fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Neo,
Please repost the attachment with page numbers added. It is not formated properly for comment or actual use. Everything posted on these forums should have page numbers, and preferably also line numbers like all the documents we produce.
-
Based on the discussion in this thread, the following new information has been posted on this website:
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Section 8: Citizenship on Government Forms
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm
The information in this new section is derived from:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Section 13.1
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyANational.pdf
-
________________
E-Verify needs to be improved, Obama says
System can be an important immigration enforcement tool if not “riddled with errors,” the president said at a White House press conference
By Jaikumar Vijayan
June 30, 2011 06:00 AM ET3 Comments.Computerworld – The Internet-based E-Verify employment eligibility system can be an important enforcement tool in the fight against illegal immigration, but only if it can be made error-free and reliable, President Obama said on Wednesday.
Speaking at a White House press conference on Wednesday morning, Obama said E-Verify still needs to be perfected and safeguards put into place to protect against individuals being mistakenly identified as ineligible to work in the U.S.
“We don't want to expose employers to the risk where they end up rejecting a qualified candidate for a job because [E-Verify] says that the person is an illegal immigrant,” Obama said. “The goal right now is to see if we can perfect the E-Verify system.”
E-Verify is a controversial online system that is designed to let employers quickly verify the employment eligibility and immigration status of those seeking work in the U.S.
It lets employers compare information from an employee's job application with information contained in databases with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Social Security Administration (SSA).
The SSA database against which the matching is done contains more than 455 million records currently, while the DHS's immigration databases hold more than 80 million records. Results are available in less than a day.
Supporters of E-Verify have claimed that it is critically needed to prevent illegal immigrants from securing U.S jobs, especially those funded by federal stimulus funds. Earlier this month, Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee proposed a bill that would make E-Verify mandatory for all employers and employees within three years of enactment.
Currently more than 250,000 American employers have signed up voluntarily for E-Verify, with another 1,300 new businesses signing up each week, Smith said in a statement announcing his proposed bill.
E-Verify's many opponents, however, argue that the underlying databases are far too unreliable and error-filled to be much use.
Those opposed to E-Verify have maintained that the system improperly flags a large number of eligible workers as being ineligible for U.S. employment. Many have also expressed concern over the scalability of the system.
Up to now, E-Verify has been a mostly voluntary program, but that is changing. All federal contractors and subcontractors, for instance, are required to use E-Verify to vet the employment eligibility of their workers.
Several states and local governments are also moving towards making E-Verify mandatory for employers. Just last week, North Carolina passed a law that requires all local governments and private employers with more than 25 employees to eventually start using E-Verify. All state agencies as well as public universities and community colleges in the state are already required to use the system.
Another state that requires the mandatory use of E-Verify for vetting new hires is Arizona. The state passed the requirement in 2007 but was challenged from implementing it by the ACLU and business groups. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona is within its rights to require employers in the state to use E-Verify.
Obama's comments on E-Verify were made in response to a reporter's question asking if he would be willing to veto a mandatory E-Verify bill unless it was made part of a broader immigration reform plan.
Though Obama's response did not directly address the question, he stressed the need for comprehensive immigration reform. That means tougher border security, and tougher actions against employers caught hiring illegal workers, he said.
“E-Verify can be an important enforcement tool if it is not riddled with errors,” Obama said. “What I don't want is a situation in which employers are forced to set up a system that they can't be certain works.”
Jaikumar Vijayan covers data security and privacy issues, financial services security and e-voting for Computerworld. Follow Jaikumar on Twitter at @jaivijayan or subscribe to Jaikumar's RSS feed . His e-mail address is jvijayan@computerworld.com.
Read more about Gov't Legislation/Regulation in Computerworld's Gov't Legislation/Regulation Topic Center.
-
Nicodemus,
Thanks for finally posting and contributing to our discussion for the first time. We appreciate your contribution and interest. Great questions. Citizenship, in fact, is the most important subject on this site.
1. First of all, we didn’t write the diagrams. They were submitted to us by Neo and we don’t know where he got them. He would be the best person to defend the diagrams.
2. Title 8 does address “Aliens and Nationality”, but it also has to address the status of EVERYONE in America, including territories, possessions, and states of the Union.
3. We don’t think that page 9 is overly complex. We think Title 8 is OVERLY complex, because it doesn’t provide:
3.1 Unambiguous definitions.
3.2 Describe which “United States” they mean in each context.
3.3 Recognize the three “United States”.
3.4 Describe when they mean the GEOGRAPHIC context and when they man the GOVERNMENT context. They only define the geographic context but this context is NOT the ONLY context in which the word is or can be used. This is the same TRICK they use in the I.R.C.
4. Title 8 doesn’t and can’t just address who are “nationals” and therefore members of the “nation”. Otherwise, they would NOT need to use the word “citizen” anywhere in the Title. The fact that being a national and member of the society is distinguished from being a “citizen” in the definition of “national and citizen of the United States” found in 8 U.S.C. 1401 is proof that the Title address more than JUST whether someone has only “nationality”.
http://www.law.corne…01—-000-.html
5. You are PRESUMING in your discussion that “United States” is consistently used ONLY in its geographic sense. We don’t think this is a safe presumption and you have the burden of proving that it IS.
6. Documents on this site prove that at least in the context of Title 26 of the U.S. Code, the term “United States” within the phrase “sources within the United States” means the GOVERNMENT sense and NOT the geographic sense. See:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Sections 6 and 7
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7. Some of the uses of “United States” in Title 8 can mean the U.S.** because the only definition they provide is the GEOGRAPHIC sense, and this is NOT the only sense in which the word can be used. For instance:
Quote:TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1101. [Aliens and Nationality]Sec. 1101. – Definitions
(a)(38) The term ”United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
___________
[Title 8, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 8CFR215]
TITLE 8–ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER I–IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 215–CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES
Section 215.1: Definitions(f) The term [u][b]continental United States[/b][/u] means the District of Columbia and the several [u][b]States[/b], [/u]except Alaska and Hawaii.
______________________8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(36): State [Aliens and Nationality]
[u][b]The term ”State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.[/b][/u]
SOURCE: [url url=”http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Section%2014.htm”]http://famguardian.o…ection%2014.htm[/url][/quote]8. You overlooked what 8 USC 1452 is about. Look again:
[url url=”http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001452—-000-.html”]http://www.law.corne…52—-000-.html[/url]That section references “non-citizen national” (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21)) and NOT “non-citizen national OF THE UNITED STATES” (8 U.S.C. 1408). Twice, in the title of part (b) and the introduction they use the phrase “certificate of non-citizen national status” WITHOUT the phrase “of the United States” at the end. Hence, section (:cool: of that statute can and does apply to BOTH types of “non-citizen nationals”:
8.1 “non-citizen nationals OF THE UNITED STATES**” in 8 USC 1408 and 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(:cool:, who occupy American Samoa and Swain’s Island.
8.2 “non-citizen nationals OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA***” occupying foreign states such as states of the Union in 8 USC 1101(a)(21).9. Even if you ARE correct about whether a state domiciled non-citizen national is not eligible for a “certificate of non-citizen national” status, it still doesn’t effect whether they are eligible for a USA Passport. The fact that they are born anywhere in the Union, whether in a constitutional statue, a territory, or a possession, they are eligible for a USA passport. And the DS-11 form is a multipurpose form that covers ALL these people, but is ALSO used for civil enforcement purposes against those domiciled on federal territory. The important thing when applying for the passport is to:
9.1 Ensure that your nonresident status is correctly documented on the appliation and attachments.
9.2 Ensure that you are not confused with those who may be targeted for civil enforcement because domiciled on federal territory.
9.3 Ensure that you are not compelled to sign up for federal franchises or procure a government number in order to exercise your unalienable right to travel.
9.4 Ensure that those accepting the application do not break down the separation of legislative powers between the states and the national government that is the foundation of the USA constitution, either through malice, abuse of “words of art”, or through legal ignorance. The maintenance of that separation, according to the US Supreme Court, is THE MOST IMPORTANT job of ANY court in the land because it is the MAIN method for protecting your sacred natural and Constitutional rights.10. The problem with your illogic, is that if the DS-11 passport application really did only refer to Title 8, then why:
10.1 Do they ask for a social security number.
10.2 Give you a big long warning in the instructions about how you are subject to tax on worldwide income, which pertains to statutory “U.S. citizens” ONLY and NOT to those who are non-citizen nationals. See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924). This warning would be FRAUD if it addressed a non-citizen national.Look at the form yourself:
[url url=”http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/DOS-DS11-20080320.pdf”]http://famguardian.o…11-20080320.pdf[/url]
The problem is that the DS-11 form is a multipurpose form and it is very difficult to discern which of the two contexts they are implying: Title 8 or Title 26. This confusion is deliberate and the terms in Title 8 are rigged to magnify this confusion, we believe. That is why the USA Passport Attachment, Form #06.007 ([url url=”http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/USAPassPortAppAtt.pdf”]http://sedm.org/Form…sPortAppAtt.pdf[/url]) is required: To clarify the CONTEXT for each term and request that if they disagree, then they should provide proof or else be found in default. This sort of clarification can prevent a future prosecution of the sort described below:
[url url=”http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5494″]http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=5494[/url]
You may want to go back and CAREFULLY read the following document for a more thorough background in order to avoid cluttering these forums with questions and confusion that is already resolved and covered elsewhere on the site:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
[url url=”http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf”]http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf[/url][Code of Federal Regulations][Title 8, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 8CFR215]
TITLE 8–ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER I–IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 215–CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES
Section 215.1: Definitions
(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii.
______________________
8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(36): State [Aliens and Nationality]
The term ”State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…ection%2014.htm
8. You overlooked what 8 USC 1452 is about. Look again:
http://www.law.corne…52—-000-.html
That section references “non-citizen national” (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21)) and NOT “non-citizen national OF THE UNITED STATES” (8 U.S.C. 1408). Twice, in the title of part (b) and the introduction they use the phrase “certificate of non-citizen national status” WITHOUT the phrase “of the United States” at the end. Hence, section (:cool: of that statute can and does apply to BOTH types of “non-citizen nationals”:
8.1 “non-citizen nationals OF THE UNITED STATES**” in 8 USC 1408 and 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(:cool:, who occupy American Samoa and Swain’s Island.
8.2 “non-citizen nationals OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA***” occupying foreign states such as states of the Union in 8 USC 1101(a)(21).
9. Even if you ARE correct about whether a state domiciled non-citizen national is not eligible for a “certificate of non-citizen national” status, it still doesn’t effect whether they are eligible for a USA Passport. The fact that they are born anywhere in the Union, whether in a constitutional statue, a territory, or a possession, they are eligible for a USA passport. And the DS-11 form is a multipurpose form that covers ALL these people, but is ALSO used for civil enforcement purposes against those domiciled on federal territory. The important thing when applying for the passport is to:
9.1 Ensure that your nonresident status is correctly documented on the appliation and attachments.
9.2 Ensure that you are not confused with those who may be targeted for civil enforcement because domiciled on federal territory.
9.3 Ensure that you are not compelled to sign up for federal franchises or procure a government number in order to exercise your unalienable right to travel.
9.4 Ensure that those accepting the application do not break down the separation of legislative powers between the states and the national government that is the foundation of the USA constitution, either through malice, abuse of “words of art”, or through legal ignorance. The maintenance of that separation, according to the US Supreme Court, is THE MOST IMPORTANT job of ANY court in the land because it is the MAIN method for protecting your sacred natural and Constitutional rights.
10. The problem with your illogic, is that if the DS-11 passport application really did only refer to Title 8, then why:
10.1 Do they ask for a social security number.
10.2 Give you a big long warning in the instructions about how you are subject to tax on worldwide income, which pertains to statutory “U.S. citizens” ONLY and NOT to those who are non-citizen nationals. See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924). This warning would be FRAUD if it addressed a non-citizen national.
Look at the form yourself:
http://famguardian.o…11-20080320.pdf
The problem is that the DS-11 form is a multipurpose form and it is very difficult to discern which of the two contexts they are implying: Title 8 or Title 26. This confusion is deliberate and the terms in Title 8 are rigged to magnify this confusion, we believe. That is why the USA Passport Attachment, Form #06.007 (http://sedm.org/Form…sPortAppAtt.pdf) is required: To clarify the CONTEXT for each term and request that if they disagree, then they should provide proof or else be found in default. This sort of clarification can prevent a future prosecution of the sort described below:
http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=5494
You may want to go back and CAREFULLY read the following document for a more thorough background in order to avoid cluttering these forums with questions and confusion that is already resolved and covered elsewhere on the site:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
-
Neo,
For the purposes of facilitating discussion, the following form was just posted to this website:
Citizenship Diagrams
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/citizenshipdiagrams.pdf
Links to the above form appear on:
1. Taxation Page, Section 7.1
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm
2. Law and Government Page, Section 5.1
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LawAndGovt.htm
This is a very useful form in explaining citizenship to neophytes.
-
SOURCE: http://www.lvrj.com/news/conviction-chips-away-at-sovereign-citizen-guru-s-facade-118731494.html
According to this article, Davis was convicted.
_____________
Conviction chips away at Sovereign Citizen guru's facade
Posted: Mar. 27, 2011 | 1:59 a.m.
Samuel Lynn Davis couldn't help himself.
Even as the “Guardians of the Free Republics” elder and Sovereign Citizen movement darling was finally pleading guilty to 31 money laundering counts Friday morning in U.S. District Judge James Mahan's courtroom, Davis couldn't resist reminding us he is the real victim.
Davis, 56, told the court he felt victimized by a malicious, rights-trampling federal government that violated its own law and “devised a scheme of entrapment and inducement targeting me under the pretext of friendship, and deception of lies.”
“It has always been my intent to abide the law,” Davis read from a prepared statement that quoted the Gospel According to Matthew and former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Andrew Jackson. “Admitting poor judgment and accepting full responsibility for my actions, I violated my own principles according to God's Word and fell into the aforementioned traps, deceptions and bearing of false witness to my detriment.”
Judge Mahan, perhaps relieved the defendant's statement was only two pages long, accepted the guilty plea, asterisk and all.
In the parlance of those who study the Sovereign Citizen movement, Davis is considered a popular redemption guru, a fellow who preaches a strange gospel that mixes conservative Christian theology and Second Amendment worship with anti-tax rhetoric and blends in the sovereign's mantra that they are not bound by the mandates of the federal government, but are free individuals.
To them, income tax laws are unconstitutional. Driver's licenses aren't required.
Just navigating their Orwellian vocabulary and conspiracy-riddled philosophy takes a Rand McNally.
Until just a few years ago, Davis was a popular speaker on the redemption seminar circuit, which attracts thousands under the guise of explaining the government has no right to collect taxes. For his part, Davis bragged to followers he hadn't filed a tax return since 1998. In true sovereign style, Davis often identified himself only as “I am: Sam.”
Then came an FBI-IRS raid in March 2009, and “I am: Sam” became “I am: Toast.” Davis and sovereign cohort Shawn Rice were revealed as the central figures in an undercover sting after they agreed to launder more than $1.29 million in what they believed were illicit funds. After wire transferring $1.198 million, Davis accepted $73,782 and Rice kept $22,000 in laundering fees.
I am: Sam sounded like Alibi Ike on Friday.
“I became involved with people who were allegedly my friends,” Davis said. “They wanted to do some business. I accommodated them.”
If this were an isolated case of one anti-tax con man being reminded, whether he likes it or not, federal law applies even to those who choose not to recognize it, it would be easy to write off. There are anti-tax suckers born every minute.
But Davis is part of a movement that not only preys on the frustrated, confused and angry among us, but increasingly incites violence with its revolutionary rhetoric.
Devoted members of the Sovereign Citizen movement aren't merely Tea Partiers on steroids. An element among them is violent and deadly. On May 20, 2010, two West Memphis, Ark., police officers were murdered by Sovereign Citizen members.
Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols was a Sovereign Citizen, as was Scott Roeder, who murdered a doctor who performed abortions in Wichita, Kan.
In the local case, Davis compatriot Jan Lindsey, a former FBI agent turned anti-tax spokesman, last year pleaded guilty to not paying $109,000 in personal income taxes. He received no jail time.
Knowing Lindsey skated, Judge Mahan will be challenged to balance the interests of justice when Davis returns in June for sentencing.
Lucky for the delusional “I am: Sam,” he will be heard in a real courtroom paid for by the rest of us.
John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0295. He also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/smith.
-
Here is Sam Davis' guilty plea:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52573390/Sam-Davis-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Guilty-Plea
Here is an update:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5926&start=20
-
SOURCE: http://www.lvrj.com/news/sovereign-movement-leader-pleads-guilty-to-money-laundering-118685369.html
____________
Idaho man pleads guilty to money laundering
By Carri Geer Thevenot
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Posted: Mar. 25, 2011 | 4:33 p.m.
An Idaho man with ties to the anti-government “Sovereign Movement” appeared Friday before a Las Vegas judge and admitted he laundered about $1.3 million after undercover FBI agents told him the money came from a bank fraud scheme.
Samuel Davis, 56, of Council, Idaho, and another man were indicted two years ago on one count of conspiracy and 30 counts of money laundering. Davis pleaded guilty to all the counts on Friday, days before his trial was to begin.
After admitting his guilt, Davis read a statement to U.S. District Judge James Mahan. He began by quoting Scripture.
“For too long I have let this go on, attempting to find a better way,” Davis told the judge. “For that I apologize. There in fact is no other way, your honor.”
Davis admitted his guilt without the benefit of a plea agreement. Mahan told him each count carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
After the hearing, defense attorney Todd Leventhal said prosecutors had offered a plea agreement that carried a recommendation for about two years in prison, but Davis did not want to sign a contract with the government or give up his appellate rights. Leventhal said his client preferred to let the judge choose a reasonable punishment.
Davis, who is free on his own recognizance, came to court Friday with his wife. He is scheduled to return June 24 for sentencing.
According to the defendant's guilty plea memorandum, Davis and co-defendant Shawn Rice of Seligman, Ariz., laundered about $1.3 million for the undercover agents, who said the money came from the theft and forgery of official bank checks. The crimes occurred between about March 2008 and March 2009.
Davis took nearly $74,000 in fees; Rice took about $22,000, according to the memorandum. Prosecutors said Rice, 48, is a fugitive.
In court , Davis said government agents “knowingly, willfully with malice and with a conscious disregard for my rights … devised a scheme of entrapment and inducement targeting me under the pretext of friendship, and deception of lies.”
“It has always been my intent to abide the law,” Davis said. “Admitting poor judgment and accepting full responsibility for my actions, I violated my own principles according to God's word and fell into the aforementioned traps, deceptions and bearing of false witness to my detriment.”
Leventhal said the case had “hints of entrapment,” but he did not consider that a strong defense for Davis, whom he described as a religious “man of conviction.”
“He decided to do what he felt was right and take responsibility for what he had done,” the lawyer said.
Leventhal said his client is an entrepreneur who has no prior criminal record.
Law enforcement officials have said Davis and Rice were actively involved in an extreme anti-government organization whose members attempt to disrupt and overthrow government and other forms of authority by using “paper terrorism” tactics, intimidation, harassment and violence.
They have said members believe they do not have to pay taxes and consider U.S. currency invalid.
Authorities have described Davis as a national leader of the movement and said he travels around the country teaching its ideology.
Leventhal disputed the description of his client as a leader in an anti-government movement, saying Davis has problems with the way the government spends tax dollars but “believes in a clear society that has laws and rules and regulations.”
Contact reporter Carri Geer Thevenot at cgeer@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710.
-
Ooops! Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency
Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency
-
Neo,
We added your research to the following document on this website:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Sections 12 and 13
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyANational.pdf
Sections 12 and 13 of the above document tie government records and forms together to provide a complete and very clear picture. The table we mentioned above has been added to section 13.2, but it still needs the CSP codes filled in. If you get a complete listing of ALL the CSP and IDN codes from the SSA, we would appreciate posting it here for inclusion in the new table.
Thanks again.
-
“CSP”, According to the SSA POMS, is a “citizenship code”. It is defined in POMS RM 00208.001D.4.
The “IDN” appears to be an evidence code that synthesizes the CSP and other factors to determine your exact status. “RM 00202.235, Form SS-5 Evidence (IDN) Codes” describes this code.
BOTH POMS RM 00208.001D.4 AND RM 00202.235 sections are “conveniently omitted” from the online POMS because they are hiding something:
https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/subchapterlist!openview&restricttocategory=01002
If you want something to FOIA for, ask for these two sections. SCUM BAGS!
And HERE is how to request one's records:
https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100299005
Corroborating evidence:
1. SSA POMS RM 10210.500 General Information on Evidence of U.S. Citizenship for a Social Security Number (SSN) Card: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0110210500
Quote:3. Citizenship evidence for a replacement SSN carda. Numident confirms U.S. citizenship
An applicant for a replacement SSN card does not need to submit evidence of citizenship when the applicant alleges U.S. citizenship and the latest Numident shows either:
A U.S. place of birth (PO:cool: and a CSP (citizenship code) that is blank or
A foreign POB and the Numident shows a CSP of “A”.
For information on the parts of the basic Numident, see RM 00208.001.
2. SSA POMS GN 03313.095 Disclosure to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0203313095
Quote:On the Numident, a CSP entry other than “A” would be an indicator of a non-citizen. The CSP field is in the birth line of the Numident (see RM 00208.001D.4.) DHS, USCIS must provide SSA with enough identifying information about the alien to enable SSA to search for information. This would be information such as the individual’s SSN, name, and date of birth place of birth, mother’s maiden name, and father’s name.Only identity and location information aliens based on non-tax return information may be disclosed to DHS, USCIS.
Information such as name and addresses included in wage reports submitted to SSA by employers and self-employed individuals is considered tax return information and is restricted from disclosure under the Internal Revenue Code. See GN 03313.095A.2.b. for information about limited disclosures of tax return information that may be made to DHS.
The non-tax return information that may be disclosed includes:
Social Security numbers;
date of birth;
place of birth; and
address information.
3. SSA POMS RS 00301.102 Additional Requirements for Alien Workers- Social Security Protection Act of 2004: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300301102
Quote:B. Policy — Provisions of Section 211 of the SSPA1. Who is subject to Section 211 of the SSPA?
Section 211 of the SSPA applies to an alien worker whose Social Security Number (SSN) was first assigned on or after January 1, 2004. For the purposes of this provision of the SSPA, an “alien worker” is a worker who is not a U.S. citizen or national of the U.S. as defined in GN 00303.120.
NOTE: An alien worker whose SSN was assigned before January 1, 2004 is exempt from the requirements of Section 211 of the Social Security Protection Act, even if the SSN was not “work authorized.”
Although these provisions apply directly to certain alien workers, they can also affect the entitlement of any person seeking a benefit on the record of an alien who is subject to this law. For example, if an alien worker must be disallowed under Section 211 of the SSPA, a child claiming benefits on that record would also be disallowed, regardless of the child's citizenship or immigration status. See RS 00301.102F.6. for an example of an ESRD claim for a child who is affected by this provision.
[. . .]
For an alien worker who was originally assigned an SSN on or after 01/01/2004:
Does any record on the NUMIDENT for the alien's SSN (including the record established for an SSN assigned in connection with the current claim) show one of the following codes indicating the alien NH is or was at any time authorized to work in the United States?
An Evidence Code (IDN) of “H” indicating permanent employment authorization as a lawful permanent resident (LAPR), refugee, asylee, or citizen of a Compact of Free Association country, and thus has employment authorization inherent in immigration status; or
An Evidence Code (IDN) of “C” and/or a CSP of “B” indicating status as a lawfully admitted alien with work authorization (but not an LAPR).
See RM 00202.235 for Evidence (IDN) codes, RM 00208.001D.4. for “CSP” codes, and RM 00208.001D.6 for the “CYD” field.
If YES, the alien worker meets the requirement for having a “work SSN card” under Section 211 of the SSPA. Skip to Step 15 for determining whether the alien worker meets insured status based on his/her covered earnings.
If NO, continue with Step 7.
NOTE: Take action to correct erroneous CSP or IDN codes before evaluating these codes under this step. If an erroneous code cannot be corrected, evaluate the NUMIDENT record based on what the code should be and document the folder accordingly.
-
Neo,
Thanks for sharing your careful research and analysis on this MOST IMPORTANT subject! We appreciate your discipline and hard work.
For the benefit of our readers, it would be useful to explain what a “CSP code” is. I don't know what that is so others probably don't know either. A pointer to evidence in the following resources would be helpful:
1. Social Security POMS section defining what it is would be useful:
https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/partlist!OpenView
2. SSA forms/publications:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pgm/formspubs.htm
As far as your analysis, I would have to say that you are absolutely correct. I can't find flaw in it and it appears completely consistent with everything we collectively know up to this point. Your explanation is also very useful in removing the last bit of “cognitive dissonance” remaining in how to explain and defend how we fill out government forms describing our status.
In order to make your research useful in litigation, I think pointers to the relevant corroborating evidence would be useful in removing all doubt from less educated third party readers. This should include:
1. Pointers to the Social Security Policy Manual section that describes what information returns need to be filed.
2. Pointers to the Social Security Policy Manual and/or instruction booklets that talk about the CSP codes and their meaning.
3. Form instructions that betray what “alien” means on the form.
Once the above supporting evidence is added to the analysis so that it is confirmed by evidence, we'd like to add your analysis to the “Why You are a 'national'” pamphlet to tie the discussion in with reality so that the implication of the pamplet are perfectly clear and immediately applicable to one's REAL life situation. It should go somewhere near the end so that it integrates all the knowledge presented.
Based on your discussion, the critical facts that need to be emphasized are the following, which will appear in the preface to the new section we intend to add to the “Why You are a 'national' pamphlet:
1. Government forms ALWAYS imply the LEGAL/STATUTORY rather than POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL status of the party in the context of all franchises, including income taxes and social security.
2. “Alien” on government forms means a statutory alien domiciled outside the federal zone/United States**. This includes both people domiciled in a constitutional state and those domiciled in a foreign country. “alien” is always relative to domicile and not nationality.
As we have repeatedly emphasized, CONTEXT is EVERYTHING. The above is all that is needed to establish the CONTEXT for the discussion and relate it to the bigger picture. Every discussion of a complex nature such as this should always BEGIN by defining the context to leave absolutely no doubt or confusion in the reader's mind and to remove any and all possibility or opportunity for presumption on the part of government judges and bean counters intent on enlarging their paycheck.
Lastly, it is absolutely essential that a table be prepared similar to the following which clearly correlates all the various nationality and domicile permutations with the corresponding entries on the I9, E-Verify, SS-5, and Social Security CSP codes. Four new colummns will be added to the table below. The starting point for preparing such a table is found at:
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Section 2
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm
The table in turn should appear in:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Affidavits/AffCitDomTax.pdf
and the SEDM folks will be notified of the need for the change for the form.
Would you please take a crack at it based on what you have learned so far?
Thanks again.
-
Euroreiner,
Your response has been forwarded to the guy you responded to. His response will be posted here when received, since he doesn't participate in the forums.
As far as the item you responded to:
1. We disagree that what they have done is entirely above board and legal excepting full disclosure.
2. Many dishonest tactics are employed to expand the scam such as:
2.1 Interfering with those who do not wish to participate by not offering them a checkbox on their forms for PRIVATE nonresident.
2.2 Calling people frivolous who choose not to volunteer or acquire a status under the franchise.
2.3 Refusing to recognize or protect private rights by interfering with criminal prosecution of those who file false information returns linking them to the franchise.
2.4 Interfering with attempts to quit the franchise, or hiding forms used to quit, or calling those who want to quit “frivolous”.
2.5 Playing deceptive word games to add things to statutory definitions by fiat that do not expressly appear.
2.6 Interfering with access to common law remedies that could be used to AVOID franchises.
3. What they have done is ILLEGAL because as the U.S. Supreme Court has held, “Congress cannot establish a trade or business in a state in order to tax it.” License Tax Cases. This means that:
3.1 They cannot establish federal franchises within a Constitutional state.
3.2 They cannot enforce federal franchises in a Constitutional state.
3.3 It is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine to offer or enforce federal franchises within a state.
3.4 The word “State” within federal franchise law CANNOT and in fact DOES NOT include ANY constitutional State.
For all the reasons why what they have done with franchises and “benefits” is clearly illegal and unconstitutional, see:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 13
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
Fwd: Who is he??
Hi ho All, document stimulates the thought process regarding “Who the hell is Obama?” Worth the time. iron
Why the “intentional” silence ??
Here is a little something to think about!
In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures' lives, doesn't seem odd that there's so little we know about our current president, Barack Obama. For example, we know that Andrew Jackson's
wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery; Abe Lincoln never went to school; Jack Kennedy wore a back brace; Harry Truman played the piano.
As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.
We are all aware of the lack of uncontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing has been spectacularly successful. There are however, several additional oddities in Obama's history that appear to be as well
managed as the birthing issue.
It's interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself. We all know about JFK's magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few details about Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess. Joe Biden's aneurysms are no secret; look at Cheney and Clinton, we all know about their heart problems.
Certainly Wild Bill Clinton”s exploits before and during his White House years, were well known. That's why it's so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was soooo shy…” or “What a great dancer..”
It's virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow.
Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.
When did he meet Michele,, and how? Are there photos there? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc. What has he released? And who in hell voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010? Doesn't this make you wonder?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc?? Not one person has ever come forward from his past.
It certainly is very, very strange…
This should be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man. Have you seen a movie named “The Manchurian Candidate”
As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we went to school will remember our name or face; someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia — the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.
He is such a great orator; why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? Why won't he allow Columbia to release his records?
Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University…
Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there… but none remembered him.
Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have
a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia, ever.”
Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of '83 Political Science, and says, “You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him.”
Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
Some other interesting questions..
Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002?
Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order?
It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias.
The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived. No wonder all his records are sealed…
Please continue sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school…before he “reorganized” Chicago & burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention.
-
NBC Omits 'Under God' from Pledge
During broadcast of golf's U.S. Open, NBC omitted “under God” from a segment about the Pledge of Allegiance. Three hours later, the network apologized on the air for what it called an editing error. “It was not done to upset anyone and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it,” NBC said.
ACLJ is going “hog wild” over this omission? Or is that sheep wild? Why? Francis Bellamy [1835-1931], the originator of the pledge, was a liberal statist who rejected the Biblical concept of a family under God. He was also a student of Karl Marx [1818-1883] who believed the family was a primitive social order and that people needed to transfer their loyalty from the family to the god-state. Children learning this pledge stood in military rank holding their right hand to the sky while saying the pledge (The Nazi Salute of America). See picture enclosed. Bellamy designed the pledge to punish the South which honored God, the Bible, state rights, and the constitution-a threat to the Federalists. How could any good Southerner ever say the pledge? Bellamy certainly did not want “under God” in the pledge as that would destroy his push for social collectivism. Bellamy encouraged powerful devotion to the state and saw the loyalty and wealth in the family as a hindrance to statism. Since Marx, even democratic socialist states like the United States has enacted law after law to steal wealth and property from the family for use by the U.S., Inc. To the modern mind, the god-state is the savior of the world. Taxing families into poverty is a small price to pay for supporting your comrades. Obama's “hope” was that the socialist STATE would save America from recession and unemployment and poor health care. Goodness! If we can't trust the United States, Inc. to save us, who will?
So, what's all the hullabaloo about? Christians are in mourning this week over the desecration of the Pledge. But, do we really want our children or adults for that matter pledging allegiance to the United States, Inc. -a for-profit corporation unconstitutionally parasitizing itself on the backs of American families? What is the definition of the United States here? Where is the command in Scripture to pledge allegiance to any for-profit corporation? To the LORD God, yes. The First Commandment requires it. A pledge of allegiance to one's family is certainly in order by virtue of the Fifth Commandment. But, who has ever heard of a pledge of allegiance to one's family or God for that matter? I'll tell you why: Statists have removed the Bible and Ten Commandments from public education so that people will gladly turn over their property to increase the power of government.
The modern American has been so propagandized into believing there is something virtuous about the Pledge of Allegiance to the “United States.” Even Christians associate loyalty to the United States, Inc. as synonymous with devotion to God. Really? Sounds like idolatry to me . . . sort of . . .kind of . . . but what the heck? Let's all be unthinking, unquestioning good little statists. There's less trouble this way.
Please don't hear what is not being said. I am not saying we should not love our neighbor or our country . . . but pledging allegiance to a decadent, amoral corporation called the United States, Inc. which is not under God but under the control of NWO is pure nonsense. The Pledge has become a tool of statists to weaken the family and strengthen federalism, socialism, capitalism, collectivism, Fabianism, liberalism, positivism, legalism, and all the other ims.