Bettison, although a United States citizen, has no domicile in any State. He is therefore “stateless” for purposes of § 1332(a)(3). Subsection 1332(a)(2), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of a State sues aliens only, also could not be satisfied because Bettison is a United States citizen. [490 U.S. 829]”
[Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)]”2.2.2 The statutory geographic terms do not EXPRESSLY include the geography of your legal domicile. The United States is legally classified as a foreign corporation with respect to a state per C.J.S. How can it be foreign WITHOUT the people WITHIN the state ALSO being foreign? See:
19 CJS 883-884: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/UnitedStates-19CJS883to884.pdf
2.3. STATEMENT: “Being a U.S. citizen does not make you assume a domicile on federal land automatically as this ministry suggests.”
REBUTTAL: Then where in Title 8 is the term “United States” ever defined to expressly include states of the Union for the purposes of citizenship? It isn’t. Everyting is federal territory. See: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Section%2014.htm. Where, for instance, would a District of Columbia statutory citizen be distinguished from a state citizen in title 8? They are not within the same geography or class of things, as pointed out earlier by Neo and in Wong Kim Ark and Slaughterhouse.2.4. STATEMENT: “What i claimed, and the reason i started this topic is to challenge the NRA position wrt to United States Article I:8 legislation. 1. I did NOT start this thread to explain how IRC operates.; 2. I did NOT start this thread to explain how SS operates.; 3. I did NOT start this thread to explain how any federal law operates.”
REBUTTAL: But you did say that these subject matters are Article 1, and by implication they cannot have a geographical limitation, even though they contradict that with their own geographical defintions, thus proving you wrong. 26 USC 7701 and 42 USC 1301. You can’t have it both ways. You are attacking this issue without a specific context. You have to relate your theory back to the context to prove that it is true. Truth does not exist in a VACCUM. If it really is truth, then it has to be consistent with EVERYTHING else. Otherwise, its a lie as Neo astutely pointed out.2.5. STATEMENT: “I challenge you to give me just one opinion wrt: 1. A political citizen domiciled in a state being NRA wrt to Article I:8 legislation, cl. 17 excluded; and 2. IRC or SS being passed under Article IV:3:2.”
REBUTTAL: See the geographical definitions in 26 USC 7701 and 42 USC 1301. If these really were Article 1, Section 8 powers, these definitions would expressly include states of the Union. They DO NOT. NO OPINIONS necessary, because the definitions are completely clear and all inclusive of the geographies included. The rules of statutory construction FORBID adding anything to that EXPRESSLY appearing.
“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945) ; Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”
[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]3. Post 118:
3.1. STATEMENT: While you guys believe that Brushaber was the NRA referred to in T.D. 2313, his suit is a perfect example of a state citizen’s involvement with Article I legislative rights even though he was resident in a state and not on federal land. Do NOT confuse cl. 17 with other SUBJECT MATTER rights which are distinct and separate rights.
REBUTTAL: Brushaber became subject by CONTRACTING with the national government and thereby becoming an INSTRUMENTALITY of the govenrment, not because of his citizenship. All stockholders in federal corporations domiciled on federal territory are contractors with Uncle, and hence instrumentalities of Uncle.
“The court held that the first company’s charter was a contract between it and the state, within the protection of the constitution of the United States, and that the charter to the last company was therefore null and void., Mr. Justice DAVIS, delivering the opinion of the court, said that, if anything was settled by an unbroken chain of decisions in the federal courts, it was that an act of incorporation was a contract between the state and the stockholders, ‘a departure from which now would involve dangers to society that cannot be foreseen, whould shock the sense of justice of the country, unhinge its business interests, and weaken, if not destroy, that respect which has always been felt for the judicial department of the government.‘
[New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]”
The contract was the nexus, not the subject matter. Brushaber was a stockholder and therefore a contractor. Contracts create extrateritorial nexus beyond the federal zone and beyond the geographical limitations found in the revenue laws limiting them to the federal zone..3.2. STATEMENT: “are you guys suggesting that a U.S. citizen individual is subject to the IRC whether having income or not, or receiving payments in connection with a trade or business or not?”
RESPONSE: We am suggesting that the only way one can be subject to the I.R.C. is to be an instrumentality of the government AND a public office. Otherwise, Congress cannot regulate exclusively private rights or private property.
“The power to “legislate generally upon” life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the “power to provide modes of redress” against offensive state action, was “repugnant” to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876) ; United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883) ; James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903) . Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) ; United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) , their treatment of Congress’ §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.”
[City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]3.3. STATEMENT: “are you guys suggesting that a U.S. citizen individual can only be domiciled on land purchased through Art. I:8:17? “
RESPONSE: No. We are suggesting that they are EITHER domiciled on federal territory OR representing an entity such as a federal corporation that is domiciled on federal territory. This is the ONLY way federal civil legislation could reach such a person EXTRATERRITORIALLY under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. There is NO OTHER.4. Post 119: Agree with Neo about status elections.
5. Post 120:
5.1. STATEMENT: “NRA is a legal vehicle for individuals who are NEITHER politically affiliated with the United States NOR domiciled within the union.”
RESPONSE: Prove it. That’s an opinion.5.2. STATEMENT: “Neo, civil status is NOT an election; your domicile is an election. And such election of domicile commutes a civil status. Your domicile in Alabama commuted a U.S. citizen civil status under Article I legislation because such legislation is not operative territorially within D.C. but rather over the 50 states of which you are a domiciliary BECAUSE of your election.”
REBUTTAL: False. “Spouse” or “driver” are separate elections, and they have domicile as a prerequisite. If you don’t have a domicile in the forum offering the status, you can’t assume either status based on the civil laws of that forum. You don’t BECOME a spouse or driver by electing a domicile. You need to make an additional election. Just so you don’t think we are making this stuff up, below is a discussion of “marriage” as a civil status which ties together the principles discussed so far. It shows that the “civil status” of the individual attaches to their domicile, and that the status extinguishes when they change domiciles:
But now comes the difficult question, which is raised in this way: Mrs. McCreery having resided in the state of Illinois for more than 20 months before she instituted her action for divorce against Charles W. McCreery, and, under the statute law of Illinois, service upon an absent defendant may be made by publication of the summons in some newspaper in that state, to be fixed by the court, It is contended, first, that it is always in the power of a state, through her courts, to establish the status of her own citizens, and that this was done in the case of Mrs. McCreery. Now, if marriage, by operation of law, creates the status of wife in Mrs. McCreery when she removes her domicile to that state, and such status is a res, then, under Pennoyer v. Neff, Tillinghast v. Lumber Co., Moore v. Machine Co., Toms v. Railroad Co., and especially Gibson v. Everett, supra, there would be a res in the state of Illinois, upon which the courts of the state of Illinois might fasten, by attachment or similar process, which would enable them to pass upon the right to relieve Mrs. McCreery from her marital relation to Charles W. McCreery, as her husband, notwithstanding his absence, and service by publication alone. If marriage is a civil contract, whereby the domicile of the husband is the domicile of the wife, and whereby the contract between them was to be located in that domicile, it is difficult to see how the absence in another state of either party to such contract from the state where was located the domicile of the marriage could be said to carry such contract to another state, even if we were to concede that an idea, a mental apprehension, or metaphysical existence could be transmuted so as to become capable of attaching to it some process of a court, whereby it might be said to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of such court. If Mrs. McCreery could carry that res in the state of Illinois, then Mr. McCreery had the same res in the state of South Carolina at the same time. In other words, the same thing could be in two distinct places at one and the same time, which res the courts of Illinois would have the power to control as if it were a physical entity, and which res the courts of South Carolina would have the power, at the same moment of time, to control as if it were a physical entity. Such a conclusion would be absurd. The justice who delivered the opinion in the case of Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, by way of illustration merely, purely as a dictum, —for that case had no earthly connection with marriage, —did say in that opinion: “To prevent any misapprehension of the views expressed in this opinion, it is proper to observe that we do not mean to assert, by anything we have said, that a state may not authorize proceedings to determine the status of one of its citizens to a nonresident, which would be binding within this state [italics ours], though made without service of process, or personal notice to the nonresident. The jurisdiction which every state possesses, to determine the civil status and capacity of all of its inhabitants, involves authority to prescribe the conditions on which proceedings which affect them may be commenced and carried on within its territory. The state, for example, has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved. [Italics ours.] One of the parties guilty of acts for which, by the law of the state, a dissolution may be granted, may have removed to a state where no dissolution is granted. The complaining party would therefore fail, if a divorce were sought in the state of the defendant; and if application could not be made to the tribunals of the complainant’s domicile in such cases, and proceedings be there instituted without personal service of process, or personal notice to the offending party, the injured citizen would be without redress.” Now, if the remarks, as dictum alone, of Mr. Justice Field, were intended to be restricted by him to cases where the marriage contract was executed while the domicile of both parties was in that state, and where the laws of such state authorized the granting of divorces, we suppose it correctly sets forth the law that should govern in such a case. But if it is intended to announce that such a conclusion would be proper in a case where a marriage contract was made in a state where both were domiciled, and in a state where divorce is not allowed, and where one of the parties to such contract of marriage should remove to a state where divorces are allowed, and there institute an action for divorce, causing the other party to the marriage contract to be served by publication alone, to which said latter party paid no attention, and a judgment for divorce was granted, we submit mat such judgment is erroneous, so far as the same relates to the absent defendant, by the decisions of the supreme court of the United States. The defendant has the right to interpose as a defense to such wrong that he has been denied [22 S.E. 186] due process of law; to interpose for his protection from such judgment the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, which provides, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” It was concerning this very protection under this fourteenth amendment that Mr. Justice Field, in the case of Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, said: “Since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, the validity of such judgments [where no personal service was made, or appearance entered, or pleading made] may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the states restricted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligation of parties over whom, the court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law.” (Italics ours.)
Charles W. McCreery, and Rhoda, his wife, whether it be said their contract should be governed by the laws of the state of New York, where the marriage was solemnized, or whether of the state of South Carolina, which was the husband’s domicile, and where he is still domiciled, and where the marriage was to be performed, never agreed that their rights, duties, and liabilities as husband or wife should be determined by the state of Illinois, or that the determination of these rights, duties, and liabilities might be had in an action for divorce for saevitia, where service upon either of them might be made by publication; and when, therefore, a judgment of this last-named state was rendered in an action to which Charles W. McCreery was no real party, such judgment was a nullity as to him. In the opinion of Mr. Justice Field, he further said on this point: “Whatever difficulty may be experienced in giving to these terms a definition which will embrace every permissible exertion of power affecting private rights, and exclude such as is forbidden, there can be no doubt as to their meaning, when applied to judicial proceedings. They then mean a course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our system of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights. To give such proceeding any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution—that is, by the law of its creation—to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit; and, if that involves merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the state, or his voluntary appearance.” Can there be any doubt but the judgment of the court of the state of Illinois does directly impinge upon the personal rights and liabilities, under the contract of marriage, of Charles W. McCreery with Rhoda McCreery? By that contract her personal presence with him was his right It was his privilege, under his contract of marriage, to receive at her hands those ministrations incident to the marriage state. To allow this Illinois judgment to be effective as a divorce, as to Charles W. McCreery, cannot be law. In Hull v. Hull, 2 Strob. Eq. 174, it was held that Gideon J. Hull having married his wife while both were domiciled in the state of Connecticut, under whose laws it was competent for either party to obtain a divorce for desertion, and in such a suit service might be made by publication, and he having deserted his wife, and thereafter she having procured a divorce from him, a vinculo matrimonii, in an action wherein he was served by publication, such divorce was valid. This judgment was rendered because the marriage contract between them was said to have been made with all the provisions of the laws of Connecticut pertaining to marriage, including divorce, which had become part, and parcel of such contract of marriage. And this was done and adjudged notwithstanding the state of South Carolina did not allow divorces.”
[Mccreery v. Davis, 44 S.C. 195, 28 L.R.A. 655, 22 S.E. 178, 51 Am. St. Rep. 794 (S.C., 1895)]5.3. STATEMENT: “QUESTIONS: 1. Are you a citizen of a political body called in the constitution the United States? (the 50 states united–their people, their governments and their geography); 2. Is Article I subject matter legislation operative only within D.C. or the whole United States defined in 1?; 3. Does your domicile on federal land automatically subject you to mandates under such Article I legislation in 2 or do you have to be involved in the subject regulated?”
RESPONSE: 1. Not if I don’t want to be. I need to choose a domicile to have the status, and I don’t choose it so I remain nonresident; 2. Its operative where the geographical definitions in the statutues say, which is federal territory and no state of the Union; 3. No. CONSENT to acquire the status subject to the mandate is the ONLY method the mandate is enforceable. Once you CONSENSUALLY acquire the regulated status, you have the duty described.If you don’t consent to the status regulated, then you aren’t liable. Not consenting to the status is the method of rejecting their commercial offer of a specific service. A nonconsenting party is called a nonresident foreigner. Even for Article I, Section 8, powers, slavery and theft are still unconstitutional. That is why Obamacare is constitutional as a tax: Because you have to consent to BE a “taxpayer” before it applies to you. Therefore it is voluntary and avoidable. You already said that sovereignty does not imply the right to obligate other sovereigns. A sovereign is called a “nonresident” in this case.6. Post 121:
6.1. STATEMENT: “For ADMIN: Topic is NRA status wrt to Article I:8:1-16 and 18 legislative acts. So go ahead an explain how…1. One domiciled in Alabama is not domiciled within the union.; 2. United States nation-union as a political body is different from a state as a political body:; 2.1. States are: 1) people, 2) government and 3) geography.; 2.1. United States is: 1) people of the 50 states, 2) the United States government (powers granted/surrendered to it by the states) and 3) states geography forming a union.; 3. States exercise their powers within their geography over their constitutents.; 4. United States exercise its powers within their geography (nation-union) over their constituents (national citizens). ;5. We exist in double capacity wrt the dual capacity of the two sovereigns to whom we delegated certain powers.”
RESPONSE: 1. The union is not a separate jurisdiction defined in any statute we have found, so the question is irrelevant. “United States” as used in all the federal acts I have found EXPRESSLY includes nothing OTHER than federal territory.; 2. We agree that they are different political bodies; 3. Agreed. 4. They act upon individuals ONLY within their own territory and under contracts extraterritorially. That contract is the employment contract for public officers when they operate in states. Employment contracts implement Article 1, Section 8 powers in respect to people in the states ONLY. 5. We exist in dual political capacity but we are subject to the civil laws of only one sovereign at a time based on domicile in only one physical location at a time and corresponding allegiance toward ONE government at a time. Otherwise, there is a criminal conflict of interest in violation of 18 USC 208.7. Post 122:
7.1. Your entire discussion focuses on the CONSTITUTIONAL context, which is separate and distinct from the STATUTORY context. You try to create the impression that they are the same, but they CANNOT be, since the geographical definitions do not expressly include the CONSTITUTIONAL states and therefore PURPOSEFULLY exclude them. As we pointed out in post 115, statutory civil law is law for government, not private parties. SEDM Form #05.037. You agree with this document since you haven’t rebutted the FACTUAL components within it. Some questions for you to illustrate the problem:
7.1.1. What would you call those in D.C. who are ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL “U.S. citizen” but not state citizens within Title 8 of the U.S. Code?
7.1.2. Does an 8 USC 1401 citizen also include DC citizens?
7.1.3. If it does, how do you distinguish a STATE citizen from a D.C. citizen in Title 8?
7.1.4. If “United States” is geographically defined as federal territory in 26 U.S.C., then how can you say a “United States citizen” in that title is ALSO a constitutional “U.S. citizen” as you call it?
7.1.5. How can you say I.R.C. Subtitles A and C are Article I powers that apply within a state if:
7.1.5.1. The geographical definitions don’t expressly include any constitutional state of the Union,
7.1.5.2. There are no internal revenue districts in the states, and
7.1.5.3. There are not implementing regulations to apply the provisions to anyone OTHER than public officers in the government?
7.1.6. Why does Congress limit the geographical definitions in SS and I.R.C. if they truly are subject matter rather than geographical?
7.1.7 Why did the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, in the Hansen appeal, refuse to prove how they got jurisdiction OUTSIDE the Statutory “United States” in the I.R.C. and outside of the only remaining internal revenue district, which is the District of Columbia if in fact we were dealing with Article 1, section 8 powers that are NON-territorial? It should have been a simple matter if what you say is true, and yet both the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Attorney positively refused to even address the issue and therefore agreed with Hansen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b )(6) by their failure to deny.
The above subjects are covered in:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Section 7.3
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmNote that we are not trying to distract the discussion, but rather APPLY it to specific powers that you allege are Article 1, Section 8 national powers. An example is the best way to learn how the concepts you are promoting apply to the average American and to a REAL situation that affects every American.
The reason we said that the discussion was too theoretical is that you refuse to leave the CONSTITUTIONAL context for citizenship and Article 1, Section 8 and apply it directly to a specific statutory franchise such as those indicated in the above questions. Hence, the discussion is too theoretical to be relevant to things that REALLY matter. -
Thanks.
In order to be “false” as legally defined, the statements must FIRST be “factual” and they must be relied upon by the hearer as factual. Nothing on this site has ever identified itself as factual. They were practicing a state sponsored religion of THEFT to believe otherwise. Our Disclaimer makes these points crystal clear:http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm
The only thing they prosecuted was THEMSELVES, by using PRIVILEGED materials that subjected them as members and made them the substitute defendant. The IRS itself rather than us was the only one enjoined. We love it.
The above government false allegations and many others are rebutted in:
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 6
http://famguardian.org/Publications/FlawedArgToAvoid/FlawedArgsToAvoid.pdf -
We have gone over all the posts in this thread so far and corrected many spelling problems. Below is our response to everything posted in this thread so far. We have been heavily occupied with other pressing matters so far, which explains part of the reason for the delay in responding.
This discussion addresses the dual sovereignty issue discussed in the following, which readers may want to read for background:
Great IRS Hoax, section 5.2.5
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htmRESPONSES:
Refer to these items as R# in any responses. For instance, item 1 below would be R1. I intend to fill in the evidence as a find it. This post is an outline and incomplete initially.1. Post #1:
1.1. STATEMENT: “But another individual, let’s say born and domiciled in Washington D.C. is a United States (national) citizen only. Such individual has no state rights because he is domiciled without its jurisdiction to be conferred any.
REBUTTAL: This is not true. Per Downes v. Bidwell, the protections of the constitution apply to the District of Columbia so long as the state that donated the land does not deliberately release them. Maryland donated all the land that D.C. sits on and Virginia took their side back. Maryland didn’t abdicate the protections of the constitution from that land, so for all practical purposes, those domiciled in D.C. are protected by the Constitution even though NOT domiciled in a constitutional state. Downes v. Bidwell.1.2. STATEMENT: “I am alleging that we are referred to, or addressed as U.S. citizens in such legislative enactments–irrelevant of where we are located or domiciled. Let’s not forget that Article I legislative rights are subject-matter not territorial rights–thus my domicile is irrelevant to my underlying involvement in the SUBJECT being regulated.”
REBUTTAL: Ones civil status is tied EXCLUSIVELY to their domicile per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) . Law from outside ones domicile, regardless of the political citizenship, is foreign and irrelevant. Hence, one cannot have any status under federal law to which federal rights attach without a domicile on federal territory, including U.S. citizen. The only exception MIGHT be when the person is abroad and seeks EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL protection from outside the COUNTRY United States. Domicile is NEVER irrelevant within any civil legislation. It is a PREREQUISITE to all civil legislative jurisdiction per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.1.3. STATEMENT: “Bottom line is that a political citizen CANNOT be an Alien, whether resident or nonresident, in relation to Congress’ I:8:1-18 (cl. 17 exclusive) legislative jurisdiction–legislative being the operative word.”
REBUTTAL: They cannot be a CONSTITUTIONAL alien, but they CAN be a STATUTORY/CIVIL alien. Statutory alienage is a function of domicile per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.2. Post #4: Post edit restrictions have been extended from 30 minutes to 120 minutes per Neos request.
3. Post #7:
3.1. STATEMENT: “Do you agree that Art. I, Sec. 8 powers deal with subject matter versus territorial jurisdiction (I:8:17 not withstanding)? Apart from I:8:17, there is no reference whatsoever to territory or geography. Agreed?”
REBUTTAL: Even Article I subject matter jurisdiction deals with federal property and territory. The taxing powers under 1:8:1 originally were exercised as import excise taxes enforced in international waters against foreigners, not within or against states or people in states.4. Post 19:
4.1. STATEMENT: “Thus for example, while i may be an IRC U.S. Citizen under the IRC, unless i receive payments from a public office (trade or business), or in connection therewith, there is nothing to report to the IRS under 26 USC 6041. The IRC is operative over Article I federally legislated rights called trade or business, compensation, employee, employer, etc., but not U.S. Citizen unless such citizen is located/domiciled outside the U.S. where the Constitutional restrictions do not apply.”
REBUTTAL: IRS is NOT operative under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 or 3 delegated powers. It operates only upon offices WITHIN the government and not upon PRIVATE parties in the states or upon the states themselves. It is a public officer kickback disguised to LOOK like an 1:8:1 and 3 tax, but it is NOT because it does not extend to those OTHER than public officers or offices to PRIVATE citizens. This is proven in:Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You Are a Public Officer for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm4.2. STATEMENT: “Therefore, when the employer errantly asks for federal IRS forms to be filled out, the Florida citizen should refrain from filling out any of them and instead submit a signed declaration of why he refuses–the subject matter of concern is outside federal legislative jurisdiction and strictly a matter of state created private rights, as a matter of law. Thus, one should refuse to submit federal forms and franchise their state private rights under Article I legislation.”
REBUTTAL: You contradicted yourself. First you said federal taxation WAS an Article 1 power, then you said it is OUTSIDE federal legislative jurisdiction . It cant be both. See my response above.5. Post 22:
5.1. STATEMENT: “Criminal jurisdiction is strictly territorial but statutory crimes legislated under Congress’ Article I legislative jurisdiction extend all over the territorial geography of the United States–the 50 states united under the U.S. Constitution–or what may also be referred to as the Union. All other crimes–crimes against Article I United States rights notwithstanding–are STRICTLY territorial in nature. In other words, the jurisdiction depends upon the territorial sovereignty over which the crime was committed.”
REBUTTAL: FALSE. All criminal law is territorial. All federal crimes are national crimes.
“It is a well established principle of law that all federal regulation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.”
[Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)]“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”)
[Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894)]“There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”)
[U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222.]
6. Post 23:6.1. STATEMENT: “3. Complete legislative sovereignty over the United States (nation-union, territories and possession excluded) but only with respect to Article I Section 8 Cl 1-18 (cl. 17 excluded) delegated rights or subjects. (all else withheld and reserved to the states by the X Am.).”
REBUTTAL: NOT. They can EFFECT the purposes of Article 1 WITHOUT having civil or legislative authority over anyone in a state. Such powers AFFECT the states but are implemented by OFFICERS of the national government. Those officers are subject to national legislation ONLY while on official duty. When they go home, they are under STATE law, not FEDERAL law. That officer within a state effecting Article I powers can only go into federal court in the context of his official duties. Anything done OFF duty is foreign and alien and not subject. What law applies depends on the ROLE filled by the actor. Those acting as uncles officers are subject to uncles rules, which are his delegation order, while on official business. Off duty, they are subject to state law or common law.7. Post 26:
7.1. STATEMENT: “Question: Is territory in this context synonymous with geography? Or can it also embrace banking, copyright law, the post office, etc.?”
REBUTTAL: Territory as defined in CJS EXCLUDES states of the Union. See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/territory.htm
Ҥ1. Definitions, Nature, and Distinctions
“The word ‘territory,’ when used to designate a political organization has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and does not necessarily include all the territorial possessions of the United States, but may include only the portions thereof which are organized and exercise governmental functions under act of congress.”
“While the term ‘territory’ is often loosely used, and has even been construed to include municipal subdivisions of a territory, and ‘territories of the’ United States is sometimes used to refer to the entire domain over which the United States exercises dominion, the word ‘territory,’ when used to designate a political organization, has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and the term ‘territory’ or ‘territories’ does not necessarily include only a portion or the portions thereof which are organized and exercise government functions under acts of congress. The term ‘territories’ has been defined to be political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States, and in this sense the term ‘territory’ is not a description of a definite area of land but of a political unit governing and being governed as such. The question whether a particular subdivision or entity is a territory is not determined by the particular form of government with which it is, more or less temporarily, invested.
“Territories’ or ‘territory’ as including ‘state’ or ‘states.” While the term ‘territories of the’ United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress “territory” does not include a foreign state.
“As used in this title, the term ‘territories’ generally refers to the political subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several states.”
[86 C.J.S. [Corpus, Juris, Secundum, Legal Encyclopedia], Territories]
8. Post 61:8.1. STATEMENT: “There is no cl. 17 sovereignty within states, only D.C.”
REBUTTAL. False. Federal areas are places where such sovereignty is and can be exercised. This includes forts, docks, shipyards, etc.9. Post 80:
9.1. STATEMENT: “Even when outside in China if one invokes a U.S. political status, such individual would be placed in D.C. by default.”
REBUTTAL: The reason they would be transported to DC is BECAUSE POLITICAL status would be incorrectly PRESUMED to be EQUIVALENT to LEGAL/CIVIL STATUS, and we know that isnt allowed. Since no one has gigged any court on this sleight of hand, it continues:
Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options and Relationships, Form #10.003
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitDomTaxStatusOptions.pdfEither moving someone physically OR legally (by changing their effective domicile) without their consent is KIDNAPPING and IDENTITY THEFT. What they are moving is the office, not the officer, and you have to volunteer for the franchise office before they can kidnap you as you describe.
10. Post 84:
10.1. STATEMENT: “But SS and IRC are laws promulgated under Art. I:8:1 and you are a United States citizen because United States is sovereign in those affairs and you interact with it through the national capacity.”
REBUTTAL: WRONG. SS and IRS are franchises available ONLY WITHIN the government to those who are ALREADY public officers. Government cannot pay PUBLIC money to PRIVATE people or use its taxing powers to redistribute wealth. Therefore all recipients of said benefits must be WITHIN the government.
“To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.
Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.
Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa. St., 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]“A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.”
[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]
They are not available to ANYONE in a state who is NOT ALREADY a public officer, even with their consent. No application for any of these programs CREATES any new public offices. As said in the License Tax Cases, Congress cannot establish a trade or business in a state in order to tax it. The geographical definitions in 26 USC 7701 bear this out. If you think these franchise apply within a state, then produce geographical definitions that EXPRESSLY include constitutional states. There AREN’T any.10.2. STATEMENT: “Aside from above matters (SS and IRC and other Art. I:8 matters) you most definitely are a state citizen and nonresident of Art. I:8:17 and IV:3:2. Neither SS nor IRC are passed on IV:3:2 or I:8:17, so it’s an irrelevancy.”
REBUTTAL: SS and IRC ARE passed in furtherance of IV:3:2. They are franchises and all franchises are WITHIN the government and act only upon government officers rather than PRIVATE parties in the states. The VOLUNTARY application for and use of licenses or de facto licenses (SSNs/TINs) create the VOLUNTARY connection between a specific human and an office, and therefore the PUBLIC and the PRIVATE. See:
About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm11. Post 86:
11.1. STATEMENT: “Both SS and the Federal income tax are legislated under I:8:1.”
REBUTTAL. They are NOT. They are legislatived under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 as franchises applicable only to public officers on official business and NO ONE else. The geographical definitions in the franchises themselves bear this out. Since they dont deal with PRIVATE people in the states, they dont affect the states or their citizens or domciliaries as pointed out earlier by Stija. The Constitution deals with PRIVATE rights. Franchises and statutes deal with PUBLIC rights. Different contexts. Show me any court ruling where the SCOTUS declared I.R.C. Subtitles A and C as an Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 tax applicable WITHIN a state. It has NEVER happened. The object of the tax is “the functions of an office”, and offices are NOWHERE dealt with in Article 1. The only thing included in 1:8:1 is excises on imports collected at ports of entry. Every other type of tax is EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL and applies only WITHIN the government to public offices and federal domiciliaries, wherever situated. This is exhaustively proven in:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm11.2. STATEMENT: “Yes, I am subject to the SS franchise if I am a number holder. Likewise, I am subject to the Federal income tax if engage in taxable activity with that number. But my status is a separate issue. My status is something I elect. And under the auspice of residual state sovereignty, I can maintain an alien civil status wrt other civil jurisdictions within my own nation. This is the very premise under which federalism was created.”
RESPONSE: Amen, pastor neo. This subject is exhaustively proven in:
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf12. Post 88:
12.1. STATEMENT: “If, however, the same state citizens involve themselves with matters legislated under Art. I:8 then they interact with the United States and its rights as national (U.S.) citizens and diversity does not apply because the matter is regulated by the federal constitution under Art I:8 and legislation promulgated in furtherance of the same. In other words, the matter is federally regulated. See 28 USC 1652 whose language couldn’t be more specific.”
REBUTTAL: NOT! They interface to the national government as public offices under 4:3:2, not under Article 1. All franchisees are public officers and must hold said office to invoke the terms of the franchise. The domicile of the party is that of the corporate CREATOR of the franchise and the office (not the OFFICER, but the OFFICE) under the franchise per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ). It is not the domicile of the OFFICER, but the OFFICE that invokes national jurisdiction and supersedes state law. But it is still a PROPERTY issue under 4:3:2 because the OFFICE was created by and therefore property OF the national government. One CANNOT have a civil Status, including U.S. citizen, under federal law without EITHER a domicile on federal territory OR by representing an entity that DOES have said domicile. There is NO OTHER WAY to invoke federal jurisdiction per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.13. Post 90:
13.1. STATEMENT: “Through your domicile man, but wrt to Art. I:8:1 legislation you are domiciled in the (constitutional) United States by being in one of the states forming such union.”
REBUTTAL: No. You can ONLY be domiciled in ONE place at a time and therefore be subject to the civil laws of ONE government at a time. When Article 1 powers are exercised, they are exercised by OFFICERS and the OFFICE is what has the domicile in D.C. per 4 USC 72 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.14. Post 94:
14.1. STATEMENT: “Political citizens exist in dual capacities just like the dual sovereigns governing over their affairs with respect to powers/subjects granted to each of them. Each political capacity confers a civil capacity through which one interfaces with each of the two governments within their respective spheres. Thus, when one interfaces with the United States on Article I legislative powers, one does so as a civil person resident/domiciled within territorial geography over which Article I:8:1 powers would extend–and that can only be the states of the union united to form the nation because NO OTHER SOVEREIGN could confer the same Article I:8:1 powers.”
REBUTTAL: Show me some case law that proves the courts are thinking about United States COUNTRY domicile separate from STATE domicile. I cant find any and if there isnt any and no such distinction is made in the statutes, youre just operating on THEORY and we dont talk about theory here.
BURDEN OF PROOF UPON STIJA:
Refer to these items as C# in responses. For instance C1 would be the first item.
Thanks to both of you for your passionate contribution so far. Since Stija is the moving party, he has the burden of proof. I agree with everything Neo said so far. The only thing Stija has offered are theories. This dialog has been remarkably sparse on facts and there is too much THEORY that wouldn’t stand court scrutiny. That is the reason for my delay in engaging in this pointless political and not legal argument. The only way to PROVE those theories is to produce case law and/or statutes which prove the following:
1. That the “nation-Union” and domicile within said “nation-Union” has any bearing on federal jurisdiction. We have found NONE so far.
2. That one can have a domicile within more than one sovereign at any given time and thereby have conflicting allegiances toward multiple political entities. This violates the biblical mandate not to serve two master and the legal mandate not to have a conflict of interest. It is a fact that one can have a physical domicile in ONLY one geographic place and have allegiance to ONLY ONE political entity through that domicile.
3. That Article I powers can or do regulate anything BUT the specific government personnel executing those powers. Even 1:8:1 powers are excises upon foreign commerce of privileged ALIEN traders engaging in importation. Every one of those traders has a license to do so and the LICENSE is the origin of the jurisdiction to tax, not the activity.
“The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power which springs from the bankruptcy clause. United States v. Butler, supra.”
[Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936)]__________________________________________________________________________________________
“The grant of the power to lay and collect taxes is, like the power to regulate commerce, made in general terms, and has never been understood to interfere with the exercise of the same power by the State; and hence has been drawn an argument which has been applied to the question under consideration. But the two grants are not, it is conceived, similar in their terms or their nature. Although many of the powers formerly [22 U.S. 1, 199] exercised by the States, are transferred to the government of the Union, yet the State governments remain, and constitute a most important part of our system. The power of taxation is indispensable to their existence, and is a power which, in its own nature, is capable of residing in, and being exercised by, different authorities at the same time. We are accustomed to see it placed, for different purposes, in different hands. Taxation is the simple operation of taking small portions from a perpetually accumulating mass, susceptible of almost infinite division; and a power in one to take what is necessary for certain purposes, is not, in its nature, incompatible with a power in another to take what is necessary for other purposes. Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, and to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. This does not interfere with the power of the States to tax [internally] for the support of their own governments; nor is the exercise of that power by the States [to tax INTERNALLY], an exercise of any portion of the power that is granted to the United States [to tax EXTERNALLY]. In imposing taxes for State purposes, they are not doing what Congress is empowered to do. Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. When, then, each government exercises the power of taxation, neither is exercising the power of the other. But, when a State proceeds to regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, it is exercising the very power that is granted to Congress, [22 U.S. 1, 200] and is doing the very thing which Congress is authorized to do. There is no analogy, then, between the power of taxation and the power of regulating commerce. “
[Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 21 (1824)]
_________________________________________________________________________________________
“The States, after they formed the Union, continued to have the same range of taxing power which they had before, barring only duties affecting exports, imports, and on tonnage. 475H537H2 Congress, on the other hand, to lay taxes in order ‘to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States’, Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S.C.A.Const., can reach every person and every dollar in the land with due regard to Constitutional limitations as to the method of laying taxes.”
[Graves v. People of State of New York, 306 U.S. 466 (1939)]
__________________________________________________________________________________________“In Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 62, it was said that the police power is, from its nature, incapable of any exact definition or limitation; and in Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 818 , that it is ‘easier to determine whether particular cases come within the general scope of the power than to give an abstract definition of the power itself, which will be in all respects accurate.’ That there is a power, sometimes called the police power, which has never been surrendered by the states, in virtue of which they may, within certain limits, control everything within their respective territories, and upon the proper exercise of which, under some circumstances, may depend the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, is conceded in all the cases. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203. In its broadest sense, as sometimes defined, it includes all legislation and almost every function of civil government. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 31 ; S.C. 5 Sup.Ct.Rep. 357. [. . .] Definitions of the police power must, however, be taken subject to the condition that the state cannot, in its exercise, for any purpose whatever, encroach upon the powers of the general [federal] government, or rights granted or secured by the supreme law of the land.
“Illustrations of interference with the rightful authority of the general government by state legislation-which was defended upon the ground that it was enacted under the police power-are found in cases where enactments concerning the introduction of foreign paupers, convicts, and diseased persons were held to be unconstitutional as conflicting, by their necessary operation and effect, with the paramount authority of congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states. In Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 263 , the court, speaking by Mr. Justice MILLER, while declining to decide whether in the absence of congressional action the states can, or how far they may, by appropriate legislation protect themselves against actual paupers, vagrants, criminals, [115 U.S. 650, 662] and diseased persons, arriving from foreign countries, said, that no definition of the police power, and ‘no urgency for its use, can authorize a state to exercise it in regard to a subject-matter which has been confided exclusively to the discretion of congress by the constitution.’ Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 276 . And in Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 474 , Mr. Justice STRONG, delivering the opinion of the court, said that ‘the police power of a state cannot obstruct foreign commerce or interstate commerce beyond the necessity for its exercise; and, under color of it, objects not within its scope cannot be secured at the expense of the protection afforded by the federal constitution.’ “
[New Orleans Gas Company v. Louisiana Light Company, 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]
4. How obligations or “duties” can lawfully be attached to a statutory status that one acquires without their consent without violating the Thirteenth Amendment. Constitutional/political membership status is nondiscretionary in most cases and is usually acquired by INVOLUNTARY birth. It therefore violates the Thirteenth Amendment to attach or associate DUTIES of any kind to said status. It also violates the Declaration of Independence: Consent of the Governed. Hence, the only thing the statutes can address are those who CONSENSUALLY acquire the statutory status to which a civil obligation attaches. That status is a FRANCHISE status under 4:3:2 that has NOTHING to do with Article 1. It is ALWAYS a voluntary franchise because this is the ONLY way to avoid involuntary servitude and the THEFT of rights that the obligations would otherwise make. All such thefts would violate the Fifth Amendment takings clause. PUBLIC rights are property and they would be STEALING property to attach them to otherwise private property. This is covered in:
4.1 Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and NOT Private Persons, Form #05.037
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
4.2 Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf
5. Article 1 CONSTITUTIONAL legislation can operate upon POLITICAL objects or POLITICAL citizens. They can’t. The reasons ought to be clear. Constitutional Article III courts are NOT allowed to operate in a political capacity, which is EXACTLY what they would be doing if they enforce legal obligations upon POLITICAL “persons”. See:Political jurisdiction, Form #05.004
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdfOnly FRANCHISE courts officiating over OFFICES and OFFICERS can operate in a POLITICAL capacity, and you HAVE to volunteer for said office BEFORE such courts can have any jurisdiction at all over the controversy.
_____________________
CONCLUSIONS
Our friends at sedm did get one useful tidbit out of Stija’s lead post. Thanks Stija. The following excellent quote:
“In the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty.”
[Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452]
. . .has been prominently added to the following pamphlet on the cover page:Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
The following quote from the lead post also needs to find its way into the NRA pamphlet:
Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U. S. 624, 644 (1982) (“[T]he State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident
“).
Where there is no protection, there is not duty to PAY for protection. I LOVE IT.
“The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares — such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the power of the legislature, and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262 ; State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants’ National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499 ; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358 . In Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property [199 U.S. 203] without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519.”
[Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905)]
If I don’t want to be a CUSTOMER called a resident, then all I have to do is choose to be a NONRESIDENT still protected by the Constitution and the common law, but UNPROTECTED by the PRIVILEGED statutory civil law.That means I am a NONRESIDENT to all civil law, including SS and IRC.
-
New Obamacare Website
-
mcwolf,
1. It appears that in the context of sedm.org, you haven’t read their member agreement, disclaimer, or Terms of Service, because they say they aren’t allowed to give promises or assurances of any kind. How can one break a promise they aren’t even allowed to make? See:
Terms of Use and Service, Form #01.016, Section 5
http://sedm.org/Forms/01-General/TermsOfUseAndService.pdf2. We agree with stija on the macpherson group. We have met the founder of the macpherson group, who was a neighbor and confirm stijas assessment. Larry Becraft also fits in the same category. If he told the truth, he’d be disbarred and starve to death. That is why the SCAM continues: Because all the people in authority who could fix it have a criminal financial conflict of interest to perpetuate the scam that pays their bills.
-
Here’s another film where he is the star and its even better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p98KAEif3bI