fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Neo,
I think you're missing the fact that you can be a “foreigner” or “transient foreigner” without being an “alien” in relation to the national government. This is the status of those who are “nationals” and “nonresidents” but not “aliens”. What about these people?
8 USC 1101(a)(3) defines an “alien” as follows:
Quote:TITLE 8 > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_8_10_12.html”]CHAPTER 12[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_I.html”]SUBCHAPTER I[/url] > § 1101§ 1101. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
The “United States” they are talking about above would appear to be the federal “United States**” and exclude states of the Union, which are foreign and sovereign. If it is in fact the federal “United States**” and not the “United States*” or the “United States***”, then you would be correct in concluding that those domiciled in states of the Union are “aliens” under Title 8. But WHERE is the proof of which “United States” they mean? We're not talking about religion here, but law.
In previous discussions on these forums, you were admonished that 8 CFR 215 and the definitions relating to aliens, of which an “alien” would be part, includes the 50 states. Therefore, for the purposes of aliens only, “United States” means “United States*”. See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Di…ection%2014.htm
Do you have any supporting evidence other than conjecture to prove that the “United States” they are referring to is “United States**” and not the other United States?
If we were simply to fit the definition of “alien” above into the venn diagram,
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…pVTaxStatus.htm
. . .it would appear that you are correct that a “non-citizen national” domiciled in a state of the Union is an “alien”. If you were correct, then a new item 6 with 8 USC 1101(a)(3) next to it would need to be added and a bubble labelled six would go into the bottom circle for states of the Union. This, creates all kinds of cognitive dissonance for the average person, however, because who is going to believe you if you tell them that you were born in this country but are an “alien” under federal law? I presume we are doing this research to REDUCE cognitive dissonance, not increase it. How does your approach help that goal? Some things are better left unsaid, and this is one of them, in my mind.
What proof do you have from third party sources that Title 8 DOES NOT refer to the national government and instead refers to some other unnamed entity such as the “United States” federal corporation? That seems like a stretch.
Perhaps there is some evidence that would shed some light on the status of those domiciled in states of the Union from the following:
1. IRS Pubs 515 and 519
2. 8 USCA 1101
3. The Statutes at Large.
4. Other sources on FG relating to citizenship.
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…citizenship.htm
I'll look and other readers of these forums should as well.
-
Corporations are creations and franchises of a specific state. State corporations are property of the state and federal corporations are property of the feds. This is the only reason that these jurisdictions can write law for these entities: Because they created them and own them. They are owned by their creator and subject to all the laws that regulate all corporations created by that sovereignty. As such, they are property of the state who created them. In law, all rights are property, anything that conveys rights is property, contracts convey rights and are property, and all franchises are contracts that therefore are also property.
The “STATE OF OHIO” therefore is a federal corporation that is property of its CREATOR, which is the “United States”, which is also a “great corporation” according to the Supreme Court. To this federal corporation attaches all property donated to the public use of the “United States”. The fellow was right, but maybe you didn't see the connection because you didn't read the latest version of the following:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
-
Health Care Reform Means more power for the IRS
http://www.thenhf.com/articles/articles_968/articles_968.htm
-
Neo,
1. “United States” is defined in Title 8 as follows, and THIS “United States” is the “United States**” and not the “United States*”:
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.
2. As far as the Venn Diagram, based on your comments relating to “nationals of the United States**” it could be improved. Not sure how, though.
3. I modified my earlier post to say the following about American Samoa and Swains Island:
Quote:Therefore, American Samoa and Swain's Island and the Canal zone are under the jurisdiction of the “United States*” for the purposes of aliens ONLY. The definition of “United States” found in Title 8 seems to refer to the “United States**” in the venn diagram. These areas are within the “American Union” as described in the case above, although not being territories of the United States under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.Why the need to split hairs? We could have avoided all of this if you would have just read the three things we pointed to earlier BEFORE you launched your attack. We're wasting time here rehashing old material. I'm not here to entertain or tutor people who are too lazy to read our materials, but to develop mainly NEW material that can be added to existing research or correct errors in existing research.
By way of refresher for new forum participants or freedom neophytes, the terms “United States*”, “United States**”, and “United States***” used throughout this website and in the forums are defined in:
1. Citizenship Status v. Tax Status
http://famguardian.o…pVTaxStatus.htm
2. Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not statutory “Citizen”, Section 2
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf
-
Neo,
8 CFR 215.1(e) includes American Samoa and Swains Island while 8 USC 1101 doesn't because, as we said before, that reg relates to ALIENS ONLY and NOT “citizens”. The feds have control over aliens EVERYWHERE within the union, including within a foreign state called a “state of the Union”.
Quote:While under our constitution and form of government the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the states, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship, are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations. As said by this court in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 413, speaking by the same great chief justice: 'That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects is the government of the Union. It is their government, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to [130 U.S. 581, 605] be in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes her government is complete; to all these objects, it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.”[. . .]
“The power of exclusion of foreigners [aliens who are nationals of a different country and NOT a state of the Union] being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one. The powers of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be hampered, when needed for the public good, by any considerations of private interest. The exercise of these public trusts is not the subject of barter or contract.“
[/color]By “American territory” above, they mean the “United States**” PLUS the “United States***”, which collectively together equal the “United States*”.
Therefore, American Samoa and Swain's Island and the Canal zone are under the jurisdiction of the “United States*” for the purposes of aliens ONLY. The definition of “United States” found in Title 8 seems to refer to the “United States**” in the venn diagram. These areas are within the “American Union” as described in the case above, although not being territories of the United States under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
That's covered in section 21.1.2 of the NRA Position Pamphlet
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
8 USC 1101(a)(38) describes the “United States**”, not the “United States*”. They can't legislate for the “United States*” except in the case of ALIENS ONLY. That is why all statutory “taxpayers” MUST be and are “aliens” and therefore “individuals” to begin with: Because that is the only status over which states of the Union and the feds enjoy CONCURRENT jurisdiction within the borders of a state of the Union. That is the ONLY way you can be a “taxpayer” simultaneously under two completely separate jurisdictions, and even then, you must do so by contract under a treaty with the country that the alien came from and request the BENEFITS of that treaty while one is here as such alien. If they never request the “benefit” as an alien in a state of the Union, they continue to be NONTAXPAYERS unless they change their domicile to federal territory AND become a public officer in the government. In other words, aliens (foreign nationals) within a state must avail themselves of the benefit of a treaty franchise and sign the franchise contract to become “taxpayers”. That is the only way the feds can procure the extraterritorial jurisdiction they need in a foreign state called a “state of the Union” to enforce their civil laws against you.
Come on, neo, pay attention. You're not doing your homework and using the evidence vacuum that creates to “curve fit” as you call it. Presumptions or careless choice of words or lack of due diligence can land people in jail. These forums are not intended as a place to get “free tutoring”. You should only come here as a last resort AFTER you have read all the materials on a given subject and been unable to answer your questions by any other means.
NO PRESUMPTIONS, PLEASE!
-
If they didn't use the term “United States of America” in the code, but they did use it on the passport, then it's unsafe and presumptius to ASSUME that they are equivalent.
The statutes you describe can only relate to community property and territory delegated to the care and management of the general government, because that is all they can write law for. States of the Union:
1. Are not expressly mentioned in the statutes and therefore purposefully excluded because of the definition of “State” in 8 USC 1101(a)(36). The phrase “several States” can ONLY mean THESE states.
Quote:8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(36)(a) Definitions
(36) State [Aliens and Nationality]
The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
2. Are not “territory” of the general government. See:
http://famguardian.o…c/territory.htm
3. Are sovereign and foreign with respect to the general government for the purposes of legislative jurisdiction. See:
http://famguardian.o…pic/foreign.htm
The only exceptions are interstate commerce, aliens (permanent residence), and foreign commerce, and all of these are franchises involving essentially “foreign commerce” and foreign relations. This is covered in:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…urisdiction.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
“United States of America” is nowhere mentioned in the diagram you reference. Only “United States” is. You are ASSUMING that “United States*” the nation is equivalent to “United States of America”. I haven't seen any evidence that proves that they are. “United States of America” is the collective states of the Union mentioned and defined ONLY in the Articles of Confederation and nowhere else that we could find. “United States*” ALSO includes federal territory.
The closest thing to the “United States of America” in the article you referenced is “United States***” A person born in the “United States of America” or the “United States***” would be:
1. A “national of the United States***” in the venn diagram.
2. A “national” described in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21)
3. A “non-citizen national” described in 8 USC 1452.
4. Status #3.1 in the table at the beginning.
For more details, see:
http://famguardian.o…nitedStates.htm
-
Neo,
Implementing what you suggest would require a few additional forms and procedures, and could not be done for the sake or revenue or with a commercial purpose, or it would be shut down as a “tax shelter”. A “tax shelter”, remember, is a device used by a “taxpayer” to reduce a lawfully assessed tax liability.
I don’t see why Americans ought to have to waive their sovereignty or sovereign immunity and lie on a government form under penalty of perjury and trade ALL their rights in exchange for statutory “privileges” in order to satisfy their moral but not legal duty to defend their country. That is absolute BULLSHIT. They ought to be given honor and dignity for doing so, not handed a ball and chain and told they will be reprimanded if they don’t LIE on a government form that will elect themselves into a public office that they can’t lawfully occupy anyway if they sign it. What you suggest in supporting people who want numbers and who want to participate in the Ponzi scheme would require us to do all of these things, and we AREN’T going to do it, because it is ALL FRAUD. You have to LIE to become a “taxpayer” no matter how you look at it, unless you ALREADY occupy a public office in the legislative branch BEFORE you fill out any tax form. How many people in the military satisfy that criteria? NONE!
Even the way they recruit people into the military is FRAUD. They use “words of art” to confuse constitutional citizens for statutory citizens so they can deceive them into believing they have jurisdiction to implement draft registration for a person in a state of the Union. Is THAT how you treat people who may end up sacrificing their life in defense of what essentially amounts to a private corporation that doesn’t give a DAMN about private rights and selectively enforces voluminous laws in such a way that it ONLY benefits their personal pocketbook? BULLSHIT. See:
1. Why You Aren’t Subject to the Draft
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Military/D…jectToDraft.htm2. Lawfully Avoiding the Military Draft
http://sedm.org/shop/lawfully-avoiding-the-military-draft/On the subject of the FRAUDULENT draft registration and everything else that relates to government, the Bible says:
“And have no fellowship [or association] with the unfruitful works of [government] darkness, but rather reprove [rebuke and expose] them.”
[Eph. 5:11, Bible, NKJV]“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law [man’s law].”
[Gal. 5:18, Bible, NKJV]“Shall the throne of iniquity [the U.S. Congress and the federal judiciary], which devises evil by [obfuscating the] law [to expand their jurisdiction and consolidate all economic power in their hands by taking it away from the states], have fellowship with You? They gather together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood [of “nontaxpayers” and persons outside their jurisdiction, which is an act of extortion and racketeering]. But the Lord has been my defense, and my God the rock of my refuge. He has brought on them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; the Lord our God [and those who obey Him and His word] shall cut them off [from power and from receiving illegal bribes cleverly disguised by an obfuscated law as legitimate “taxes“].“
[Psalms 94:20-23, Bible, NKJV. QUESTION FOR DOUBTERS: Who else BUT Congress and the judiciary can devise “evil by law”?]“Come out from among them [the unbelievers and government idolaters]
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.
I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be my sons and daughters,
Says the Lord Almighty.”
[2 Corinthians 6:17-18, Bible, NKJV]“Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: ‘The Lord knows those who are His,’ and, ‘Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from [not associate with] wickedness [wherever it is found, and especially in government].’ “
[2 Tim. 2:19, Bible, NKJV]If they provided a way to participate in the military without becoming a federal “person” or a “taxpayer” and without surrendering sovereign immunity, then what you suggest might be possible in the case of those in the military who are serving the country. We do respect these people and want to help them, but the way the laws are written and enforced right now, it is impossible to help them stay in the Ponzi scheme and still obey God’s law, unfortunately. We didn’t create this problem, but we certainly can’t and won’t perpetuate or aid it because that would be mutiny against God.
“No servant [or religious ministry or biological person] can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [government].”
[Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV]We don’t enjoy being “purists”, but the extent of corruption within the system forces us to do so. We wish there was a way to approach this problem with gray rather than black and white, because we like you do wish we could broaden the audience for our research and materials.
The definition of “public office” we provide on this website is not too narrow. See the following:
The “trade or business” scam, Section 12
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htmIn a general sense you may be correct, but courts don’t deal in the general sense of terms, but the legal sense. The above section addresses the legal definition that courts MUST operate under.
From a legal perspective, a “public officer” is someone who exercises complete discretion to execute their sovereign duties without supervision other than law. An ordinary worker therefore would not qualify, and neither would the “taxpayer” described in the Internal Revenue Code at 26 USC 7701(a)(14). “Taxpayers” are supervised by the IRS instead of the courts. Therefore it is impossible to be a “taxpayer” and a “public officer” at the same time. Also, all “taxpayers” are aliens under federal law, and it is illegal for an alien to be a “public officer”. The whole thing is, and always has been a scam from the beginning, cleverly disguised using “words of art” to look like but not actually be, a lawful and constitutional “tax”.
A commissioned officer in the U.S. military is a “public officer”, no doubt. I would submit, however, that:
1. The public office attaches to the private life of the person and not the public life, because it attaches to private earnings that are private property that must be converted to a public use by consent of the recipient using a W-4 or a W-8ECI. You probably have a delegation of authority order as a commissioned military officer. Does it require you to file tax returns or pay income tax in the context of your duties as a public officer? If it doesn’t, then the REAL “public office” that is the “taxpayer” is NOT the one you serve in!
2. He may be A “public officer” but he is not THE public officer described in the I.R.C., because all “taxpayers” are public officers and aliens and not “citizens”. See:
2.1 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3).
2.2 Why your government is either a thief or you are a “public officer” for income tax purposes, Form #05.008
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyThiefOrEmployee.pdfSince “citizens” are never expressly included in the definition of “individual”, you can’t be an “individual” and a “taxpayer” without being an alien. Even the statutory “U.S. citizen” mentioned in 26 U.S.C. 911 is in fact an “alien” in relation to the foreign country he temporarily visits under a tax treaty with the foreign country. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Corporations, no doubt, are “citizens” and not aliens, but they are subject to the same restrictions. See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/includes.htm3. He is not in the right branch of government to be the public officer “taxpayer” described in the I.R.C. 7701(a)(14). The Constitution authorizes ONLY Congress to lay AND collect taxes and they can’t delegate any part of that authority to another branch in relation to those domiciled within states of the Union because of the separation of powers. Otherwise, they have separated the “taxation” from the “representation” function. The American revolution was fought because of taxation WITHOUT representation. Those two powers MUST coincide in the SAME physical person. That is why the House of Representatives are the ones who are required by the Constitution to both PROPOSE spending bills: Because THEY are the ones who have to come up with the money to pay the “bill” DIRECTLY from among constituents they serve in the district! That is also why they are elected every two years: Because if they get greedy, we can throw the bastards out IMMEDIATELY.
The IRS, to be lawful, must be in the legislative and not executive branch. All “taxpayers” must be in the legislative branch as well or we have a separation of powers problem. Even courts officiating over the I.R.C. Subtitles A and C income tax franchise also must be in the legislative branch acting as legislative and not judicial officers officiating over a franchise in order for the enforcement to be lawful. The military and the Defense Department is in the executive branch. Therefore, it is impossible to be THE “public officer” that could be the “taxpayer” described in I.R.C. 7701(a)(14) if one is a commissioned officer in the U.S. military. That is also why your delegation of authority order cannot contain duties that can only be exercised by someone in another branch of the government who is ALSO a public officer.
Our tax system is and always has been:
“Aliens at home, citizens abroad.”
The Canadian income tax works the SAME way: It imposes the income tax on ONLY “residents” and a “resident” is never defined in the Income Tax Act, but it means an alien with a domicile on government property. Every country runs their tax system this way. The only variance across countries is the “words of art” they use to hide the truth and illegally recruit “citizens” into being “taxpayers”.
By signing a form W-8ECI, you are admitting under penalty of perjury that you are a “foreign person” and therefore a “person” and an “individual” and an “alien”. Commissioned officers in the U.S. military should not be signing government forms under penalty of perjury that contain falsehoods relating to their status, and especially should not do so knowingly and willfully. All commissioned officers in the U.S. military MUST be “U.S. citizens”, but THAT kind of U.S. citizen can only mean a constitutional and not statutory “Citizen” as far as we understand. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to appoint commissioned officers from states of the Union. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a commissioned officer and a “taxpayer” at the same time. You can’t be an alien and a citizen at the same time and all taxpayers are aliens. Even Jesus Himself agreed with us on this:
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings [governments] of the earth [lawfully] take customs or taxes, from their sons [citizens and subjects] or from strangers [“aliens“, which are synonymous with “residents” in the tax code, and exclude “citizens“]?
Peter said to Him, “From strangers [“aliens“/”residents” ONLY. See 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) and 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3)].”
Jesus said to him, “Then the sons [of the King, “citizens” of the Republic, who are all sovereign
“nationals” and “nonresidents” but not “aliens” under federal law] are free [sovereign over their own person and labor. e.g. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY]. “
[Matt. 17:24-27, Bible, NKJV]For those readers who want to look at the W-8ECI form, look here:
FORM: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw8eci.pdf
INSTRUCTIONS: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw8eci.pdfIf you want to bribe someone who isn’t even part of the U.S. government and works for the IRS in order to procure a public office in the legislative branch that you don’t occupy using money that isn’t a “Tax” as legally defined but “looks” like a tax under the “color of law”, and sign government forms under penalty of perjury that you know contain falsehoods about your status, then that is your decision. That’s a crime in violation of 18 USC 201 and 210 and public officers should NOT knowingly engage in criminal acts and can be permanently removed from office if they do. To do all that so you can qualify to authorize the government to STEAL from your own children and compel them to pay you something for your personal retirement seems absolutely despicable to me. Governments don’t produce anything. All they do is STEAL from peter to pay for paul using usually deceit in commerce through “words of art”. And then they put “public officers” such as paul on the jury and let him convict those who don’t want to play the role of peter, in criminal violation of 18 USC 208. No one in their right mind who has a full awareness of how the system words can knowing participate in it without committing a crime. Those in government who do know how it works further extend the fraud by pretending that they don’t know to protect their plausible deniability and prevent a charge of “willfulness”.
-
Republic,
Couldn't have said it better myself. For more along the same lines, in decreasing order of relevance and value, see:
1. Policy Document: Corruption Within Modern Christianity, Form #08.012
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/PolicyDocs/CorrModernChristianity.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
2. What Pastors and Clergy Need to Know About Government and Taxation, Form #12.006
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/LibertyU/WhatPastorsNeedToKnow.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
3. Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/SelfFamilyChurchGovn…OfAuthority.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
Welcome to Family Guardian and please feel encouraged to share more of your wonderful views and research with the rest of fellowship at any time in the future.
-
Republic,
Congratulations and thanks for the update! Please post the text from the notice and demand letter you used in these forums so everyone can see what you did. This will be very helpful for a lot of people. Please redact the personal information from your letter for your protection.
-
Riverway,
Thanks. I needed that.
-
As usual, terms used on the passport (and ALL government forms, for that matter) are deliberately ambiguous because not defined and therefore are untrustworthy. The main goal is obviously to give undue discretion to corrupt judges (in judicially determining the meaning of “word of art” terms) who want to kidnap your identity and move you to the District of Criminals so you have to bend over for the King as a “person” domiciled in his figurative (contactual) castle. See 26 USC 7701(a)(39) and 26 USC 7408(d). That is why fellowship members who want to use our materials are required to send the following to the Dept of State for their state and the federal government: To define all terms they use on government forms so that they are not misconstrued, and to establish their legal status so that the forms they file can't change it.
Legal Notice of Change in Domicile/Citizenship and Divorce from the United States
http://sedm.org/Form…/NotDivorce.zip
You're not surprised, are you? We're not a society of law as the founders intended so long as the laws put that much discretion in the hands of any one man or small group of men in the government.
Quote:“For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1885)]
The “Legal Notice” above TAKES AWAY all that discretion. All the current corruption in our legal system is introduced through this mechanism, in combination with the corruption of federal judges by making them subject to IRS extortion starting in 1938 with O'Malley v. Woodrough. Congress and the law revision counsel of the House of Representatives who write the U.S. Code are doing this to deliberately destroy the separation of powers that is the main protection for the private rights that governments are instituted to protect. See:
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ionOfPowers.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
The people in airports and ports of entry throughout the world who are going to read the passport are going to think it is a document from a “nation”, not the federal zone, under the law of nations. Therefore, I contend that the “United States” can only mean the “nation” on the passport whereas that in title 8 is entirely different. Context, in the legal field, is EVERYTHING in determining the legislative intent and meaning of terms used. That is why the front cover of the passport says “United States of America Passport” and not “United States” passport. The “United States of America” was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean the collective states of the Union and exclude federal territory. See the United States v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936).
The only way to avoid putting undue discretion in the hands of a corrupt judge or government worker is to define ALL terms used on government forms that you are forced to fill out in an attachment and writing above your signature: “Not valid without signed ______attachment, ___pages”. This ends all possibility of controversy or harmful presumption and takes away all discretion that a judge or government prosecutor or employee might have. Hence, all those using materials on this website are required and expected to attach the following to all government forms they fill out:
1. Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
2. USA Passport Attachment, Form #06.007
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
3. Jury Summons Attachment, Form #06.015
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
4. Voter Registration Attachment, Form #06.003
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
Thomas Jefferson described WHY we must define all the terms in advance of every judicial controversy:
Quote:“It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights… Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power… Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.“[Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…n/jeff0900.htm]
If they won't accept or act on the form with the attachment, we must submit a MANDATORY AMENDMENT after the transaction using a Certificate of Service and Certified mail to ensure that we have proof that they have the WHOLE truth in their records of the transaction at all times and are therefore compelled to act in strict accordance with the law and in accordance with our TRUE declared legal status at all times. For an example of such an amendment, see:
Passport Amendment Request, Form #06.016
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ortAmendReq.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
As the Path to Freedom says, you should view every government form you fill out as an opportunity to contract away or surrender your rights to the government through some kind of franchise. I'm sure you know that all franchises are contracts. You wouldn't sign any contract that didn't define all the terms and give exclusive discretion (the legal equivalent of a BLANK CHECK!) to the OTHER (government) party to define the terms after the fact, now would you? Well, that's EXACTLY what you are doing if you DON'T define all terms on government forms either with an attachment or in advance with a separate form such as the Legal Notice of Change in Domicile/Citizenship and Divorce from the United States.
There is a method to the madness of everything on this website. Everything is there for a reason, and your job is to eventually understand that reason after diligently and systematically following the Path to Freedom curricula:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
http://sedm.org/Form…thToFreedom.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
-
Franklin,
1. Your point about becoming a “person” under federal law is valid and important. However, I don’t see why the “person” issue you raise should be in the USA Passport application attachment form, because the form is already too complicated and involved and making it more so will only muddy the waters further.
2. Thanks for sharing your insights about the passport issue with foreign banks.
________________________
Neo,
1. Glad you finally get it. The “Why you are a ‘national’ pamphlet really nails the issue down, if people would just read it.
2. That friend of yours who obtained a passport for his daughter using the techniques you describe SCREWED UP. He might want to amend the application with the following form to ensure the application is not misunderstood or misconstrued:
Passport Amendment Request, Form #06.016
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. 8 CFR 215.1(f) and (g) relate ONLY to aliens and not citizens. The feds enjoy jurisdiction within states of the Union over ALIENS but not “citizens” of a state. Notice that 8 CFR 215.1 is entitled “PART 215–CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES”. I emphasize that citizens are NOWHERE mentioned in the context of “continental United States” and therefore are purposefully excluded under the rules of statutory construction. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Show me a definition of “continental United States” that ALSO relates to “U.S. citizens”. It aint’ there, and therefore the “United States” found in 8 USC 1401 does not include states of the Union and never has in the case of “citizens”. For further confirmation, review the following again:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Di…ection%2014.htm
This is also confirmed by the ONLY definition of “State” within Title 8:
Quote: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.
4. The inside cover of the passport DOES NOT say “citizen and national of the United States”. It says the following:
“citizen/national”.
A picture of the inside cover of the passport is found in the “Why you are a ‘national'” pamphlet for illustration. The “/” is called a “virgule” in the legal field and it means OR, not AND. You can be one or the other but not both. They are playing word games AGAIN by hoping that no one will know what the “/” means. The passport doesn’t distinguish but the application does. If you foia for certified copies of the application, you can use that to prove that you are a “national” and they granted you a status based on that. A sample request for this certified record is found at:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Em…OS-CertDS11.htm
Those who are statutory “U.S. nationals” born in American Samoa or Swains Island additionally get a “non-citizen national” endorsement on p. 24 of the passport book. The following article in Section 9 describes how to get this endorsement:
How to Apply for a Passport as a national
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…orAPassport.htm
Before you come in with sticks of dynamite trying to blow up our position again next time, please at least exercise due diligence by reading and understanding all the documents relating to that subject and do more of the homework. If you need a place to start in finding all materials pertinent to a specific subject, we recommend the following:
http://famguardian.o…ubjectIndex.htm
You kicked off this attack without really reading or understanding the following key treatises on the subject, which are free and readily available to all:
1. Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory “Citizen”
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
2. Why domicile and becoming a taxpayer require your consent”
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm
3. Citizenship and Sovereignty, Form #12.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
. . .and this wasted our time rehashing old materials needlessly to make up for your lack of preparation and lack of due diligence. Don’t be lazy or make us do all the work for you. Don’t be like Satan and come in with your false and unsubstantiated PRESUMPTIONS slandering and accusing without presenting all the facts and evidence to back it up and then forcing us to prove you wrong. Freedom is not a spectator sport. Whatever your conclusions or positions are, they must be entirely consistent with the evidence presented in the above, consistent with the law, and consistent with everything else covered on this website. If they aren’t, then what you are advancing can’t be the truth and constitutes “curve fitting” as you describe. You should feel obligated to explain the contradictions with the above documents in your rebuttal in advance and you failed that obligation and lazillly threw all the burden of proof on us. The only thing we want to see in these forums is TRUTH that is compatible with the WHOLE law, not your political agenda or “theory”. You are the one who is doing the “curve fitting”. Not us.
Quote:It is, of course, true that statutory construction [or interpretation] “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).[U.S. v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200, 121 S.Ct. 1433 (2001)]
You aren’t going to win an argument with us, Neo, because we have spent ten years studying the subjects on this website and the materials have been reviewed and critiqued by hundreds of thousands of readers by now. We have the equivalent of a phD in the subjects we cover here in terms of study. Neither is any government attorney or judge going to rationally win any argument with evidence involving us or our materials either. They always end up contradicting themselves by not fitting their explanation in with EVERYTHING else. The materials have already been reviewed in federal court during a failed attempt to enjoin this website and they couldn’t find a single thing that was wrong at the time they issued their order after being given the entire website on DVD multiple times and being admonished to find ANYTHING wrong. They were told that if they were silent, they agreed that nothing was false or fraudulent pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(b) (6). The corrupt judge had to punt and perjur the record and admit bogus opinions as evidence (in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 610) to even create a controversey they could adjudicate. What a joke! Click here for details. Nevertheless, there is always room to improve the materials by clarifying questions from readers to make the explanation clearer. Thanks for this opportunity to boil the central issues further down to their barest essentials in order that more people like yourself will “get it” after they read our educational materials.
Perhaps your questions have helped enlighten others by clarifying any remaining questions and repeating what ought to be obvious by now to every member of this fellowship who has followed the mandatory Path to Freedom curricula. If they have, the purposes of these forums are being fulfilled in enlightening and educating the public about their proper status in relation to the government. Knowing WHO you are and your status in relation to the government is the beginning of being a free man on the land who is not a “person” that is “in” or part of the “state”.
-
Neo,
You are confused again. Title 8 has TWO purposes for two separate jurisdictions divided by the separation of powers doctrine:
1. Handle citizenship, alienage, and nationality for the collective states of the Union where the feds enjoy only limited, subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Handle citizenship, alienage, and nationality for federal territory where they enjoy exclusive territorial jurisdiction under Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
Each of the above two separate jurisdictions/venues has “citizens” uniquely its own. Almost all federal law is written for only ONE of the two jurisdictions, which is #2. These two jurisdictions are not the same and MUST be referred to with different legal terms that recognize the separation of powers. This is because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “citizen” of the District of Columbia is NOT a “citizen of the United States” under the constitution, and the statutory “U.S. citizen” described in 8 U.S.C. 1401 includes citizens of the District of Columbia.
Quote:“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States- , were not citizens
.“
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]
We have only four unique citizenship statuses to choose from under Title 8:
1. “citizen and national of the United States” under 8 USC 1401
2. “national of the United States” under 8 USC 1101(a)(22)( 😎 , 1408, and 1452
3. “national” under 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 1452.
4. “alien” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3).
Which term are you going to use in describing a District of Columbia citizen so as not to confuse them with a Constitutional citizen? Whatever statutory term from Title 8 that you use to describe a Constitutional “Citizen” CANNOT be the same as a territorial and statutory “citizen of the United States”, so how are you going to describe each of these SEPARATE types of citizenship using statutory terms so as to to prevent this confusion and therefore preserve the separation of powers and the two unique jurisdictions? The purpose of this separation is to ensure the protection of the private rights you describe, which are possessed exclusively by those domiciled within a state of the Union and protected by the Constitution. I won’t be lumped in with or confused with anyone who has no rights, such as a territorial statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401.
Further, the Dept of State, like you no less, refuses to address problems with the analysis in
Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory “Citizen”
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
… pamphlet, which implies that they agree with us. If there really were a way to rebut it, they would have done it by now, as would you. Provide evidence proving it is wrong and post your answers to the questions at the end in these forums WITHOUT contradicting what the law actually says and without contradicting yourself. It’s impossible to do that based on the position you are espousing now and so it can’t be truthful. The truth cannot contradict itself or it isn’t the truth, my friend.
The position you are espousing is also completely inconsistent with the government’s own publications. Look at who the Selective Service Commission thinks is a “U.S. Citizen”
Selective Service System Form 1M, SEDM Exhibit 01.007
http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX01.007.pdf
Look at p. 3 of the above pamphlet and tell me that it agrees with your position. It doesn’t! Therefore, you aren’t telling the truth. The following also proves you aren’t telling the truth:
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 6.1
http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf
The reason there is so much “pushback” from the DOS in issuing passports to “non-citizen nationals” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) is because:
1. It makes you a private human being instead of a “public officer” on official business.
2. It totally separates you from jurisdiction #2 above so you can’t be enslaved, tricked, or plundered of any of your rights anymore.
3. It puts you completely outside the jurisdiction of any federal court.
4. It removes you from being subject to nearly all statutes passed by Congress, which can and do regulate almost exclusively government “public officers” and employees on official business. See:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…StatLawGovt.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
You’re overlooking the most important aspect of being a constitutional “Citizen”. Constitutional citizenship implies membership in a nation and NOTHING MORE as the U.S. Supreme Court has held in Wong Kim Ark. Statutory Citizenship implies being subject to the LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION of the jurisdiction/venue we are a “citizen” of PLUS being a member. I have a right to decide which of the two distinct jurisdictions that I want to be a member of and that right is protected by the First Amendment. I choose my associations and the status I use to describe myself is the way I make those associations. No one but me can decide who I associate with and therefore the legal status one describes me with. I only have four choices from Title 8, as described above, and I made that choice. No one can interfere with it or change it without:
1. Tampering with a federal witness
2. Practicing law on my behalf without my consent
3. Violating my right of freedom from compelled association.
If a statutory “citizen and national” described in 8 USC 1401 includes the status of being a “national”, I ought to be able to disassociate with the “citizen” status and only be a national. That, I contend, is what those with a domicile outside of federal territory have done, because domicile is a voluntary choice. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “taxpayer” require Your Consent
http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm
What is wrong with the analysis in the above? Rebut the questions at the end of the PDF version and tell me what is wrong:
http://sedm.org/Form…aw/Domicile.pdf
The above article concludes that I can only be a citizen of one of the two possible LEGISLATIVE/civil jurisdictions under the separation of powers doctrine at a time because I can only have a domicile in one of the two possible separate civil jurisdictions at a time. Therefore, I can’t describe myself as a statutory “citizen” in two separate jurisdictions at the same time. It also concludes that federal territory and states of the Union are separate legislative jurisdictions. If I’m not a “citizen” of of the federal territorial jurisdiction, what would I be called under Title 8? Not a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 USC 1401! The only status left that makes any sense at all from among the four statutory statuses listed above within Title 8 is a “non-citizen national” under 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. 1452.
We’re not trying to escape the definitions found in Title 8. The term “United States” is only defined geographically in the statutes we cite, but OTHER undefined uses can be and in fact are used and implied. The OTHER “United States” is the GOVERNMENT and not the geographical sense, and that sense is the sense most often used in nearly all federal law. Notice that the “geographical sense” is never directly envoked in the statutes and the reason is that it is just a red herring to distract attention away from what REALLY means the GOVERNMENT, which is a private corporation called the “District of Columbia” and not a geographical place. The IRC is a franchise and therefore contract law. The Uniform Commerical Code governs contract law. Here is what the UCC defines as the “United States”:
Quote:Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.)§ 9-307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR.
(h) [Location of United States.]
The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
[SOURCE: http://www.law.corne…cle9.htm#s9-307]
____________________
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
DIVISION 9: SECURED TRANSACTIONS
CHAPTER 3: PERFECTION AND PRIORITY
SECTION 9307(h)
The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
Instead, we’re just picking which of the four statutorily defined statuses we use to describe ourself, which is our right under the First Amendment freedom of association clause. We have a right to decide what political group we associate with and thereby become a “citizen” of and receive protection from. That association occurs when we choose a domicile and/or are born within or naturalized within a “nation” under the law of nations. The First Amendment guarantees us an exclusive right to decide this and no one can force us to choose a group we don’t want to join. Hence, no one can force us to be a “citizen” under federal law. We have a right to be a citizen of ONLY a state and not any federal territory. The definition of “citizen” confirms this assertion, which says that a “citizen” is someone who has “VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED” themselves to the laws of a jurisdiction, which can only be done by choosing a domicile in a SPECIFIC, SEPARATE jurisdiction:
Quote:citizen. One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. U.S. Const., 14th Amend. See Citizenship.“Citizens” are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.
The term may include or apply to children of alien parents from in United States, Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, D.C.Md., 23 F.2d 862, 863; U.S. v. Minoru Yasui, D.C.Or., 48 F.Supp. 40, 54; children of American citizens born outside United States, Haaland v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 42 F.Supp. 13, 22; Indians, United States v. Hester, C.C.A.Okl., 137 F.2d 145, 147; National Banks, Amierican Surety Co. v. Bank of California, C.C.A.Or., 133 F.2d 160, 162; nonresident who has qualified as administratrix of estate of deceased resident, Hunt v. Noll, C.C.A.Tenn., 112 F.2d 288, 289. However, neither the United States nor a state is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Jizemerjian v. Dept of Air Force, 457 F.Supp. 820. On the other hand, municipalities and other local governments are deemed to be citizens. Rieser v. District of Columbia, 563 F.2d 462. A corporation is not a citizen for purposes of privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D.D.B. Realty Corp. v. Merrill, 232 F.Supp. 629, 637.
Under diversity statute url=”http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1332.html”]28 U.S.C. §1332[/url, which mirrors U.S. Const, Article III‘s diversity clause, a person is a “citizen of a state” if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state of the United States. Gibbons v. Udaras na Gaeltachta, D.C.N.Y., 549 F.Supp. 1094, 1116.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244]
If you are worried about identifying yourself as OTHER than a “U.S. citizen”, which is important for someone in the military such as yourself, then you can simply say you are a “U.S. citizen” to everyone you know and when someone asks you to fill out a government form that could have a legal significane or become evidence in a legal or administrative proceeding, define the “U.S.” within that term to mean states of the Union and EXCLUDE federal territories, possessions, and the District of Columbia and that found in EVERY federal statute. That’s what I do. Why is that so hard?
You got the sovereign immunity statute wrong. It’s 28 USC 1603(b)(3). See:
http://www.law.corne…03—-000-.html
And NO, a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 USC 1401 cannot claim sovereign immunity in any federal court as proven by 28 USC 1603(b)(3). All federal courts excepting the U.S. Supreme Court are Article IV legislative territorial franchise courts that cannot and do not officiate over private rights. The only thing they can or do rule on is “corporate policy” that is a franchise applying only to “public officers” of the corporation. These “codes” are cleverly and deceptively disguised to “look” like “public law and misrepresented by those who enforce them in order to usurp jurisdiction that doesn’t exist. There IS no due process in these pagan, government idol worshipping federal franchise courts based on personal experience.
It’s insanely stupid to describe oneself with any term that might convey jurisdiction to these corrupted courts, and that is what you are trying to do in this thread. I won’t let you mislead or injure other members of these forums with your lazy and irresponsible presumptions. Presumption is a biblical sin and we don’t tolerate it here.
-
Neo,
1. You are correct that arguing one is not a “United States citizen” focuses on the wrong issue and can lead to needless confrontation, which is why the name of the following pamphlet was recently changed:
1.1. Original name: Why You are a “national” or “state national” and not a “U.S. citizen”.
1.2. New name: Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen.
2. As far as what you describe yourself as on the passport application, I contend that assigning a status to yourself that gives them anything more than they absolutely need is foolish. The only thing they need in order to lawfully issue a passport is that you are a “national”, and they don't even say what kind of “national” that is, so YOU get to choose. See 22 USC 212.
Quote:“No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing [url url=”http://../../../TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/allegiance.htm”]allegiance[/url], whether citizens or not, to the United States.”The only citizenship status that carries ONLY the notion of allegiance with it is that of a “national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21). Therefore, that is the only thing one needs to describe themself in order to get a passport. Why invite damaging presumptions beyond that point by describing yourself with a term “U.S. citizen” that is nowhere statutorily defined. That is extemely dangerous and simply invites some evil judge or prosecutor with a financial conflict of interest and a personal agenda to enlarge his/her importance and power to make self serving presumptions that you are within their jurisdition. BAD IDEA! Therefore, all I tell anyone is that I am a “national” and let them determine what kind of “citizen” that makes me. My passport application describes me simply as a “national” and they didn't argue with that.
3. A number of liabilities attach to being statutory citizen or “U.S. citizen “that are described in section 1 of the following, and I don't want to be associated with those liabilities, nor is there any benefit or advantage whatsover to being a statutory “U.S. citizen”.
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt…hyANational.pdf
4. Your approach towards 26 USC 6039E is not unique, and appears to be derived from:
4.1 Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
4.2 How to apply for a passport as a “national”, Section 4
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…orAPassport.htm
It is a very nice use of the information in that pamphlet. Thanks for sharing that.
5. Are you saying you disagree with the the “Why you are a 'national'” above, and if so, what part? If you don't, how could you possibly want to be confused with a statutory “citizen and national of the United States” found in 8 USC 1401? You can't have sovereign immunity per 28 USC 1605( 😎 (3) and you have to snitch on yourself by reporting all foreign bank accounts. See:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f90221.pdf
You also can't invoke sovereign immunity in a federal court and must also file resident tax forms such as the 1040. It also subjects you to the possibility of criminal prosecution for impersonating a statutory “U.S. citizen” in violation of 18 USC 911. That's a ridiculous disadvantage to impose upon yourself for no reason or benefit whatsoever.
I'm not going to retype all the research in the memorandum above. Let's at least agree on what is wrong, if anything, with that memorandum so I don't have to reinvent the same tired wheel again. It's pointless. The burden of proof is on you to prove what aspect of that is wrong, and if you don't, we're really just arguing application and not underlying facts.
6. Here are my answers to your questions:
6.1 Q: What do people contend is meant by the language, “for the purposes of this title”?
A: Exactly what it says. The definition is limited to that title only.
6.2. Q: Does anyone contend that definitions from one title can indiscriminately be transferred and used in another title when said definitions are precluded with the language “for the purposes of this title”?
A: No
6.3. Q: Does anyone contend that the “United States” definition in Title 8 is the same definition of “United States” in Title 26?
A: They are the same definition for the purposes of those who are “citizens”.
6.4. Q: Why does the definition of “United States” of Title 8 expressly name Alaska and Hawaii as being a part of the “United States”?
A: Because that definition is limited to the “geographical sense” of the term. However, the statutory “citizen and national” definition found in 8 USC 1401 does not expressly limit itself to the geographical sense, and therefore it may include the virtual or territorial sense instead. This is the same diversionary BULLSHIT they did with the definition of “United States” in title 26 at 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). HOWEVER, the term “State” at 8 USC 1101(a)(36) limits itself to federal territories and no part of any state of the Union.
Quote: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.
6.5. Q: Does not the Supreme Court give us 3 definitions of “United States” in the case of Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652 (1945)?
A: Yes.
6.6. Q: Does not definition 1 given in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652 (1945) of the “United States” describe a nation?
A: Yes
6.7. Q: Does the Federal Government have the authority to dictate legislation regarding Americans' coming and going in and out of the nation the “United States”?
A: Yes. That is a foreign affairs function over which they enjoy exclusive jurisdiction.
-
EDITORIAL: Another Lindsey Springer Update, 8/31/09
___________________
Lindsey Springer here and I first wish to thank those of you who choose to help me survive while I engage the hundred billion dollar budget of the United States. Thank you for considering me and my family and words cannot express how greatful I am. Having said that I thought you each might wish to read this for yourself. I soon will have the entire order at penaltyprotestor.org. The background is as follows:
In 1996, the IRS issued notice of deficiencies using the Bureau of Labor Statistics against me and my property to a correct address. I argued that was slavery and involuntary servitude to which the Tax Court chose to impose a sanction upon me saying I was “frivolous.” I did not hear again from them until March 4, 2005, where a business card was stuck to my front door of an Agent Fred Rice.
In 2005, the IRS decided they would raise the amount I purportedly owed them from the Bureau of Labor Statistics amounts (about 80k) to over $ 300,000 using the the statistic amount and then adding interest and penalties.
I sued (Springer I) for blatant disregard for the Collection Due Process (“CDP”) statute (using wrong address for one) as well as sought a hearing under the CDP (Springer II) statute as I was given notice I had a right to do. The IRS said I was frivolous for claiming the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 applied to any penalty sought based upon failing to file any return information on Form 1040. I appealed that decision to the 10th Circuit and to Tax Court. In essence I whipsawed the IRS as was my right to do and to which I learned from the IRS
After I was made aware in 2006 the IRS was taking the OMB # 1545-0074 on Form 1040 and placing it on 212 different forms, as if each form was approved for usage of the same number, I commenced action in the United States District Court (Springer III) claiming I should be protected by the public protection provision at 44 U.S.C. section 3512 (1995) because it was obvious the IRS was ignoring the Paperwork Reduction Act and all of its mandates in its seeking information through the vehicle named Form 1040.
I lost Springer I by way of the Court saying Tax Court had the only jurisdiction to address my issues raised therein. I lost Springer II because the District Court stated I brought my appeal of a CDP determination to the incorrect Court. It said I should have appealed to tax court. I lost Springer III on the basis that I was frivolous and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 did not apply to the filing of a income tax return. In passing Chief Judge Eagan ruled that I could not bring an action under the Paperwork Reduction Act as a Plaintiff.
I appealed all three to the 10th Circuit and also refiled my CDP appeal within 30 days to the tax court (Springer II).
On May 1, 2007, in an unpublished opinion I lost on three cases. I was sanctioned $ 8k for Springer I and III. Springer I I lost based upon tax court having sole jurisdiction. Springer II was dismissed because of Springer I and so I was directed that I appealed to the wrong Court (don't forget I also appealed to tax court on this case). Springer III lost because the 10th Circuit said I could not bring an action under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 but can only use the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “defense.”
Of course, the IRS publicly stated prior to these decisions the PRA provided no defense. Springer III proved they are wrong (cost $ 4k but worth every penny). None of the other issues for dismissal in Springer III given by the District Court were affirmed on appeal such as the Paperwork Reduction Act was frivolous or the requirement to file is a statutory command.
Meanwhile, Springer II was proceeding in Tax Court though the 10th Circuit was unaware of this case.
I eventually lost my PRA claims in tax court but they would not say why. Just that it was without merit.
I appealed to the 10th Circuit Court the tax court decision and at first the Commissioner moved to dismiss my appeal claiming it was frivolous. The 10th Circuit denied that claim and allowed me to proceed. Then they attempted to dismiss my case claiming I had not paid a prior sanction levied in the May 1, 2007 10th Circuit decision in the amount of $ 8,000.00. I paid that entire amount and the 10th Circuit denied their motion.
We proceeded to the merits as to whether the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 applied to the penalties and interest claims advanced by the IRS Commissioner in their notice of levy.
Today, the 10th Circuit affirmed the tax court's decision but how they explained this affirmation will surprise all of you and even my worst critics.
They said the failure to pay penalty was not a penalty to which the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 applies because the Paperwork Reduction Act only applies to failure to file penalties. Not failure to pay. Though I disagree and will appeal stay with me here. As to the “interest” as a penalty they said they could not find a single case where “interest” was considered a “penalty” and thus ruled it was not a penalty so the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 would not apply. This makes interest a tax? Again, I will appeal this decision because it is obviously wrong.
Also at issue was the Commissioner's request for more sanctions against me and the attorney representing me named Jerold Barringer. I will let the opinion take over from here and you can read if for yourself. Don't let their stab at my 12th Grade education divert your attention from the merits of their words:
One final matter remains to be disposed of and that is the Commissioner's motion to impose sanctions against Mr. Springer and his counsel for maintaining a frivolous appeal. We deny the motion. Although Mr. Springer's appellate briefs are far from a model of clarity, he has managed to advance several arguments in this appeal that raise difficult issues under both the tax code and the PRA. As a result, we cannot say that this appeal is sufficiently frivolous to [Page: 7] justify the imposition of sanctions. While we commend the Commissioner for the extremely helpful statement of the case and statement of facts in his response brief, we also note that the Commissioner himself has made a frivolous argument in his response brief and motion for sanctions that mischaracterizes what happened in Mr. Springer's prior appeal to this court. The Commissioner's argument is as follows:
“[Mr. Springer] contends that he is protected from income tax penalties because the “disclosures required by [the PRA] are not on any Form 1040 nor on any non-accompanying, disclaiming, non-binding opinion, instruction or treatise.” (Br. 9.) Taxpayer made virtually the identical argument in challenging his liability for the penalties that are due from him under I.R.C. § 6651(a)(1) for failure to file returns for 1990-1995, and this Court rejected it as frivolous. Springer, 231 F. App'x at 801, 801 n.6. It is no less frivolous when asserted in connection with failure-to-pay penalties. Aplee. Br. at 24 (footnote omitted); see also Motion for Sanctions at 6 (making same argument).”
The Commissioner is wrong about what happened in the prior appeal. In that appeal, we referred to the three underlying cases that had been consolidated for appeal as Springer I, Springer II, and Springer III, and we did not address the merits of Mr. Springer's claims under the PRA in any of the three cases. Instead, we affirmed the district court's dismissal of Springer I for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Springer, 231 F. App'x at 797; we affirmed the district court's dismissal of Springer II on the ground that the Tax Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case, id.; and we affirmed the district court's dismissal of [Page: 8] Springer III on the ground that the PRA does not create a private right of action, id. at 799. Further, in footnote five in the order and judgment, we specifically stated that, “n view of our jurisdictional disposition, we do not reach the merits of Springer I and Springer II.” Id. at 799 n.5. And, in footnote 6, the footnote cited by the Commissioner in the above-quoted language, we did not state that the PRA claims in Springer II were frivolous. Rather, we stated that the appeal in Springer II was frivolous due to the obvious jurisdictional defect arising from the fact that Mr. Springer had filed Springer II in federal district court when exclusive jurisdiction resided in the Tax Court. Id. at 801 n.6. The Commissioner is therefore mistaken when he argues that this court addressed the merits of Mr. Springer's PRA claims in the prior appeal, and his argument is frivolous given the obvious nature of the three dispositions in that appeal.
In addition, in his motion for sanctions, the Commissioner states that this court sanctioned the taxpayer-plaintiff in Lewis v. Comm'r, 523 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2008) for making frivolous PRA arguments on appeal. See Motion for Sanctions at 6. But the Commissioner is wrong on this point as well. See Lewis, 523 F.3d at 1278 (“In light of [the] uncertainty in our case law, we decline to impose sanctions against Lewis on appeal for raising these specific PRA challenges against Form 1040.”). [Page: 9]
The Order and Decision of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED. The Commissioner's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. The Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Pay Sanctions is DENIED as moot since Mr. Springer has paid the monetary sanction that was imposed against him by this court in his prior appeal.
I just thought those of you supporting my efforts would like to know at least 3 judges at the 10th Circuit found the Commissioner's arguments regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act “frivolous.” They actually argued in their brief that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 did not apply to penalties even though the 10th Circuit had published otherwise. And oh, the opinion here is also published. Thank you for all you support and prayers and I know this is a complicated mess but with no other land mass to discover on the earth we can just move to, and start over again, I really think forcing the United States and its attorneys to comply with Federal Law in the States is the correct answer. Exhausting, yes, but hopeless, no. Just beyond difficult. By the way one of those issues they said was “difficult” was asking them to identify what part of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (and 1980) applied to the IRS and Form 1040. If it has not been addressed before (“interest as a penalty), and characterized as “is difficult,” “not frivolous,” and with “merit,” these terms are just a preliminary to the conclusion that the IRS has been mandated by Congress to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and “no person shall be subject to any penalty.” Again, I will appeal the two issues (1) to exempt interest and (2) the payment penalty from the Paperwork Reduction Act of both 1980 and 1995 as it was found not to involve failing to file. Just for a teaser, the 10th Circuit said in Collins in 1990 that:
“But because the provision of information in 1040 forms is inexorably linked to the statutory requirement to pay taxes, and defendant failed to file such forms, the Paperwork Reduction Act was applicable to such conduct.” See U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (footnote 13)(10th Cir. 1990)
More to come soon. 8.31.09
I can receive paypal at gnutella@mindspring.com and or by mail at 5147 S. Harvard, # 116, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135. Thanks again.