And so the ruse continued for decades.  It was all just simply a matter of knowing who you were under the law, and declaring the proper status.  But then, the transformation would continue.  In 1967, nearly a generation after the truth about State Citizens’ “nonresident alien” tax status had been effectively buried, the Treasury introduced Form… Read more

But in 1921, the transformation and exile of the people was nearly complete.
 
Form 1040 (1921) (See attached)
 
For the first time, we see on page 1 the following question:
 

Are you a citizen or resident of the United States?

 
How many Americans (including those domiciled in the 50 states) answered “Yes” to this question?  Probably 99% or… Read more

Now for the really suspicious evolution of the Form 1040:  1917-1920 (Four Years)
 
Forms 1040 (1917-1920) (See attached)
 
In these forms, all reference to tax status was removed, whether it be “United States citizen” or “nonresident alien.”  Think, “out of sight–out of mind.”
 
But, during this period, both a “United States citizen” as… Read more

Then, in 1916, the Form 1040 underwent a little bit of a makeover.
 
Form 1040 (1916) (See attached)
 
On page 4, separate instructions for a “nonresident alien” were provided.  To wit:
 

2. This return shall be made by every nonresident alien receiving any net income from sources in the United States. A nonresident alien individual may…

Read more

Stija said:
 

1. The issue above did not deal with taxing authority of Congress, thus 26 USC 7701 is irrelevant first. Second, the United States in 26 USC 7701 is the constitutional United States because IRC is promulgated on Congress Art. I:8:1 constitutional authority thus IT CAN ONLY be the constitutional United States.  [emphasis…

Read more

Are you telling me that the 50 states IS the nation?  If so, I disagree.  The 50 states does not include the Federal government.  The 50 states does not include D.C.  And the 50 states does not include the territories, or possessions, or their citizens.  No . . . 1. & 4. are most definitely not the same thing.  The 50 states are just merely… Read more

1. Is United States nation-union a political association/body of state citizens conferring powers to a national government over their geography?
 

 
No.  The “United States” in its political sense is a nation comprising land, people, and governments.  The federal governemnt was granted it’s authority by the people of the 50 states through the… Read more

For matters of state law and constitutional state retained privileges, a u.s. citizen (14th Amend.) is a state citizen if residing within a state.
 

 
Agreed.  But civil status is based upon domicile . . . not where I choose to reside.  You already admited domicile and residence are not the same thing.  So the Fourteenth Amendment residence… Read more

One simple thing I would like to point out:
 
In both 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and 42 USC 1301(a)(2), the definitions of “United States” say ” . . . when used in a geographical sense.”
 
Questions for Stija:
 
1.  What sense is it used in when it’s NOT used in a geographical sense?
 
2.  If status for Art. I, Sec. 8 legislation is all predicated on the… Read more

What does political association with a state or nation have to do with civil status? Nothing. Civil status is based upon domicile ….thus geography is the issue.At that point….the two political capacities– state and national — are irrelevant. The issue then becomes: Where are you domiciled? This determines your status….and also has zero… Read more

OK . . . yes.  I ASSumed you were speaking geographically.  Yes, of course the states in their political sense, whether statutory or constitutional, include the people and their respective governments.  So I grant you that.
 
And yes, I am a United States citizen politically through the Fourteenth Amendment.  That, together with my allegiance to… Read more

It is rather simple to understand once one concedes that the United States nation-union is geographically composed of D.C., the states, and the territorial possessions.
 

 
I don’t concede this though.
 
I maintain that the nation is composed of D.C., the states, and the territorial possessions AS WELL AS the People and the Federal… Read more

We’re just chasing our tails now.
 
We have to agree to disagree and move on.  I respect your knowledge and position — I just disagree with it.
 
I think territorial sovereignty is a separate issue to that of subject matter sovereignty.
 
Maybe others can chime in . . . but I doubt that will happen.

Stija,
 
Check out the following link:
 
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/009_statutes_at_large.pdf
 
Go to page 35 (of the statutes) — page 59 on the pdf, and read about the retro-cession of Alexandria County from D.C. back to the State of Virginia.  Notice what it says about sovereignty over the territory.

But Stija, the issue is territorial sovereignty — not subject matter sovereignty.

I disagree.  Sovereignty is NOT shared — it is split.  You are either sovereign or you are not.
 
Why is it that the Feds must have land ceded to them from the State legislatures per I:8:17?  I will tell you why.  It is because the states exercise sovereignty over their own respective territory UNTIL ceded, then the United States exercises… Read more

Stija,
 
Do you believe that sovereignty is absolute?  Or is it shared?

I disagree. A nation is not made up of geography. It is a political association of geography AND people AND government. A nation’s geography is a separate issue from the nation itself. Either you can refer to the nation as a whole….or you can refer to its geographical components.
Art I, § 8 powers do not derive their… Read more

I agree to disagree….

Well….it is very clear to me why this country has been nationalized under this scheme of legislation. It has been very effective in confusing the masses who believe that a body politic (nation or state) is equivalent to a geographical entity. They are separate issues. Your legal theory conflates them. It is a convincing argument….but… Read more

Well…..there is no such thing as a single “United States” domicile. I’m not sure how you have deduced that. You keep referring to the nation-union….but that is a body politic….not a geographical entity. You act as if you can erase state boundaries. I mean….I understand your theory….I just don’t agree with it.

So again….how is my civil status established? Is it through my political citizenship or is it domicile?

IN RE: 4
 
Under your theory . . . there is no need for diversity of citizenship in ANY federal civil action.
 
If the Feds get their subject matter jurisdiction under I:8, then it applies over all of the geography nationwide (which it does).  But in accordance with your theory behind that reality, all Americans who interface this subject… Read more

IN RE:  4
 

Or are you trying to actually convince me that your status with the SS franchise is a matter of residual state sovereignty.
 

 
Precisely.  That is exactly my position.
 
In the past, tax protesters have claimed that the Federal income tax ONLY applied in D.C., territories, and possessions.  We know this is not true. … Read more

IN RE: 4
 
Go to the following link:  http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=7592&p=15605
 
In it you said:
 

In all other matters–which only leaves state matters wrt to local affairs–one is a state citizen and nonresident to D.C. (I:8:17) or territories (IV:3:2).

 
Now that was within this thread.  Why have you departed from… Read more

I:8:17 does NOT just apply to D.C.  It applies EVERYWHERE on the planet.  Think military bases and embassies.
 
At the beginning of this thread, you yourself said that you were an NRA with respect to I:8:17 and IV:3:2.  Your position varies frequently.  And that’s ok.
 
I just think you are blurring lines between GEOGRAPHY and SUBJECT MATTER… Read more

Well, where in Art. I, Sec. 8 does the United States have subject matter jurisdiction over my choice of domicile or residence?

Well . . . this is why the U.S. Courts exist.  I guess we will find out soon enough.  I completely understand your position.  I don’t agree with how you arrived at your conclusion — but I understand it.
 
I do not agree with it.  That being said, I know you well enough to know I can’t change your mind.  This all comes down to religious… Read more

IN RE: 4
 

Yes…in China, BiH, anywhere really with consent of the sovereign authority presiding over tbe territory.
 

 
Look at what you said.  “With the consent of the sovereign authority presiding over the territory.”  You just made my point.  If there is not I:8 subject matter in question, then the United States is NOT the sovereign… Read more

IN RE:4
Territory? Those geographies embraced by I:8:17 & IV:3:2….NO PLACE else.
Subject matter jurisdiction can be exercised in an unlimited number of places….

IN RE:4
Well….I know the U.S. has kicked in doors within foreign nations when their I:8 interests are being violated. I know Treasury and FBI would kick in doors in B-H (with that nation’s approval of course) if FRNs were being counterfeited. Well, the territory of B-H is not territory over which the sovereignty of the United… Read more

IN RE: 4
 
See Stija . . . the issue we are having here is a matter of perspective.  You seem to believe the United States exercises sovereignty over all places within the nation at all times.  I do not.
 
Can the United States exercise sovereignty everywhere within the nation?  Yes . . . when those 17 conferred powers are at issue.  But… Read more

IN RE: 4
 
Assuming there is no avenue (subject matter) for the Supremacy Clause to be activated (I:8 authority), is there territory over which the sovereignty of Arizona extends?  Yes or No
 
What is residual state sovereignty?

IN RE: 4
 
You said earlier that the individual state legislatures exercised sovereignty over certain lands within their own geographical boundaries.  So clearly, these are not lands or “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends” — rather, that would be territory over which the sovereignty of Arizona extends — or… Read more

IN RE: 4
 
D.C. is a federal area within the State of Maryland.
 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all…

Read more

IN RE: 4
 
You already conceded that questions of GEOGRAPHY and SUBJECT MATTER are different questions.
 
I have never said that I:8 legislation does NOT apply within the geography of the 50 states — it very much does.  But this is a separate issue over who exercises sovereignty WHERE.
 
“Where?” and “What?” are separate issues and I think… Read more

IN RE: 4
 
Sir, this entire discussion thus far has been (for the most part) with respect to TERRITORY or GEOGRAPHY.
 
You already conceded that the United States exercises sovereignty over D.C., territories, and possessions.  You also conceded that the United States exercised sovereignty over I:8:17 geography within the states.  You also… Read more

IN RE: 4
 
Well, you contradict your previous testimony.
 
You already said that a nation is a political union of geography, people, and government.
 
So how can you compare the whole (the nation) to one of its components (geography)?  You cannot have it both ways.  You are curve fitting and your testimony is inconsistent.  Because it is… Read more

IN RE: 4
 
So what did SCOTUS mean by “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends”?

IN RE: 4
 
OK . . . so you concede that I can be a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, resident and domiciled upon land over which my constitutional state exercises sovereignty, and engage in activities not embraced by Art I:8 of the Constitution?

IN RE: 4
 
That’s irrelevant.  What if I am upon land over which my constitutional state exercises sovereignty (not the United States government), and I am NOT interfacing ANY I:8 subject matter?  Then what?  What civil authority or civil jurisdiction would the United States have over me?

IN RE: 4
 
Of course.  No tricks here.  These are scenarios for discussion.
 
So, in this instance, the location really had nothing to do with United States supremacy, but rather it was the subject matter — the value of coin and currency under I:8:5.  Is that correct?

IN RE: 4
 
Exactly.  So, let’s say an individual is occupying a geographical area the state exercises sovereignty over, but said individual is counterfeiting FRNs within a building sitting upon this state-sovereign geography.  Is this an example of where the laws of the United States would be supreme and trump state sovereignty?  (Supremacy Clause VI:2)

IN RE: 4
 
So who exercises sovereignty over those geographical areas where the United States does not?

IN RE: 4
 
That was a yes/no question.  But I get your point.
 
So are there geographical areas within the 50 states where the United States does NOT exercise sovereignty?

IN RE: 4
 
Are there places within the geographical boundaries of the 50 states over which the United States exercises sovereignty?

IN RE: 4
 
So who is the sovereign over D.C., territories, and possessions of the United States?

IN RE: 4
 
So is Congress the ultimate sovereignty in Puerto Rico?
 
And what did the Constitution mean when it said:
 
“…all needful rules and regulations…” in IV:3:2?  Is this congressional authority less comprehensive than exclusive?

IN RE: 4
 
OK . . . now we are getting somewhere.
 
What is the difference between exclusive legislative sovereignty and proprietary sovereignty?
 
And if the United States does not exercise exclusive legislative sovereignty in Puerto Rico, then who or what does?  Is it a King?  Does Puerto Rico have the same class of sovereignty as one of the 50 states?

IN RE: 4
 
You are correct . . . it is the “Territorial Clause.”  VI:2 is the “Supremacy Clause.” The post has been corrected.
 
OK . . . fair enough.
 
Does the United States exercise EXCLUSIVE legislative sovereignty in Puerto Rico?