neo
Forum Replies Created
I still think it's constitutional. The Health Care Law becomes activated in the course of “employment.” Just one form of “employment” is a “legal employer-employee relationship,” aka, a voluntary W-4 “agreement” pursuant to 26 USC 3402(p)(3).
When a “nonresident alien” enters into a voluntary withholding agreement, he and the payer enter into a contract with the “United States” to participate in SS and now the new Health Care mandates. What's the big deal?
Of course, most “nonresident aliens” make an election to be treated as a “United States person,” effectively closing the W-8 option and the avenue to avoid participation. Everyone's collective ignorance is not the government's fault (playing devil's/gov's advocate here).
Submit a W-8 to avoid the W-4, and there is no issue.
This of course is how it is supposed to work.
Why doesn't the Virgina AG know the difference between nationality/political status and domicile/civil status? The Health Care Law operates on the same territorial premises as the Federal Income Tax. If the truth about our status as “nonresident aliens” got out, most of the House of Cards would collapse.
Look at this:
Quote:TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1652§ 1652. Computation of benefits; application to aliens and nonnationals
(a) The minimum limit on weekly compensation for disability, established by section 906 (B ) of title 33, and the minimum limit on the average weekly wages on which death benefits are to be computed, established by section 909 (e) of title 33, shall not apply in computing compensation and death benefits under this chapter.
(B ) Compensation for permanent total or permanent partial disability under section 908 (c )(21) of title 33, or for death under this chapter to aliens and nonnationals of the United States not residents of the United States or Canada shall be in the same amount as provided for residents, except that dependents in any foreign country shall be limited to surviving wife and child or children, or if there be no surviving wife or child or children, to surviving father or mother whom the employee has supported, either wholly or in part, for the period of one year immediately prior to the date of the injury, and except that the Secretary of Labor may, at his option or upon the application of the insurance carrier shall, commute all future installments of compensation to be paid to such aliens or nonnationals of the United States by paying or causing to be paid to them one-half of the commuted amount of such future installments of compensation as determined by the Secretary.
What I find interesting about this is the fact that they address intentionally . . .
1. An alien, and
2. A nonnational
We know that politically, a nonnational IS an alien, thus it would be superfluous to address each. I'm only left to conclude they are referring to a statutory alien . . . a United States citizen who is a national by virtue of the 14th Amendment or the “citizenship clause” extended ex proprio vigore through an “Act of Congress” who is domiciled in a foreign state or foreign nation, and, who has availed him or herself to the franchise by virtue of ACTUAL “employment” or a “legal employer – employee relationship” instituted through a voluntary W-4 agreement pursuant to 26 USC 3402(p)(3).
According to the IRS, both a “United States person” and a “nonresident alien” can enter into voluntary W-4 agreements, opening the door to the statutory mandates and mechanisms that effectuate the obligations which accompany such an agreement — SSN use and Federal Income Tax return.
8 CFR states that you have the option to submit “paperwork” over E-verify.
Furthermore, just because the payer is contracted with the Federal Government doesn't mean you are. The I-9 does not apply to them, but I personally believe you are an “alien” authorized to work, but ONLY in a statutory civil status, not a political status. If you indicate you are a “U.S. citizen” on the I-9, they will NOT accept your W-8. I would submit the modified W-8BEN and explain to them that the company is 110% indemnified by your W-8BEN submission, and that you are not to be payed out of “payroll” as only “employees” are payed out of “payroll.” You should be payed out of “accounts payable.” Good luck getting the idiots there to realize this, much less understand it. The sodium fluoride they have been drinking has cooked their already scrubbed brains.
Personally, it seems as if you began the education process there too little too late. Furthermore, have you been a “nonresident alien” “taxpayer” at any time in the past? If not, the status of your SSN will still indicate a “U.S. person” tax status in the IRS database and will not match your claim of “nonresident alien” status. Again, this is my opinion, but I think this is a very, very important piece of the puzzle. The IRS has set it up so that you cannot escape the system unless you pay your tax as a “nonresident alien.” Then, and only then would your “talk match your walk” for subsequent years.
One other note: This “guy” probably does not qualify as someone who is “exempt,” but rather is not subject. When one claims exempt and then subsequently is not, an IRS enema is on the way with maximum withholding “locked-in” with the “payroll” stooges. They will comply, and then lick the hand that feeds them.
I love it!!! When you can't attack the message . . . . attack the messenger!
Anytime you find ad hominem attacks, you're dealing with an impotent opponent!
Let's invite him onto the forum to present his “position” in a structured, legal format! I think we would have him in a puddle of contradiction within seconds!!!
I have found you can disarm any lawyer by asking him or her:
1. What's the difference between political status and civil status?
2. What meaning of United States are you referring to?
These two questions alone render them as good as dead in the water!
Admin,
I admit it's a word game.
I find this interesting — here are some definitions from the Social Security Act of 1935:
Quote:SECTION 1101. (a) When used in this Act-(1) The term State (except when used in section 531) includes Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia.
(2) The term United States when used in a geographical sense means the States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia.
(3) The term person means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation.
(4) The term corporation includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.
(5) The term shareholder includes a member in an association, joint- stock company, or insurance company.
(6) The term employee includes an officer of a corporation.
(B ) The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this Act shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
(c ) Whenever under this Act or any Act of Congress, or under the law of any State, an employer is required or permitted to deduct any amount from the remuneration of an employee and to pay the amount deducted to the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, then for the purposes of this Act the amount so deducted shall be considered to have been paid to the employee at the time of such deduction.
(d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this Act, to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child.
Now, this seems pretty generic. But if you go to the current laws, which appear to have been “added to” and “amended” over the years — the same section says the following:
Quote:Sec. 1101. [42 U.S.C. 1301] (a) When used in this Act—(1) The term “State”, except where otherwise provided, includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and when used in titles IV, V, VII, XI, XIX, and XXI includes the Virgin Islands and Guam. Such term when used in titles III, IX, and XII also includes the Virgin Islands. Such term when used in title V and in part B of this title also includes American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Such term when used in titles XIX and XXI also includes the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. In the case of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, titles I, X, and XIV, and title XVI (as in effect without regard to the amendment made by section 301 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972[3]) shall continue to apply, and the term “State” when used in such titles (but not in title XVI as in effect pursuant to such amendment after December 31, 1973) includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Such term when used in title XX also includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Such term when used in title IV also includes American Samoa.
(2) The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense means, except where otherwise provided, the States.
[…]
(B ) The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this Act shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
What's the deal with the difference in language? Does the latter set of definitions just reflect later amendments? Do you know why the latter set has such a greater level of detail?
The latter set of definitions supports your position 100%, and I concede that it does not extend to the Union states by the rules of statutory construction, but the “States” so defined — and as defined are United States* citizens per the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amdnt which was extended to these “States” ex proprio vigore by an “Act of Congress”. Union state Citizens are also United States* citizens, hence, the confusion. SS is extended to the superset–United States*, “generically”, but by definition is expressly extended to the subset — United States**. But I do still believe that those in the Union states are LEGALLY (not LAWFULLY…LEGALLY) eligible to “volunteer”…which is precisely what has happened. The Supreme Court has already held that it is constitutional. They will do the same thing with Health Care.
So again, if those from the Union states “volunteer”, because they are in fact “public officers” and “wage” earners . . . or “wage” earners through a 3402(p)(3) voluntary agreement, then it is incumbent upon them to correct the status of their SSN to reflect their true and correct legal status through the provisions of 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i), and file their tax returns accordingly on a 1040NR. The IRS should then notify SSA of the SSN status change. Then, and only then will a natural person with a SSN be able to declare their NRA status without conflict with the IRS and SSA databases.
Then of course, if you are dealing with the extremely rare individual who never obtained a SSN and in fact knows who he is relative to all of these statutory tricks deployed through our financial system, well….it is a moot point because there is no status TO CHANGE in the SSA or IRS databases. I would venture to say these people are very, very few and far between. Thus, correcting the number with the IRS and ipso facto with the SSA is the only way to LEGALLY exit the system in a future private-sector capacity without also incurring a lifetime of administrative and legal battles with the “paper terrorism matrix.”
Admin,
Well . . . I certainly agree with just about every point you made in your last post. In fact, the Social Security Program has the practical effect of creating the precise set of “living conditions” you just described. But that does not mean there is not a way out, or that it is unconstitutional, illegal, or anything else.
In your second to last post previous, you said:
Quote:4. The term “the States” cannot and does not refer to constitutional states of the Union. When they want to refer to constitutional states of the Union, they typically use the phrase “the SEVERAL States”, as they do in the Constitution. I would argue instead that the term “the States” really means federal corporations established as a “res” by the franchise itself and which are foreign states other than territories and possessions. In effect, they are using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to create “resident persons” called “States” and which are federal corporations receiving franchise benefits under the franchise. This in effect establishes a state within a state and that establishment is a violation of the Constitutional design per Article 4, Section 3.Notice what the Preamble of the Social Security Act of 1935 says:
Quote:The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]PREAMBLE
An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.
Admin, the Social Security Act is nothing more than a franchise agreement specifically as you have pointed out. But this agreement is available to EVERYONE WHO QUALIFIES, including also Union state Citizens and foreign nationals. You are correct in that it is a snare, but let's look at a couple of well established facts:
1. Participation in the Social Security Program is not mandatory — SSA admits that themselves.
2. According to 20 CFR 422.104, a “U.S. citizen” is eligible — this is a 14th Amndt citizen
3. If a “U.S. citizen” becomes “employed” in actuality or through voluntary agreement, he becomes a “wage” earner.
4. The SS-5 asks if you are a “U.S. citizen” — unless notified by IRS, a payee is PRESUMED to be “U.S. person”
5. Upon receipt of SSN, a natural person can establish a foreign status for the number pursuant to 26 CFR 310.6109-1(g)(1)(i).
6. This status change is done by submitting “taxpayer” forms such as a W-8ECI or a W-4
7. There is no reason to obtain a SSN in the first place unless one is to become a “wage” earner, and “taxpayer”.
8. Once “taxpayer” files 1040NR, that status is forwarded to SSA in order to update database for future tax treatment.
9. Unless SSA is notified of foreign status by IRS, SSA payments will be processed with a 1099.
10. Once foreign “taxpayer” status is received by SSA, future payments will be processed with 1042-S.
Later, if said foreign “taxpayer” wants to secure private-sector work, he or she can legitimately provide a Form W-8BEN to avoid reporting and withholding. There will be no conflict as the “taxpayer” status on file with the IRS will match the declaration, as will the status at the SSA. I believe this is where people get into trouble with the IRS. They declare themselves a “nonresident alien” through a W-8BEN submission, yet there is ZERO evidence of this on file with the IRS or in the databases of the IRS or SSA. “The talk” does not match “the walk”. When “Agent Smith” from the IRS audits Acme U.S.A., Inc., and asks where John Q. Patriot's W-4 is, HR will simply turn over his W-8BEN, after all, now Acme is indemnified–right? Agent Smith “punches up” John Q. Patriot's name in the IRS database, and low and behold, he has NEVER been a “nonresident alien” “taxpayer.” In fact, the status in the IRS database says the opposite — that John Q. Patriot is a “U.S. person”–this, no doubt as a result of past indiscretions, such as washing dishes as a 14 year old at the local seafood restaurant when he was a kid and didn't know better. The young John Q. Patriot surrendered his SSN voluntarily in the course of a voluntary withholding agreement, obliging both he and the payer at the seafood restaurant to be treated AS IF an “employee” being paid “wages” by an “employer” respectively. A decade or so later, John Q. Patriot learns the truth, declares himself a “nonresident alien” non-“taxpayer” and submits a W-8BEN. But . . . John Q. Patriot NEVER fixed this status in the ABSOLUTELY MOST IMPORTANT PLACE OF ALL — the IRS database. Because of this little “conflict”, John Q. Patriot will NEVER find peace and rest — not at least until he fixes his mistake with the computer. Come on!!! This is brilliant!!! And it makes absolutely perfect sense!!! If I were trying to ensnare 330 million of my fellow countrymen and 30% of their earnings, I would do the same thing too. This is in fact how it works. There is no denying this.
Future payments such as military retirement (“United States” sourced – non-geographical sense) will be processed on a 1042-S, and will be taxed and declared accordingly. This may even be 20 years down the road when John Q. Patriot receives his first armed forces retirement check. But at least it will match his true and correct status. Meanwhile, John Q. Patriot has built up a sizable nest egg for himself due there being no tax on his investment and increase in net aggregate wealth while in the private-sector. There is not need for John Q. Patriot to apply for SS.
Now, we can wish and complain all we want about the system. But the reality is that it is here. People want real solutions. People in general are NOT going to send in a “Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trust” statement. It's just too risky to do that and confrontational — most I have found have already been neutered, they won't challenge the status quo. The way banks and HR departments are now — people could quite certainly find themselves broke and penniless, and without a job if this is done. I admit, it is a goal down the road. But we have to find workable solutions here and now. Getting the population as a whole to FIRST AND FOREMOST realize that they are “nonresident aliens” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax should be job #1. Then, once that is established, a tax return is filed, and the status is corrected with the IRS, then start working on the — SSN/ITIN not required for a “nonresident alien” not engaged in a “trade or business” angle. But the status still needs to be fixed FIRST. Or, just fight the system your whole life. Both are tenable and functional options. The former I find to be more in line with the system as it was designed. I believe that until people correct their status with the IRS and the SSA to reflect that of a “nonresident alien” “taxpayer”, they are opening themselves up for a lifetime of trouble and conflict with the ACS and the paper terrorism matrix in Martinsburgh, WV. The SYSTEM just will not reconcile the conflict it was DESIGNED TO CATCH AND PREVENT!!!!
The whole SS franchise is designed to lure people in, in hopes that they will not understand that they are in fact “nonresident aliens.” Then, as a statutory “U.S. person” they are mandated to surrender the number for EVERYTHING they do, thus giving the United States Government direct access to EVERYTHING associated with the number. But, as someone who is a legitimate “taxpayer”, they need to make sure and declare the “nonresident alien” status in accordance with 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i), or else they will be stuck on the “treadmill” within the system — AS PER THE “BLUEPRINT”. Once the “taxpayer” status is established to reflect that which they were in the first place. Then, and only then, will they be able to be free again to operate tax-free in a private-sector capacity.”
Admin said:
Quote:1. It is NOT a contract in equity, because Constitutional rights are unalienable in relation to a real, de jure government. The Declaration of Independence says rights are unalienable, and the House of Representatives website recognizes the Declaration as “Organic Law” and therefore law. That means they can't be sold, bargained away, or transferred by any commercial process, including a franchise. Hence, government may not make a business out of destroying, taxing, and regulating rights that it was established ONLY to protect and LEAVE ALONE.I deny that any rights are being “sold, bargained away, or transferred by an commercial process, including a franchise.” ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS ARE STILL POSSESSED. BUT . . . all contracts come with some type of requirement for performance of both parties. For example, as a uniformed military officer, I must cut my hair a certain way, and also refrain from certain political speech while in uniform. Does that mean that I don't have the right to free speech? Of course not. But there are restrictions while I serve in certain capacities. Likewise, when a person avails themselves to the SS franchise, they MUST become “taxpayers” . . . PERIOD! When you say that the “government may not make a business out of destroying, taxing, and regulating rights that it was established ONLY to protect and LEAVE ALONE” — I submit to you they in fact have. So we can wish all we want, but we have to deal in reality. Look at what the Organic Act of 1871 said:
Quote:16 Stat. 419CHAP. LXII. – An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provision of this act.”
So where is anything they do outside of the Constitution and the laws of the United States? I can't find it! The United States Government can contract and can place mandates as a result of that contract — and that includes legitimate public offices.
Let's use your scope for a legitimate public office. Do you admit that a Congressman's “income” accrued while exercising his public office in the District of Columbia can be legitimately taxed? Of course it can . . . this is a rhetorical question. So how is this unconstitutional? It's not. Nor is the exercise of any other public office or activity performed in accordance with law.
Quote:2. If the de facto government DID have the authority to contract away rights, then they wouldn't be a government anymore because you can only contract them away to private parties and not real governments. That is why the IRS is NOT part of the U.S. Government.
So do we have a de facto government or a de jure one? If in fact they are de facto like you say, then let's operate accordingly. But again, I don't believe any of my rights have been contracted away. What has happened as I have entered into contracts whereby I incur a duty to perform above and beyond my unalienable rights that are extant. But I suggest it is de jure, but just run by a perverted and immoral system of laws put together by greedy and sinful men. These men are way too smart and clever to create something illegal or unconstitutional. I'm sorry, I just don't believe it. I think their programs are legitimate — but designed to ensnare and enslave those who participate and can't find their way out. And the “beautiful part” about their scheme is that the ignorant banks and HR departments are really the ones that do the dirty work. I find the laws quite straight-forward thanks to your leadership.
Quote:3. The regs are an implementation of the act itself. Nowhere in the act do the definitions you provided say what you provided and they CANNOT expand the scope of the statute in the regulations. The statutes do not use “the States” trick like they do in the I.R.C. This is covered in:Admin, I generally agree with this. I will have to delve more deeply into the SS Act itself. But quite frankly, I'm pretty sure the scope of those eligible to participate (which is everyone on the face of the planet) is also not addressed in detail in the Act. Why do I believe that anyone can participate? For a couple of reasons.
1. Right now, darn near everyone who wants a number will get one so long as they are eligible for “employment.”
2. I DO BELIEVE that “employment” extends to things beyond “public office in the District of Columbia.” I believe this to be the case because of the private-contract nature of the language in 26 USC 3402(p)(3). Entering into an agreement to BE TREATED AS IF an “employee” paid “wages” by an “employer” is equally binding in the eyes of the Federal Government as actually becoming a Federal “employee” in the District of Columbia. It's a scheme comprising lawyer-language in order to bring others LEGALLY into the fold. That's it–nothing more. But it is legal, and the IRS certainly sees it that way. I see it that way too.
Quote:4. The term “the States” cannot and does not refer to constitutional states of the Union. When they want to refer to constitutional states of the Union, they typically use the phrase “the SEVERAL States”, as they do in the Constitution. I would argue instead that the term “the States” really means federal corporations established as a “res” by the franchise itself and which are foreign states other than territories and possessions. In effect, they are using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to create “resident persons” called “States” and which are federal corporations receiving franchise benefits under the franchise. This in effect establishes a state within a state and that establishment is a violation of the Constitutional design per Article 4, Section 3This is certainly an interesting theory! And it's certainly one I am open to learning more about. But as you say, if we cannot prove that with court admissible evidence, then it remains simply a theory. I am very willing to learn how a “federal corporation” is legally associated with the term “State.” Is there any case law or precedent for this? The clear language in the regs extends SS to 14th Amndt United States citizens and other foreign nationals who meet the appropriate qualifications. I personally disagree that the creation of a “federal corporation” creates a state in a State. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is going on. An Air Force base is not a “State”, but a Federal Area described in I:8:17. These are nowhere referred to as “States.”
Quote:5. Next, contracts, including franchises, are not enforceable without MUTUAL consideration and MUTUAL obligation. The SS franchise does not create ANY obligation to pay anything to the “benefit recipient” and therefore, it cannot CREATE any obligation on the part of the recipient. That blows your equity ploy right out of the water.I disagree with this. To think that the Social Security franchise is simply a “I'll pay and you pay later” agreement is rather simplistic. I believe it is not a direct benefit, but an existing, mandated participation in accordance with and as a condition of Federal “employment”–whether actual or through a voluntary agreement. The fact of the matter is, earning “wages” DOES place an obligation on the recipient, and far too many people know that good and well. As a condition of the contract, the United States has smugly stated that they can terminate payments at any time. That sounds like a crummy deal, but it's their contract. I think it sucks!!
Quote:6. You still have the problem to overcome of the U.S. Supreme Court saying in the License Tax Cases that Congress cannot create a “trade or business” in a state in order to tax it, and this in fact is exactly what they have done with trickery using words of art. They have never overruled that case.I don't believe they have ever done this. A military public office is an office representing the “United States” Corporation, whether at home, or while 'resident' in a foreign state. I don't believe there is a Federal “trade or business” seated in Idaho, but rather a “trade or business” seated in the District of Columbia but exercised in Idaho, Germany, Iwo Jima, Seoul, Hanoi, Baghdad, Kabul, etc. as a 'resident' “alien” corporation with regard to the locus at issue. Corporations all over the world operate in precisely this same concept. The Corporation, such as the Union Pacific Railroad Company was seated in the District of Columbia, but had a headquarters building in New York. The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a “domestic” corporation with regard to the District of Columbia, but a “resident alien” corporation with regard to New York. It was still seated in D.C. The Supreme Court said so and so did the ensuing TD 2313. The difference is very, very subtle, but it is there.
Finally,
Quote:You are doing this to justify continued receipt of the plunder. The fact that said plunder is taken from people who are effectively forced to participate and not allowed to leave ought to be reason enough to justify not participating or receiving anything.No sir! Quite sincerely, I would prefer to not participate. But I can tell you that I have not RECEIVED one cent from Social Security, nor do I intend to. That does not change the fact that a Federal “wage” earner MUST participate. I agree it is immoral. But I do believe it is constitutional and legal. A perversion of the Constitution and the system of law — NO DOUBT. But we have to recognize that and learn how to apply our tactics in fighting this thing accordingly. To talk about a de jure government who protects my property and rights is not something you will see in this mortal life. The Lord himself has told us that. It is only in His Kingdom where we will enjoy a moral and righteous government. Thus, we have to fight the sinners using their own system — and that involves learning PRECISELY HOW IT WORKS … NOT how we think it ought to work.
So this is an “Act of Congress.” According to former Rule 54(c ) of the Fed Rules of Crim Proc., an “Act of Congress” is an act which is locally applicable in the Federal territories and other Federal areas.
Thus the term “alien” within the context of “citizen of the United States” as used in Section 6, must be referring to the political subdivision where an “Act of Congress” is territorially applicable, and NOT the national body politic known as the United States* or the United States of America.
This is not a POLITICAL “alien” such as the “alien” referred to in the Constitution, but a STATUTORY/CIVIL “alien” with regard to any portion of the national body politic that is NOT a free and independent Union state.
The question to then be answered is: Is said “alien” a 'resident' or 'nonresident' of the “United States” in question (United States**)?
Interesting indeed!
Bing,
I DON'T believe a 14th citizen is ipso facto a statutory “citizen”, but I believe a 14th citizen CAN BE a statutory “citizen.”
What I find interesting is that because Blackmer DID NOT declare State Citizenship and get that on the record, he was PRESUMED to be a statutory Federal “citizen” and subject to the Fed's subpoena powers.
I think it's amazing how those in the Federal Government (the judges) know this stuff, yet self-servingly leave it to the individual person to figure this out on their own. You would think the judge would say,“Mr. Blackmer, aren't you a State Citizen of Missouri (for example)? Then you might want to declare this so that you can go about your business eating escargot in France. Otherwise, we're going to haul your across the Atlantic and sanction you like a slave.” But they never do this. They only leave obscure clues. Amazing!!
I guess I wouldn't make a very good/mean Federal Judge. I think I would be trying to help people too much.
–neo
Sir,
First, may I say, nobody here will EVER give anyone any type of legal advice. The forums are created for discussion regarding legal INFORMATION, whereby people can read the law for themselves, learn from in-depth debate and analysis, and apply it to their own particular circumstances.
As for your mother being a “taxpayer”, this site and the materials are for “nontaxpayers”. It is my opinion that every single person that acquires a taxable liability should pay it in accordance with the applicable code and regulations… if in fact there is a liability.
As for the status of your mother:
1. Does she already in fact have a U.S. Passport?
2. What does it say with regard to her Nationality? United States of America?
As for the “non-citizen national” status. There is some debate about the proper context of that term, namely, is it a term describing a POLITICAL STATUS, or is it a term describing a CIVIL STATUS?
It is my opinion and my opinion only that the term “non-citizen national” is a term describing a CIVIL STATUS for both American Samoans and Union state Citizens. The U.S. Department of State will frequently qualify that designation by adding the language “of the United States” immediately following the proper term. For example: “non-citizen national” of the United States. Of course this extra “of the United States” language 'tacked-on' behind the statutorily defined term “non-citizen national” has the practical effect of eliminating Union state Citizens from also adopting that appellation. This intentional 'modification' of a clearly defined statutory term speaks volumes to me. It is for this reason that I believe it is a statutory term describing a CIVIL STATUS. Whereas either the term “national” or “alien” are the appropriate appellations for a POLITICAL STATUS. I do also believe however, that a person can also be an “alien” for statutory civil purposes. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
If my mother was from the Philippines and her birthday was within the prescribed window, I would conclude she was eligible for the endorsement. I would simply contact the Department of State — they should be able to direct her as to how to proceed in obtaining the endorsement.
Admin,
I disagree with the following comment which appeared on the post previous to this one.
Quote:Those born in INCORPORATED territory such as D.C. therefore are not 8 USC 1401 “nationals and citizens of the United States”, because they didn't acquire nationality legislatively, but rather CONSTITUTIONALLY.The above language confirms this conclusion:
First off, I don't agree that D.C. is an INCORPORATED Territory, but rather a Federal Area established under I:8:17. We have not had any INCORPORATED ORGANIZED Territories since 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union. Palmyra Atoll is an INCORPORATED UNORGANIZED Territory only because it is the “leftovers” from the INCORPORATED and ORGANIZED Territory of Hawaii. But since Palmyra Atoll itself has not been organized under an “Act of Congress”, it remains INCORPORATED but UNORGANIZED.
Secondly, those born in D.C. DO NOT receive their nationality constitutionally through direct interface such as a State, but rather ex proprio vigore through the Organic Act of 1871, which stated in part:
Quote:16 Stat. 419 (1871), Chapter 62.Sec. 34
“… and the Constitution and all the laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said District of Columbia as elsewhere within the United States.”
So… the “citizenship clause” and of course other constitutional provisions were extended to the people of D.C. through this “Act of Congress” which for all practical purposes allowed those provisions “NOT LOCALLY INAPPLICABLE” to apply to those in D.C. This of course included (among other things) the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amendment.
It is a very subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless, because the District of Columbia is not a “State” as that term is used in the Constitution. However, it is within the meaning of United States as used in the 14th Amendment as pointed out by the High Court, thus they are also 14th Amendment citizens, but only by virtue of the “Act of Congress” which activated those provisions for them.
In fact, the ONLY place where the “citizenship clause” has not been activated ex proprio vigore is in the UNINCORPORATED and UNORGANIZED territory of American Samoa. ORGANIZED means organized through an “Act of Congress”, whereas UNORGANIZED means NOT organized through an “Act of Congress.” Interestingly enough though, American Samoans were commuted NATIONALITY ex proprio vigore through an alternative provision whereby they tender “allegiance to the United States*”, but because they are not a State, they don't interface the Constitution directly, and because they have not been ORGANIZED under an “Act of Congress,” the “citizenship clause” has not been commuted to them ex proprio vigore in the conventional way of UNINCORPORATED and ORGANIZED territories.
For this reason, I believe those domiciled in D.C. meet the criteria of 8 USC 1401.
jb,
When you see the word JURISDICTION in a citizenship context, what do you believe they mean by that?
A. Statutory/Legislative jurisdiction, or
B. Political jurisdiction
B. is NOT equivalent to A. Someone within B. can also be within A. But someone can be within B. and NOT be within A.
All Union state Citizens are ALSO 14th Amndt citizens (NATIONALITY). All statutory “citizens” are ALSO United States* citizens (NATIONALITY) through a citizenship clause extended ex proprio vigore. American Samoans have been extended NATIONALITY by virtue of a special provision whereby they proffer allegiance and NATIONALITY is granted. The end result is the same for all three . . . NATIONALITY . . . they just procure the end result by different methods.
Only a Union state Citizen gets the full meal deal. BUT…he must declare it. And of course do all he can to make sure those less educated don't make damaging presumptions, because a 14th Amndt citizen sure looks an awful lot like a statutory “citizen.” This may be by design, but it doesn't really matter. Protesting it also doesn't matter. It is what it is.
neo
I would agree that over the years the lawyers are distorting and transforming the foundations of our nation into that of a Babylonian harlot and beast worshiper. I will not participate. It has been written that this will occur, and the Lord Jesus has said: “Behold, I prophecy the end from the beginning.” The results are in, the Satanists lose and we win! I'm willing to accept whatever tyranny they bestow upon me for following the truth in the process. If our Lord can be subjected to a Kangaroo Court, then certainly I can, for I am not greater than my Master.
You said:
Quote:2. You said: “If 8 USC 1452 is held to be a political context applying to United States*, then it does NOT apply to Union state Citizens, as they are citizens of the United States* through the 14th Amendment.”
I don't see why this is the case. “United States*” includes “United States**” and “United States***”.
My thoughts regarding this are:
If a Union state Citizen is a 14th Amndt United States* citizen, then how could he be a 'non-citizen' as in “non-citizen national”? This would be a conflict in terms if in fact they were the same thing, as it would mean that a Union state Citizen would be a 'non-national national.' I can see a judge calling this “frivolous” and completely without merit. Objectively I have to agree, thus I search for a more justifiable solution.
In a POLITICAL sense, a Citizen of American Samoa is a “non-citizen national” because the 'citizenship' provisions are neither commuted through the 14th Amndt nor ex proprio vigore through an organic “Act of Congress”, thus, the American Samoan is a 'non-citizen'. The American Samoan has been commuted nationality however through an alternative mechanism called “allegiance to the United States*” and has been approved by Congress, so they are also a “national.” Thus, in a POLITICAL SENSE, they are a “non-citizen national,” and the Federal Government has every legitimate right to deny this endorsement because a Union state Citizen is NOT a “non-citizen national” but a 14th Amndt citizen and a “national.” This is a tremendously solid argument I would use if I were the Federal Government, and is perhaps the stance they are maintaining to deny the endorsement, because the passport is a POLITICAL document. It is for this reason and under the aforementioned circumstances that there is tremendous reason to believe they are flip-flopping between contexts to serve their purposes of defending the tax through the mechanisms of the passport and the I-9. The “non-citizen national” and “alien” endorsements are qualified by being in a statutory CIVIL sense, thus they apply ONLY within the context of United States** and are there to mitigate the abuse by uninformed “gatekeepers.” I am ONLY a “national” in the POLITICAL sense, and NOT an “alien” or a “non-citizen national”, but again, ONLY in a POLITICAL sense. Statutorily, I am a “non-citizen national” and an “alien” as both of these terms are then regarded in terms of the United States**.
They have to be using both contexts. There is no way else to reconcile the two positions. Because if we establish that the I-9 is used ONLY in a POLITICAL context, conflict in our declarations is EASILY established by the government. The ONLY way to defend it is to maintain that there ARE two contexts, and that they are 100% dependent on the meaning of the “United States.” On all government forms, deny being a “U.S. Citizen” and then define “United States” to mean United States**.
Attached are some improvements to the model that have been made. These are for informational purposes only.
I'll be away for the next week. Take care and have a good one.
–neo
continued…….
I admit 8 USC 1452 could be construed in a political sense and with regard to United States*, and here's my reasoning:
1. State Citizens are United States* citizens per the 14th Amendment
2. Federal Citizens are United States* citizens per the “citizenship clause” extended ex proprio vigore through an “Act of Congress”.
3. American Samoans don't interface the 14th Amendment and have also not been availed to an “Act of Congress” extending said “citizenship”, but are afforded 'nationality' through an alternative provision afforded them specifically — allegiance to the United States*. The end result is the same politically for all three parties, and that is, they all have the following political status: “national” of the United States*.
Here is the BIG problem with this position. If 8 USC 1452 is held to be a political context applying to United States*, then it does NOT apply to Union state Citizens, as they are citizens of the United States* through the 14th Amendment.
So we are left with a dilemma:
A. If 8 USC 1452 is a political appellation, then it does not apply to Union state Citizens
B. If 8 USC 1452 is a civil appellation, then it must be within the context of United States**, as this is the ONLY way it can apply to a Union state Citizen.
And of course, in your next response, you said there can only be two POLITICAL STATUSES: “national” and “alien” — a “non-citizen national” is not one of these two statuses, thus one of the two premises is incorrect. It cannot be both ways.
Quote:13. Admit that within the same statutory civil status context of number 12. above, an “alien” of 8 USC 1101(a)(3) is also a valid statutory civil status for a Union state Citizen.Deny. Alien, like “national” is a POLITICAL statuts within Title 8. They are OPPOSITES of each other. You can only have two political statuses under Title 8 and everything else is a civil/legal status. The title of Title 8 betrays this by calling itself “Aliens and nationality”.
I admit there are two possible political statuses: “national” and “alien”.
However, as the term “alien” also contains the term “United States”, it's meaning and context CAN change depending on which definition of “United States” is used, which ipso facto changes the context to either a POLITICAL context or a STATUTORY CIVIL context — it can't be both at the same time, as that would be a violation of due process. The context must be established by defining “United States”, then the term “alien” can be properly regarded. The term “alien” is dependent on the term “United States”, thus establishment of context must precede the meaning derived.
Quote:18. Admit the term “non-citizen national” of 8 USC 1452 cannot be reconciled in terms of United States*, as a “national” of the United States* has the same political status as a 14th Amendment citizen.Deny.
I agree this is possible, however it creates a conflict in other areas, namely, if it IS a POLITICAL context, then it cannot apply to a Union state Citizen as he IS a 14th Amdnt citizen of the United States*.
Quote:19. Admit that to regard the term “non-citizen national” as a political status in terms of United States* would create a contradiction between 8 USC 1452 and 8 USC 1101(a)(21), as a 14th Amendment citizen or one who procured that citizenship ex proprio vigore are each a “national” of the United States*.Deny. “United States” in 8 USC 1452 is the “United States*”.
See my comments above.
Quote:20. Admit that there is no way to reconcile the oft used non-statutory phrase “non-citizen national of the United States” for a Union state Citizen as said Citizen is both a Citizen of the United States*** and a citizen of the United States*.Deny. “United States” in 8 USC 1452 is the “United States*”.
See my comments above.
Quote:25. Admit the term “non-citizen national” of the United States as proffered on Form I-9 is a statutory civil status modified in a way to disqualify Union state Citizens from adopting that designation.Deny. “United States” on the I-9 appears to mean “United States*”. Put an asterisk after “United States” and add a note to the form defining that “United States” means the country and excludes any and all statutory definitions.
I understand the thought process here. But since the primary threat is the presumptuous abuse by “gatekeepers” who apply any affirmation of United States citizenship to also imply a statutory “citizen” status for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax, couldn't one also treat all of the terms on the I-9 in a statutory civil manner and defined “United States” on the form to be United States**. I find this to be a much more powerful way to go, because the form could not be submitted as evidence by the government to a dumbed-down jury. The I-9 would in fact deny being a “U.S. Citizen.” Furthermore, the I-9 is not an “Immigration Form,” but an “Eligibility for (statutory)Employment” form, thus, the statuses must be statutory in their context as well.
I can see how a case can be made for both. But to treat the terms in a POLITICAL sense creates an irreconcilable discontinuity in our strategy, whereas defining the term “United States” on the form as United States** keeps everything consistent and creates no discontinuity or avenue for false presumption.
Quote:26. Admit the proper context for establishing a Federal statutory civil status is ONLY United States**.Deny. Terms on government forms are sometimes used in a political sense, such as the I-9, or in a statutory sense, such as tax forms.
I reject this. The admission was for a “statutory civil sense” and not a “political sense.” There is not statutory civil context in terms of United States*. A Union state Citizen is always “alien” with regard to the Federal Government for civil purposes.
Quote:27. Admit that in the context of United States**, the only proper appellation on Form I-9 for a Union state Citizen is “alien authorized to work”.Deny. “United States*” appears to be the one intended on the I-9.
The United States* was NOT the context. The context is United States**, thus in that context ONLY, the only proper appellation on Form I-9 for a Union state Citizen is “alien authorized to work”.
Quote:28. Admit that the mandates for an alien admission number only apply to a foreign national– who is also an “alien” with regard to United States**.Deny. Applies to an alien with regard to “United States*” under 8 USC 1101(a)(3).
This cannot be the truth in every case. As a foreign “national” domiciled and residing on his own soil is a POLITICAL “alien” and the Federal Government has ZERO authority over him in this instance. The real issue becomes one of residency. A foreign “national” is considered a 'resident' “alien” when residing anywhere within the national body-politic (American Samoa notwithstanding), and while in Texas for example, said “alien” is still “alien” with regard to the United States**, thus our statutory civil model remains intact while affording Union state Citizens to maintain their 'nonresident' “alien” status in the CIVIL sense and outside of the scope of Federal authority — thus there would be no requirement for a 'nonresident' “alien” from a Union state to have an alien admission number in exactly the same manner that a foreign “national” on his own soil has no requirement. This reality keeps the model in tact and presents no conflict,
Context is the key:
1. Constitutional/POLITICAL “alien” — United States*
2. Statutory/CIVIL “alien” — United States**
Changing the term “United States” changes the context. Context precedes meaning. There is no way around this.
Regarding this statute:
Quote:(d) Alien applicants for admission.(1) Each alien seeking admission at a United States port-of-entry must present whatever documents are required and must establish to the satisfaction of the inspecting officer that the alien is not subject to removal under the immigration laws, Executive Orders, or Presidential Proclamations, and is entitled, under all of the applicable provisions of the immigration laws and this chapter, to enter the United States.
This is not a problem, as my passport indicates my place of birth as being in “Union state, U.S.A.” and my Nationality is indicated to be “United States of America.” I am ONLY an “alien” in the statutory CIVIL sense, which is with regard to the political subdivision where an “Act of Congress” is territorially applicable. When re-entering my country, I am operating under a POLITICAL context, and the “alien” appellation is not applicable, and the endorsement clearly indicates this.
Quote:The federal government has tremendous power over CONSTITUTIONAL aliens; see Chai Chan Ping v. United States, 130 US 581 (1889); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 13 S. Ct. 1016 (1893); Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 73 S. Ct. 625 (1953); and Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 586, 587, 72 S. Ct. 512, 517 (1952). These are the SAME “aliens” found in 8 USC 1101(a)(3). The feds have jurisdiction over constitutional aliens EVERYWHERE in the country, not just on federal territory.
I agree. However, I am not a CONSTITUTIONAL “alien”, but only a statutory “alien” with regard to the Federal Governments territorial legislative venue. The endorsement clearly indicates this, as does my birthplace and nationality on the passport.
I've reached my “quote” limit………………..
Remember: “alien” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3) and “alien” under the I.R.C. are two completely different things. Nearly EVERYONE files as an “alien” under Title 26 because the “United States**” is implicated.
The term “alien” under 8 USC 1101(a)(3) CAN change meaning and thus context based on which meaning and context its integral term “United States” has. This is the beauty of the Title 8 scheme. It creates PRECISELY this type of confusion and conflict, and there are very, very few people who could effectively counter an argument one way or the other.
The key to stopping any government abuse is to drive the context of all terms by establishing the meaning for the term “United States”, and then not flip-flopping between contexts until the “United States” definition is established again. Context is paramount as we both agree on. Thus it must be established and iron-clad — all subsequent meanings are derivative.
Since the I-9 is an “Employment” Eligibility Form, I will adopt and place the definition of “United States” to mean United States** ONLY and does NOT include the 50 Union states. Then I will indicate I am an “alien authorized to work.” This is the only way to avoid a conflict between the meaning of all of the other terms of Title 8 if and TRULY there are ONLY two POLITICAL STATUSES: NATIONAL and ALIEN.
These are the problems I see with the “Deny” answers:
Quote:7. Admit the term “national” of 8 USC 1101(a)(21) describes the political status of an American when the nation-state to which he owes allegiance is defined as the national body-politic defined in number 5. above.Deny. His allegiance is to a “state” of the Union, which is lower case because it is foreign. His allegiance is therefore to the “United States***” and not the “United States*”, and more particularly to the PEOPLE of this region and not the government that serves them. THEY are the only real sovereigns, and THE PEOPLE are the sovereigns.
This is inconsistent with the concept of nationality and the reality of what is commuted through the 14th Amendment and the “citizenship clause” when applied ex proprio vigore to the Federal territories.
Let's examine some definitions:
state –The political system of a body of people who are politically organized; the system of rules by which jurisdiction and authority are exercised over such a body of people. The organ of the state by which its relations with other states are managed is the government.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)
nation – A community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state. When a nation is coincident with a state, the term nation-state is often used.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)
nationality – The relationship between a citizen of a nation and the nation itself, customarily involving allegiance by the citizen and protection by the state; membership in a nation. This term is often used synonymously with citizenship.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)
From the above we see the term “state” is not limited to the traditional American meaning, but is more generic in that it refers to a political state as defined in Black's definition of “nation” above.
The Fourteenth Amendment commutes nationality to State Citizens and the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amndt is commuted ex proprio vigore to citizens of the organized Federal territories and the citizens of the District of Columbia. American Samoa is not organized under an Organic Act of Congress, thus they have not been commuted “citizenship” ex proprio vigore, but through the alternate avenue of “allegiance to the United States*. The citizens from DC and the Federal territories do not have allegiance to a Union state, thus the premise that this is allowed is conflicted. The truth will not contradict itself, thus, the allegiance is to the nation-state– United States*, and not a Union state or the “people”. Furthermore, the “people” are just one part of the body-politic comprising the nation-state, and are not afforded “allegiance” solely.
Quote:11. Admit United States** is defined for the purposes of Title 8 to include the “States” of 8 USC 1101(a)(36) and the “outlying possessions of the United States” of 8 USC 1101(a)(29).Deny. “United States*” as defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38), not “United States**”, nor does it define ALL the uses of the term “United States” in Title 8. Rather, it defines ONLY the “geographic sense”. It could also mean the GOVERNMENT sense or the POLITICAL sense (the entire country).
I reject the contention that United States* is defined by 8 USC 1101(a)(38) because that definition does not also comprise the “outlying possessions of the United States” of 8 USC 1101(a)(29), and these “possessions” are an integral part of United States*. In fact, there is not one instance in 8 USC where the nation United States* is defined. United States* appears to be defined in 8 CFR 215.1, but not within Title 8 itself. The 50 Union states is certainly not defined anywhere, nor is the political subdivision of the United States* where an “Act of Congress” is territorially applicable ever defined — United States**. In fact, in order to construct an accurate definition of United States* and United States** within 8 USC, a combination of terms must be compiled and regarded together within the proper context.
For example:
1. United States* = 8 USC 1101(a)(38)+ 8 USC 1101(a)(29)
2. United States** = 8 USC 1101(a)(36)+ 8 USC 1101(a)(29)
Furthermore, United States* is the POLITICAL sense, and no indication is ever given when the term “United States” is used in the non-geographical sense to mean the “United States Government.” It is incumbent upon the reader/user to ascertain that for him or herself.
Also the language “…except as otherwise specifically herein provided…” appears to be elusive, as the specific provisions of context are not forthrightly admitted, but rather presumed to be specifically and properly regarded by the reader/user who is obliged to know.
