fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
1. Sovereign immunity will be asserted, and the method to overcome that is found in the document we referenced. We won’t repeat it here.
2. It is a mistake to call any exaction against a nonresident or a nontaxpayer a “tax”. Such a suit would have to prove that it ISN’T a tax being challenged, but a simple THEFT by a person acting outside the authority of the statutory law against a non-statutory human and not “person”. Then they can’t use the Anti-injunction act or the Declaratory Judgments act as an excuse to FAIL to take the case or grant the relief sought. This is also covered in:
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004, Sections 6.10 and 6.11
DIRECT LINK: http://famguardian.org/Publications/FlawedArgToAvoid/FlawedArgsToAvoid.pdf
3. Its a mistake to sue the state. Sue the officer and JOIN the state to return the monies paid, because at that point they are money launderers. Money laundering is NOT a classical “government function” that can be protected with sovereign immunity, and if they do, they are criminally obstructing justice.
4. You will have to find the case law for your state indicating the constitution is self-executing. It can at least be presumed, based on the supreme court cite.
5. 42 USC 1983 invokes the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. It DOES NOT pertain to statutory franchisee “citizens” or “residents”. It is ONLY available against HUMAN STATE actors, not against the state itself. And there must be a deprivation of life liberty or property involved. This is covered in:
Litigation Tool #08.008, 08.009
http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
6. 1983 remedies are ONLY useful in federal court. They cannot be used in state court.
7. If the suit is filed in state court, the judge will try to remove it to federal court and you should anticipate and prevent that with your initial complaint. See:
Litigation Tool #11.001
http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm#1.11.__STATE_MEMORANDUMS_OF_LAW
-
The context needs to be made MUCH clearer:
1. What state?
2. Is the above a bar on such suits, or a directive WHERE to file the suit?
Based on our search, you live in Arizona and ARS means Arizona.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/6/14.htm
One suggested approach is:
1. Where one files depends on WHO the defendant is. If it is the state, it has to be the U.S. Supreme Court ONLY. If it is a human, it can be either the Superior Court OR a Federal District Court ONLY under the Constitution, Constitutional diversity, and not statutory law.
2. If it is a PRESENT company one works for, then the withholding agent personally and individually should be sued or else the person may find themselves on the street AND without resources to fight.
3. If it is a PAST company, then anyone in the company or government can be sued.
4. The suit should be a constitutional tort under the common law. Those not statutory citizens can take no other route to a remedy and they must be physically present in a state to file the suit.
5. If the suit is filed in federal court as a constitutional tort, it would be under 42 USC 1983.
6. Our first choice would be superior court and to sue the withholding agent personally and individually. Otherwise, it will extremely inconvenient.
The following is recommended as a starting point:
Civil Court Remedies for Sovereigns: Taxation, Litigation Tool #10.002
http://sedm.org/storepublic/index.php?app=ecom&ns=prodshow&ref=CivCourtRem-Taxation
This is NOT legal advice.
-
Use your legal subscription service to find the related cites. All members are expected to have such a subscription and this is a chance to practice.
The implication is that ONLY jeopardy assessments can be challenged and NOTHING else. Indirectly this is an admission that they can’t hear a criminal tax case because the IRS cannot enforce where the courts cannot supervise the enforcement.
-
Life in a Zombie Apocalypse
-
Klavan on the Culture: Night of the Living Government
-
Thx!
🙂
-
It looks like they took the materials off the SEDM Website:
SEDM Exhibit 09.031
EXHIBITS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Exhibits/ExhibitIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX09.031.pdf
Neo provided the SEDM materials, we are told.
You heard it here first!
-
Below is a rebuttal to his key points:
1. The fact that you mix territorial jurisdiction with complete and utter nonresident nonsense suggesting that a citizen is a nonresident alien (“NRA”) is baffling. Why? Because Congress has absolute exclusive legislative jurisdiction over nonresident aliens (foreign persons) Read Title 8 U.S.C. and your contention that a citizen is a NRA is debunked by the entire title.
He makes the PRESUMPTION that “United States” and “citizen of the United States” are the same thing within Title 8 and Title 26. They are NOT because the definition of “United States” found in Title 26 at 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) are NOT the same. See:
1.1. Tax Deposition Questions, Section 14
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Section%2014.htm1.2 Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not statutory Citizen, Section 2
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf2. If that’s not good enough for you, consider looking into the constitutional instances where Congress has absolute jurisdiction over FOREIGN trade and TRADE with FOREIGNERS within the several states as well as the Art. 1 §8 Cl. 17 jurisdiction–known as 28 U.S.C. § 7 in certain tax protester (guru gaga) circles.
28 U.S.C. 7 doesn’t even exist anymore!
3. Second, you may stumble across 26 U.S.C. § 7701(b )(1)(A) and (B ) someday to find that missing link that escapes your baseless argument disguised as amazing reasoning.
Those are definitions of Resident Alien and Nonresident Alien respectively. We have looked at those and our treatment of the NRA position is completely consistent with them. See:
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Section
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm26 USC 7701(b )(1)(B ) defines what a nonresident alien ISN’T, not what it IS. Do you smell a rat? This is covered in:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 5.2
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf4. Next, NRA’s are taxed federally… no matter if they are inside the “federal zones” OR in states on state land, e.g., the non-federal land in a state. The case law supporting that statement numbers in the thousands.
None of the case law we have ever read reconciles the GEOGRAPHIC definition of “United States” found in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) with WHERE the entity is nonresident TO. Every court we have read refuses to reconcile that MAJOR oversight and then tries to CONFUSE domicile or residence with nationality using the FRAUDULENT techniques documented in:
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Section 1
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htmThe fact that judges have to resort to such deception is proof they are hiding and protecting a fraudulent plunder program.
Nonresident alien INDIVIDUALS are only taxed upon income from “sources within the United States” per 26 U.S.C. §871, not on EVERYTHING they earn ANYWHERE. “sources within the United States” essentially is GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS, not payments between PRIVATE parties not engaged in public offices within the national government. This is covered inNon-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 7.
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
That liability is associated ONLY “nonresident alien INDIVIDUALS” and therefore “persons” (26 U.S.C. §7701(c)) who are taxed, not “nonresident alien NON-INDIVIDUALS”. “Individual” is then defined as a PUBLIC OFFICE in the government, as proven earlier in section 5.3. The “withholding agents” are made liable to deduct and withhold on nonresident aliens per 26 U.S.C. §1441(a), but Congress would be violating the Thirteenth Amendment if these “withholding agents” described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(16) were PRIVATE parties protected by the U.S.A. Constitution. Therefore, they are GOVERNMENT WORKERS and public officers WITHIN the national government. Congress can ONLY impose “duties” or “liabilities” upon its own agents, and not PRIVATE people protected by the constitution. Those agents, in turn, are public officers and they had to VOLUNTEER to become such agents before they could be held accountable to the DUTIES of their office. This is covered in:
Why Statutory Civil Law I Law for Government and not Private Persons, Form #05.037
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
FORMS PAGE:http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
An entire book has been written describing the I.R.C. Subtitles A and C income tax as a “federal public officer kickback program” and its reasoning is flawless. You may want to buy that book:
IRS Humbug: IRS Weapons of Enslavement
by Frank Kowalik, Universalistic Publishers, ISBN 0-9626552-0-1
An abbreviated version of the above book is found on the SEDM website below:
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm5. Fourth, there are at least three separate classifications of nonresident aliens. Care to tell me what they are in your mind? Yes, the three classifications (of NRAs) are in the Code and none of the classifications include citizens as described at 7701(a)(30)(A).
5.1 He makes presumptions he refuses to prove and cannot be proven. He PRESUMES that a statutory “citizen” mentioned in 8 U.S.C. 1401 and 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ) and the Constitution are the same. They are NOT. Even the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes this. See:
Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not statutory Citizen, Section 2
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf5.2 The Classifications of NRAs are found at 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c ), which are the REGULATIONS and NOT the “code” . “citizens” are not included because the only way they can become “taxpayers” is to be aliens in a foreign country under 26 USC 911 as he points out in Cook v. Tait. Cook was a Statutory citizen AND a constitutional citizen, so he had to be “rent” (called income tax) on the use of that status, which is property and a franchise of congress.
5.3 If this guy is filing IRS form 1040’s, he’s Already classified by statute as an “alien” per 26 USC 1.1441-1(c )(3). That’s what a statutory “individual” identified at the top of the 1040 form is: An alien. So he contradicts himself. NOWHERE is the term “individual” EVER defined to EXPRESSLY include “citizens” and ONLY include “aliens” or “nonresident aliens”. The authority for a tax on aliens is international treaties, not the Constitution. The authority for a tax on “nonresident alien INDIVIDUALS” is Congress’ authority over its own statutory “employees” in states of the Union, NOT the constitution.
6. Finally, read Cook v. Tait and see what happens to a “citizen” outside the USA… which would be in your outrageous theory a NRA in a foreign country (Hint: Mexico is a foreign country)– yet under the federal tax law, Mr. Cook (a citizen) was taxed as a citizen should be taxed… Would Cook be a double-non-resident citizen non-resident alien in your theory? Where’s that definition? By the way, that case by itself destroys your entire NRA theory. If you believe that the Supreme Court got it wrong… well, what else could anybody say to you to awaken your senses?
Cook v. Tait is dealt with in the following treatise. Cook called himself a statutory citizen and therefore had to pay “rent” (income tax) on the status, even though he was NOT. If he had pleaded properly, he never would have been able to even have his case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, because he was a stateless person:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Section 5.3
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
IN CONCLUSION:This guy is lazy so he operates on presumptions rather than facts. He is a prisoner of his laziness and presumptions. It also appears that he hasn’t kept up with our research. He read far enough to find an excuse to stop studying and stop questioning. He wasn’t interested in the truth, but in an excuse to not expend the effort to completely understand the massive FRAUD that has been foisted upon the American people. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and he only went as far as it took to close his mind. But minds are like parachutes: They only work when they REMAIN OPEN. His parachute appears to have closed years ago either because of:
- Laziness. He would rather escape with drugs, tv, porn, sports, etc. than have to give up these idols and exercise his continuing due diligence.
- Conflicting financial interest. He is a tax professional or guru or more likely wants to protect and maintain his eligibility for government benefits. Those benefits will quickly dry up when Uncle soon goes bankrupt because of the enormous and unconstitutional load they place on the public fisc.
- Simple fear. He wants to avoid social responsibility for fixing the problem or fighting it.
The major factor he overlooks is how legislatively FOREIGN people such as those domiciled in states of the Union become DOMESTIC and subject to federal jurisdiction. That “laundering” of their status happens by either misrepresenting their citizenship status on government forms as either a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” or as a “person” or “individual” engaged in a public office. This “Laundering” and “identity theft” of foreign domiciliaries is documented in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) and the mechanism is described in:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Sections 13 and 19.
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
You can find this entire rebuttal in the above document, at section 28.3.2.
-
When we say “versions”, we mean the year of publication for each document so that it can be verified. CJS publishes new editions of its volumes on an annual basis and they change.
-
Publication date:
Volume 19: 2003.
Volume 36A: 2003.
You can call the library yourself at 619-260-4612. That is the reference librarian’s number.
-
The resource you are referring to derived from:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/foreign.htm
We looked through our notes and resources and can’t find the edition of CJS that derived from. It came from the University of San Diego (USD) law library. Whatever printed version they have is the version it is. You can call them ask them if you like, and if you do, please inform us what it is.
Sorry for the omission. That resource was gathered before we realized how important the versions are.
-
PJTV: Stop Drinking the Haterade: There’s No Separating Faith And Politics
-
Dunno.
-
Motions typically are only scheduled one at a time. Nothing new is calendared until the present motion is ruled upon. When the judge indicates what he is going to do, even if he hasn’t ruled in writing, it is considered ruled upon and a new motion may be filed.
Local court rules may be more definitive. Even with the FRAP rules, there are often local rules specific to the to the court in question. See:
Federal Litigation Quick Reference, Litigation Tool #10.001
http://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/LitQuickRef.pdf