neo
Forum Replies Created
Nicodemus,
Admin is right on the money!!! The ALL CAPS NAME is nothing more than a legal “straw man” required by everyone to interface to the world's system of commerce — it's no big deal.
What is the big deal is the use of the SSN (federal property) in association with what would otherwise be presumed to be private activity/property engaged in through your straw man.
A “nonresident alien” must only tender a SSN in the course of a “trade or business.” Or more accurately, a “nonresident alien” need NOT tender a SSN if he is NOT engaged in a “trade or business” within the “United States.” This was clearly laid out in 31 CFR 103.34(a)(3)(x). On March 1, 2011, FinCEN transferred its regulations from 31 CFR Part 103 to 31 CFR Chapter X as part of an ongoing effort to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its regulatory oversight. Part 103.34(a)(3)(x) has been moved to Chapter X, section 1020.410. It may take some time for it to be published with the CFR. Until then you can find out the gnarly details here: http://www.fincen.go…_regs/ChapterX/
The real issue is the “U.S. Citizen” affirmation. A “U.S. person” is defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(30) as a “citizen or resident of the United States.” And a “U.S. person” must ALWAYS provide a SSN to financial institutions in the course of commerce. Thus, if you have claimed to be a “U.S. Citizen” with the SSA on Form SS-5, with the IRS by filing Form 1040 v. 1040NR, with the DHS by affirming that status on a Form I-9, or with your State's DMV by affirming it in a DL application, then you are someone who will dedicate all efforts and fruits of those efforts to the public trust through the vehicle of the SSN — and all the evidence (which become judicable facts) say that you are despite all weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. I would think one should probably correct the administrative record (facts) as famguardian and SEDM point out.
One could correct their status with the SSA pursuant to 20 CFR 422.110(a), and then correct their status with the IRS pursuant to 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i). One could also re-submit a Form I-9 and a DL app with their State DMV. One could also correct the status with the FBI if a “U.S. Citizen” status was claimed on a NICS form after buying a pistol or rifle. The record at the county clerk's office may also need to be updated . . . perhaps on a marriage license of some such thing. The opportunities are endless!!! 😉
Of course, why one is not a statutory “U.S. Citizen” but a “nonresident alien” is beyond the scope of this post. But I'm sure you understand the difference between civil status imputed through choice of domicile and political status (nationality) imputed through the Fourteenth Amendment. Don't let dumb lawyers try to bring the constitutional context of United States citizenship into their statutory context — they are apples and oranges.
Be prepared for lots o' explainin'!!!
neo
I concur. Therefore, United States*** is not properly depicted as a map of the 50 States, but rather would be best depicted as a collection of 50 separate political bodies, each of which comprise 1. the geography that constitutes the civil jurisdiction of the State, 2. its People, and 3. its government. The entire State unit as depicted would represent the political jurisdiction of the State, whereas the geographical map the layman recognizes as the State is in reality only the civil jurisdiction of the State and not the State itself — big difference.
United States** on the other hand is properly depicted as a collective geographical entity within the political entity we know as United States* (the nation). This is because the general government of the nation is the same government that exercises civil jurisdiction over its own territory — namely United States** and its individual territorial components (D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, the CNMI, American Samoa, Swains Island, and the Palmyra Atoll). For this reason, the various components of the Federal zone need not be depicted as political subdivisions within the nation. However, the political subdivisions of the United States* which are the States of the Constitution, each possess their own State government which exercises civil jurisdiction over its own territory — the geographical representation of each State which does not include the Federal areas therein ceded to United States government under Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17. Those collective Federal areas, the people that inhabit them, and the Federal government would form a legislatively foreign state within the Constitutional State. And from the perspective of the foreign Federal state, the State of Florida, for example, would be the “state of Florida.”
States = geography, people, and government
Quote:“All law, whether de jure civil or criminal, attaches to territory.“Well, I think I could counterfeit FRNs in Oklahoma, and still be prosecuted under Federal law.
I would also like to point out that a government in and of itself is not and cannot be a body-politic. A government, by its essence is always a corporate entity. A body-politic is a state, one of the components of which is the government — a body corporate.
So, let me get this straight. I think something here could have been explained a little more clearly, but I believe I understand what is going on — a shell game of context and sovereignty between the Free Texas body-politic and the Texas body-politic that is subject to the code.
Under the Constitution, the People of Texas are the sovereign authors of that political document, and their land protected by the State Constitution as well as the provisions of the United States Constitution apply to THAT “State of Texas” in THAT constitutional context. However, any of that land ceded to the Federal government under Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, now becomes part of the political subdivision comprising said ceded land, the people inhabiting it, and the Federal government — a political subdivision under the legislative authority of the Federal government such as D.C. This is referred to as the “state of Texas” because it is legislatively foreign from the perspective of the free People of Texas and their political Constitution and the legislative processes governing that free part of Texas.
Conversely, under the Tax Code, the “State of Texas” now takes on the meaning given to the “state of Texas” in the Constitution. This is because the Tax Code is a civil document and not a political document written by the original sovereigns, but written by the bureaucrats who do the talking of the sub-sovereign corporate municipality, who is itself, in this instance, speaking as the sovereign over the objects under their jurisdiction. The Tax Code is written by a different sovereignty, thus they can flip-flop the capitalization and the context.
The “State of Texas” in the Tax Code is the “state of Texas” in the Constitution, and the “State of Texas” in the Constitution is the “state of Texas” in the Tax Code. It depends on who the author is, and where one claims to inhabit. Of course, it is the administrative record of “facts” that will be judged under “law,” and not the protests or verbal declarations of the “patriot.” The walk had better match the talk.
This all sounded good . . . right up until the point where he said he was not a 14th Amendment United States citizen. We know that he is. But he does bring up a good point. I don't believe any property tax could be properly challenged until one rectifies their status on file with the government. I believe a “U.S. person” would lose the property tax battle.
Wow!!! That’s a very indicting piece . . . and echoes my sentiment exactly.
So, if all the churches are in the lap of the beast, where is one supposed to tithe?
My wife likes to say, “It is incumbent upon us to do the right thing, if the church does the wrong thing with the money . . . that’s on them.” And to some degree, the tithe is an act of faith and obedience — so I can see her point.
But seeing someone else write the very words that have gone through my mind leads me now to question my tithes to the 501c3 I attend on Sunday.
I would be grateful for some additional ideas about how to best honor God with tithes and offerings.
neo
Brushaber identified himself as:
Quote:“. . . a Citizen of the State of New York and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn.”Treasury then called him a “nonresident alien.”
I asked SDO if she was a “nonresident alien,” to which she responded:
Quote:“I am a Citizen and resident of the State of Arizona — and as a Federal Judge it is my duty to file a federal income tax return.”I chuckled, and said, “I understand exactly what you are saying.”
To which she responded:
Quote:“I thought you would.”
So it seems to me that being a “resident” or having a “residence” in and of itself is not the issue, but being a “resident” of the “United States**”, or having a “residence” in the “United States**” is the issue.
Are you a “U.S. Citizen”?
“No. I'm a Citizen and resident of Florida and an American National by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
That makes me a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax!!!
So, is it correct that Cook identified himself as a “citizen of the United States” (presuming a 14th Amdt context but in actuality it was a statutory context he affirmed) in the petition?
And if so . . . did the court self-servingly adopt the context most beneficial for them since Cook didn't take the opportunity to clarify what he meant?
Could he have identified himself as an American National, and petitioned the court under diversity of citizenship as an American National with a foreign domicile?
The Cook v. Tait case seems very problematic to me. I would love to see his petition.
Ok . . . I read through the Cook v. Tait case 4 times today.
So what in the world made Cook liable?
In 1924 there was no SSN, thus that didn't oblige him. He was resident and domiciled in Mexico City . . . and the so called “income” came apparently from real property there in Mexico City, so obviously it was not “United States” sourced, and he further met the requirements of being a “nonresident alien.”
Is it possible that Cook had previously filed Form 1040 and then subsequently never corrected that status? I find it hard to believe they could reconcile something like that in 1924. McKenna keeps mentioning that Cook is a native citizen of the United States. Perhaps he is referring to Cook's 14th Amndt citizenship, but I doubt it. So what exactly made Cook a “citizen” for the purposes of this case if he forthrightly declared residence and domicile in Mexico? The primary method is the SSN . . . and that didn't even exist yet.
Then there's this:
Quote:“Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally recognized reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter. Of course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the citizenship, domicile or residence of the owner, the most obvious illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the realty is located.”
Miller Bros Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)
Obviously there has to be a geographical aspect to this, because there is an entire set of IRS Publications, not to mention Code and Regs which addresses “nonresident alien” taxpayers.
The above cites the Fourteenth Amendment. I don't know what this has to do with anything — perhaps an intentional distraction. It does reference citizenship in a 'state' (lower-case “s”), which establishes inhabitancy and thus domicile. It also then states that it is a “political matter.” The last sentence of the quoted citation above seems a little bit nonsensical too. Did they mean to say, 'the property may be taxed regardless of its situs'?
So if residence or nationality do not determine whether or not a partnership is 'resident' or 'nonresident,' then what does? I thought it was domicile. Cook v. Tait and Miller Bros Co. v. Maryland seem to turn all of that on its head.
So, what makes one a “nonresident alien” if geography does not come into play? And if 'residence' is solely established by obtaining the ” public office” which is the “res-IDENT,” then why is there even “taxpayer” materials for a “nonresident alien”? If geography were not an issue, there would be no such thing as a “nonresident alien” “taxpayer.”
What gives????
That's great feedback . . . and something I have heard before. The document is the result of the last several years of “noodling . . . freewheeling . . . and pondering.” It started out as nothing more than notes and diagrams for myself . . . to help me organize and comprehend the vast written material on SEDM/FG. Then, in time, it became a more organized and living document. It is, in fact, a living document that has evolved and continues to evolve minute by minute. I agree with everything in the feedback, and look forward to organizing it as such.
In the meantime, the material and the revelations in the diagrams are just too important to wait, thus it is distributed in its “as is” condition in an effort to help others achieve the “Ahh Ha” moment sooner, rather than later. My Type-A personality would prefer it all to be perfect, but our country is collapsing all around us. And I frankly don't know how long it will be before I am “black-bagged” or receive “lead poisoning” for my efforts/knowledge, thus I feel the need to disseminate NOW, rather than wait, only to have the information and the “talents possibly buried.” I do believe the material is pound-for-pound EXTREMELY POWERFUL. It sure has a lot of attorneys scratching their head!!! They thought they knew it all!!!
I totally see it!!! It does appear then that the obfuscation runs even deeper. Although PR, Guam, USVI, CNMI and American Samoa are within United States**, they are still legislatively foreign just like TX is to CA. I have pondered this point before, but relegated it to “the back shelf” when I asked myself . . . how can a flesh and blood person be a “United States corporation” and thus a “citizen” of the government? It seemed like a reach . . . but it is appearing more definitely to be the case. The geographical entity of United States** is itself, a misdirection play, and the real issue then seems to be the “United States” in its non-geographical sense (the government). But how are they making the connection that an “office” or “employment” constitutes a corporate “citizen” of the government?
We know it is the “office” and not the “officer” that is the “taxpayer.” But I cannot reconcile how an “office” is a juristic person/corporation of the government when it is nothing more than an internal “position” within the corporation, and not a corporation itself. We know the “taxpayer” is typically identified by a juristic entity, namely, the all-caps strawman. For example, John Q. Citizen is the flesh and blood person. Is the strawman JOHN Q. CITIZEN the corporate entity which is a manifestation of the government through its sub-corporations such as THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, etc.? Or is the “office” somehow identified in-and-of-itself as a corporation?
Additionally, the Form 1040 is a 'resident' form, thus there is a geographical nexus there. A “U.S. person” is a citizen or resident of the United States. How can a person be a resident of the government? And if Puerto Rico is within the United States** as geographically defined in 7701(a)(9), how can an inhabitant of Puerto Rico justify the submission of a 1040NR when he is in fact a citizen (domiciliary) and resident of the geographical “United States” so defined?
Attached — Change 1, Page numbers and line numbers
Bing,
Thanks for the props!!! However, it is the leadership of the old heads here that have really aided in my understanding. Thank you.
Attached please find a pdf file which reflects the above post and has some additional information added to it. I think this attachment, along with the other attachments recently published should be e-mailed around in a big, big way.
The genie is out of the bottle, and we have to make sure this information, above all is spread like wildfire before this is all relegated to the memory hole. The truth is hanging by a thread. But I think it can be resurrected in a big, big way in this country. The Tea Party is hungry for this stuff. It's just that they have been indoctrinated and are now in the slaughter chute. I believe all of this information multiplied through e-mail efforts will create brush fires in the minds of men!!!
nicodemus,
That is how I see it. Of course, in addition to your birthplace within a Union state, you must also have allegiance to the United States* the nation. Remember, the Fourteenth Amendment says:
Quote:“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.”And the Supreme Court said that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to the political jurisdiction — NOT the legislative jurisdiction. 'Political jurisdiction' is nothing more than a fancy way of saying that you are a member of the body-politic (the people) which is an integral part of the nation. Birthplace commutes nationality in part, but another important part of nationality is allegiance as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and also in Minor v. Happersett below.
Quote:“There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.”[Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)]
As far as the term “noncitizen national” goes . . . again, please regard the context. There are two, which of course are each a generic “noncitizen national” defined in 8 USC 1452:
1. A “noncitizen national” of the United States* which is also a “noncitizen national of the United States**” (8 USC 1452 and 8 USC 1408)
2. And a “noncitizen national” of the United States*** (8 USC 1452, but NOT 8 USC 1408)
See the diagram on Pg. 9. Establish first the context by establishing which 'United States' you want to talk about. If you are referring to nationality and thus, United States*, we know that an American Samoan or Swains Islander is a “noncitizen national of the United States*” because their nationality was not commuted to them through the “citizenship clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment by an Act of Congress ex proprio vigore. Because they are domiciled within the United States**, said person is also a “noncitizen national of the United States**.” Because the government does not refer to United States***, they can exclude a “noncitizen national” from a Union state by adding the little discriminator “of the United States” to the end of the term “noncitizen national” which is defined in 8 USC 1452. See the Form I-9, Section 1. election #2 which is “noncitizen national of the United States.” The clever discriminator gives the government the ability to eliminate the Union state Citizens because —
1. They are citizens of the United States* through the Fourteenth Amendment, and
2. They are not domiciliaries of the United States**, thus they are NOT “noncitizen nationals of the United States**”
This is why the Department of State will not issue the “noncitizen national” endorsement to a Citizen of a Union state. Remember, the passport is a political document and evidence of nationality — not citizenship. Thus the context they are referring to is United States*, and we (Union state Citizens) are not 'noncitizens' of the United States*, but a “noncitizen national of the United States**” is. Clever, huh?
Always establish context first, whether it is nationality (United States*), or relevant domicile for the purposes of establishing civil status under Federal law (United States**). Then substitute the desired contextual meaning of 'United States' into the applicable Title 8 definition, and you have a complete picture. Title 8 is really a brilliant work. It allows both political status and civil status to be regarded for all people whether or not they come from a foreign nation or the United States of America. And . . . it just so happens that if you haven't studied the Constitution or Title 8, you will more than likely become the 'lender of last resort' for the Federal Reserve's accrued interest payments on their legal tender printing franchise. It's a great gig if you can get it — create money out of nothing. Recruit “member banks” to also earn interest from the people who borrow for everything. And then, if you lose your a$$ by overextending the loans, the franchisor will print more, fill your coffers, and then make the “taxpayers” liable. Friggin' PURE GENIUS!!!!
nicodemus,
Sorry for the late reply . . . I have been on the go quite a bit lately. I understand your arguments and confusion completely, because the post you submitted is almost word-for-word identical to posts that I have made in the past regarding this very subject matter — Admin can attest to that.
Here's the deal: Title 8 ABSOLUTELY addresses POLITICAL STATUS (based on nationality) AND CIVIL STATUS (based on domicile). Remember what the Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark. Read it here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765
See also:
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4262
In essence, there are two conditions which describe a person's total legal status at birth, namely, his nationality and his domicile — both must be regarded and nationality must be regarded first — then, based on the nationality of the person, a relevant geographical entity may be considered from which to assign a civil status based on domicile or residency on said piece of geography.
United States* = a political entity comprising 1. people, 2. geography, and 3. government
United States** = a geographical entity where an Act of Congress is locally applicable
United States*** = a geographical entity comprising 50 legislatively foreign geographical sub-entities which are also legislatively foreign to each other
If you saw the letter from the SSA attached on the adjacent 'SS-5, I-9, E-Verify and Tax Status' thread, their response PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that the page 9 diagram is 100% correct for an American National (civil status determined with respect to United States**). Page 8 on the other hand shows how a geographical entity comprising all inhabited land of our nation is utilized in determining the civil status of a foreign national (United States** and United States***).
1. We know that for an American National, tax status is based on domicile and/or residency in United States** . . . agreed?
2. We know the IRS requests Numident Record information in which to process tax returns . . . agreed? (See their letter)
3. We know the SSA requests an A-Number, I-766, Green Card, etc., for foreign nationals declaring a status of “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” . . . agreed?
Now, let's pause for a minute and see why that which the Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark is true and why both nationality AND domicile must always be regarded in EVERY SITUATION. As Admin says, context is everything. Establish the context, and you will not go wrong.
Suppose a foreign national with a right-to-work status takes up domicile/residency in United States** for work purposes — he would be a “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” . . . agreed?
But if an American national (who already has a right-to-work status by virtue of his nationality evidenced by U.S. passport) takes up a domicile in United States** for work purposes — he would be a “U.S. Citizen” . . . agreed?
So you see, both people in this discussion (the foreign national and the American national) take up a domicile/residency on the same geographical entity (United States**), but because of their nationality, they each have a very different civil status. This is precisely what the Court said in Wong Kim Ark, and it illustrates exactly why both nationality and domicile must be considered in order to fully ascertain the legal status of the person in question.
Our model of Federal government was created precisely with this reality in mind. It was designed to protect the American People from the totalitarian authority of a national government — 50 independent and legislatively foreign states. Yes, they are politically domestic, as they fall within the United States*, but they are legislatively foreign. If this is not true, let's ditch the state boundaries and replace the 50 stars on the flag with only one big star so our flag will look like Chili's, or Cuba.
So, the government figured out a way around it by getting the naive (myself included) to declare a domicile on that portion of nation's geography where Congress has plenary authority — United States**. They do this by asking if you are a “U.S. Citizen.” Then, they mandate that all of those on that geographical entity be enumerated (SSN) in the course of earning money through work. The people are not directly controlled, but the number is, and ipso facto, the people indirectly through the number because they need it to earn money to work, play, eat and live. But, in order to be fair, they have allowed the nation's “nonresident aliens” a way to serve in public office by offering the “trade or business” franchise to them (W-8ECI) or other federal “employment” (W-4) and allowing them to file a Form 1040NR in which to pay their federal excise tax. Of course, since direct taxes must be apportioned in the 50 states, any property accrued to these “nonresident aliens” outside of the “employment” or “trade or business” franchise is private property, not enumerated (see 31 CFR 103.34(a)(3)(x)), and thus, not taxed — foreign estate under 26 USC 7701(a)(31).
The SSA requires certain documents from an “alien” who is a foreign national under the authority of Title 8. But neither the SSA nor Title 8 regulate the “alien” status of one who is an American “national” because we simply fall outside of their purview as OUR “alien” status is a First Amendment political issue. Truly, to conclude that Title 8 ONLY deals with nationality is a HUGE presumption (and wrong) as both Admin and I have conclusively proven, it deploys terms by virtue of nationality AND civil status — precisely as the Supreme Court said it must. Otherwise, we would have to deal with one noun and two adjectives only — “national” and “American” or “foreign” respectively. This would defeat the purpose of tricking the People of the 50 states into a voluntary compliance situation with the revenue collection arm of the Federal Reserve.
Make no mistake about it. The SSA is the melting/mixing pot for Title 8 and Title 26. Don't think for one second they have not tried to blur the lines here. If the IRS is utilizing citizenship data from the SSA Numident, then you know the CSP Codes on the Numident are related to tax status as well. That civil status is driven by the nationality and the political status of the applicant/taxpayer, and the civil status is derived differently for American Nationals because of our opportunity to be domiciled and resident in legislatively foreign geography right inside our very own nation, or upon geography within another nation.
This is the essence of Federalism. Understand this, and you have solved the puzzle between the IRS and the SSA. The SSA has done an amazing job of camouflaging it. Their own people don't even understand. This little bit of knowledge will go a long way. We have to stop arguing about this and all get in lock step if we want to move forward!!!
Stija,
Thanks for the response. Look at what the SSA has to say on the matter (see attached pdf file).
It reveals quite a bit. What they are basically saying is that they are a customer service organization and they must honor whatever it is you request . . . caveat emptor of course!!
So . . . the SSA will issue a SSA1042-S if you request one — or so he says. But notice how the IRS will request “finder files.” In your case, you were NEVER a “nonresident alien” because you had not been naturalized, thus you were someone who fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress — a “resident alien” and a “U.S. person.” It was only when you became a naturalized American National that you could file the 1040NR. Did you file that way after naturalization? I admit, it does seem mysterious. Did the filing have a 4852 affiliated with it? If it did, that is certainly frivolous because the instructions do not include the 1040NR as an acceptable form to accompany the 4852 submission.
Anyway, the SSA reveals in the letter that they will do what you want, and it is the IRS who is going to have the problem with the 1040NR and the CSP Code of “A” — the two DO NOT go together, thus they will flag it. Both agencies work in tandem to do each others “guardian of the gate/enforcement” work. It's just that, I believe most employees at each of the agencies are truly in the blind here.
I believe you fight to get the “Alien Allowed To Work Status” with the SSA, file a 1040NR, and then explore the “reason” for the frivolous penalty in the franchise tax court… if in fact you do get one. Don't dispute the tax, dispute the status/frivolous penalty. Provide a copy of your newly changed Numident Record, 20 CFR 422.110(a), and 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i) and then ask the judge what the problem is!!! This would be an “Emperor has no clothes on” moment!!! Totally worth the admission of being a “taxpayer” in this instance!!!
“Your honor . . . I will gladly pay every penny these information returns imply I owe . . . just tell me my status is incorrect!!!”
….crickets…..crickets…..
The attempt with my endeavor is not to necessarily get the IRS or the SSA stamp of approval . . . it's about building a body of evidence they wouldn't have a prayer of overcoming. That's the objective!
