neo
Forum Replies Created
I have an interesting perspective I would like all to consider. I have just read through this entire thread again, and I believe I have an idea that may corroborate both perspectives.
We know that nationality and being a “national” is membership to a body politic through allegiance. The nation comprises the territory, the people, and their government — a body politic. The United States of America has two major political subdivisions: The United States** and the United States***.
Here's what I believe may be going on with the Fourteenth Amendment:
A person born or naturalized in the United States** will be a United States** citizen. This is not equivalent to nationality, but this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship to the United States** commutes nationality.
A person born or naturalized in the United States*** will be a United States*** citizen. This is not equivalent to nationality, but this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship to the United States*** commutes nationality.
A citizen of either the United States** or the United States*** is afforded free choice of domicile throughout the nation. A citizen of the United States** can choose to relocate to the United States***, and will then be afforded the protections there, for as we have said in the past . . . the Constitution attaches to the land, not the People.
What we have is a constitutional citizenship within the nation made manifest through the Fourteenth Amendment, and taking place simultaneously in the two major political subdivisions. This citizenship, whether it be in the United States** or the United States*** commutes nationality. When you take this perspective, the conflicts presented by Admin and JB seem to be reconciled. It then becomes a matter of context, and brings all court cases together into harmony. It also explains the apparent conflict and perspectives that many have that Fourteenth Amendment citizenship is inferior to Union state citizenship. It is . . . if you are talking about United States** citizenship. Yet, on the other side of the coin, we have certain case law that talks about the rights accrued to United States*** citizens and Union state citizens, which as we know, are one in the same.
This is what gave me the idea: Today, I was flying with this guy who told me about a good friend of his who was an English National. This man and his wife were living in Guam and while he was flying for an Air Carrier there on a Green Card/Work Permit. In time, both he and his wife were naturalized in Guam, and became American Nationals.
What this tells me, is that this English National, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, was a citizen of the “State” of Guam, and of the United States**. As a result of this Fourteenth Amendment United States** citizenship, he is afforded American Nationality. This newly naturalized American National now makes his domicile upon the Union. He is now a citizen of his Union state and the United States***. In either instance, whether naturalized in Guam, or in Kansas, nationality is commuted.
I don't believe Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship is Nationality. I believe Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship is a citizenship within a political subdivision of the nation . . . either United States** or United States***. This in turn, commutes nationality and citizenship in the United States*.
This is the only logical explanation to explain the conflicts presented in the case law.
That's a great response! Well . . . the second part anyway!! The first part was really more comical. But who is the WE in the “We are getting very tired” part of your comment? Aren't you a one-man band?
I love it when I'm able to pull your chain so easily Admin!! I used to be somewhat offended by your aggressive and angry approach towards me. Now I just find it humorous . . . so perhaps your tactic towards “toughening me up” is working.
The funny thing is . . . your approach towards things must be rubbing off on me, because I actually find myself justifying things the way you do, a la . . . I myself am an officer of a foreign government. That actually crossed my mind. I do understand the difference between an alteration and an addition. But the message does go on to say “… place stamps or make notations or additions in this passport.” I guess it's not a “stamp,” “notation,” or “addition” . . . but a “declaration.” I'm smelling what you're cooking!
Don't worry though! I wasn't making the “crickets comment” towards you . . . but towards others. As you seem to be about the only other person on this forum that answers anybody. Unfortunately, I find the participation on this forum pathetic. That's not your fault. I guess it's mine . . . I don't mind taking responsibility . . . I love posting here. It's just that nobody really seems to care about this material . . . or maybe they do . . . I'd hate to be presumptuous about that! 🙂
Well, based on the passport endorsement referenced above . . . I know people who have been able to procure bank accounts and even State ID cards reflecting a Non-U.S. Citizen status in their particular state.
It's a good feeling making these kind of sovereign actions. However, I'm not sure who you were referring to brother . . . with the socialist, selfish, tit sucking ingrate comment!! But I like it . . . I'll add that to my repertoire!! But I didn't join the military to suck the socialist tit. I joined to fly airplanes and serve my country. The only reason I'm still in now is to utilize my “public officer” platform as a means of communicating this information to others. People listen to uniformed “Public officers,” but they don't listen to “Patriot Whack jobs!”
Don't be such a “wuss.” If this is a mock court, do you not benefit from me putting you on the defensive and holding you accountable? That knife cuts both ways brother!! I appreciate, as always, the feedback. God bless you!!
OK . . . nothing but crickets here. It seems to be a trend item. Is there any participation on this forum?
Here's my crack at what's going on. My take on it is that the language in the passport is just some bureaucrat's policy. When I go to 18 USC 1543, it talks ONLY about “Forgery and False Use of Passport.”
That does not seem to describe a lawful and legal declaration of one's statutory civil status whereby the DOS has in fact been notified of an intention to insert said language.
Many of my colleagues are prepared to put in their own endorsements stating the same. However, they seem a little intimidated by the “prohibition” in the passport. There seems to be no statutory basis for such “policy” however.
I think it may be there simply to dissuade the type of declaration I have proposed.
Is there anyone out there reading any of these posts?
Sheesh!! Why is the participation so lousy on this forum?
I have informed the DOS that I was going to put the political status and civil status endorsements in my passport if they did not respond within 30 days. They have not responded, thus they acquiesce and agree.
However, I have noticed the following language in the passport itself:
ALTERATION OR MUTILATION OF PASSPORT This passport must not be altered or mutilated in any way. Alteration could make the passport invalid, and if willful, may subject you to prosecution (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1543). Only authorized officials of the United States or of foreign countries may place stamps or make notations or additions in this passport. You may amend or update personal information for your own convenience on the adjoining PERSONAL DATA AND EMERGENCY CONTACT page.
In view of this language, it would seem that it could be problematic to place a declaration in the back. Thoughts?
The declaration I proposed to the DOS was as follows:
THE BEARER POSSESSES THE FOLLOWING CITIZENSHIP
STATUSES UNDER FEDERAL LAW:
DOMICILE – UNION STATE, U.S.A.
POLITICAL STATUS – NATIONAL 8 USC 1101(a)(21)
CIVIL STATUS – NON-CITIZEN NATIONAL 8 USC 1452
– ALIEN 8 USC 1101(a)(3)
Admin,
Agreed! But what is the proper audience for such an affidavit? Back to the DOS — restating what I've already declared 1) in my original passport app and multiple other correspondences? or, 2) is such an affidavit best filed with a county recorder or some other type of public venue such as an online national registry?
Thanks,
Neo
In a matter of days, I will have my passport endorsement. I have informed my servant at the Department of State that I will be inserting that endorsement. I have given them 30 days to rebut my declaration with probative evidence, else it constitutes a tacit endorsement sub silentio.
After the DOS defaults, I was thinking I should create an affidavit of non-response, basically establishing as prima facie through such affidavit, that the DOS' silence constitutes an admission of the veracity of my declaration.
I'm not certain though that such an affidavit is necessary. Can the affidavit stand on its own in my possession? Does a copy need to be sent to the DOS — simply informing that agency (again) what I have already declared? Or does it need to be filed as a public record?
Once the endorsement is in the passport, things will be progressing quickly. Once this is resolved, I will be posting the full exchange between me, my Congressman, and the DOS.
Any perspectives on the affidavit would be helpful — necessary or not?
That was fantastic! Was he the pastor of that little church? He's one of the better expositors I've heard.
Thanks for the response! I'm all for it! The problem is dealing with the “Sheep” wife and the victim mindset she has imparted on the kids!
The “weaker vessel” is the biggest weapon the enemy has against me!
Does nobody have any info on this? Seriously, if the bank “thinks they're in a trade or business” (and legally they are), then they are going to issue “Information Returns” on everything whether there is a number associated with the account or not.
Is it then just a matter of rebutting the “Information Returns”? I'm sure the IRS will just call the rebuttal frivolous, which places a “nonresident alien” not engaged in a “trade or business” in the exact same situation as Pete Hendrickson — fighting information returns which are not really true.
It appears there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop a bank or brokerage from submitting bogus “Information Returns” because they are “legally” (not lawfully) obligated to send them out.
I meant to attach this . . . sorry!
So let me see if I get this straight.
Throughout most of the materials on Famguardian, when we see United States**, we are referring to:
DC, PR, Guam, USVI, CNMI, and American Samoa/Swains Island. This is the “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States (Gov) extends” from Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652 (1945), (definition #2).
But even though, they are all part of the United States**, each component is foreign to the other legislatively just like Florida and California, which are both part of the United States***, are foreign to each other.
I had mistakenly been lumping all of the venues of United States** together as if they were one, but Florida and California are separate, so too is DC and Puerto Rico.
This is all just another piece of the puzzle. It makes sense.
I put together a couple of visuals for my own edification and to share with others. Based on my research, it appears the nation, which is the United States used in a political sense, comprises the government AND the geographical senses. This has really helped people understand a political context (land and its governing body) versus a purely geographical one (land only).
Thoughts?
Here's another conundrum, and I'm not sure how to deal with bank personnel in this regard.
26 USC 6041 is what dictates the issuance of information returns in the course of a “trade or business.”
26 USC 871(i) precludes the taxation, and thus reporting of interest on an account belonging to a nonresident alien NOT engaged in a “trade or business.”
Since the bank has a Federal Tax ID Number, they are the government agent, and are thus engaged in a trade or business. That means, that all payments the bank makes, are done in the course of a “trade or business,” and therefore must also be reported.
So, how does a nonresident alien handle this? I would imagine, if the NRA conducted his affairs properly, there will at least be NO SSN/TIN affiliated with the account. The bank will report the interest on a 1042-S, but without a SSN/TIN. Maybe this is what gets the NRA off the hook. I can't imagine any scenario where a financial institution will NOT report interest payments to the IRS, even if the account belongs to a NRA not engaged in a “trade or business.”
Thoughts or experiences in this area?
j12345,
I also want to provide you some authoritative references from what I shared in my post above.
Quote:citizenship –The status of being a citizen. There are four ways to acquire citizenship: by birth in the United States, by Birth in U.S. territories, by birth outside the U.S. to U.S. parents, and by naturalization.Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)
Quote: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)
Quote:nationality – That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization.
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)
I hope this helps.
j12345,
It is my understanding that something like this is not necessary. There is no need “to divorce” the political subdivision of our nation where the Federal Government is seated. In fact, I'm quite certain you were never “married” to it for lack of a better term. No, what has transpired is that certain agencies as well as those in the private-sector are playing fast and loose with the term “United States” for their own self-serving purposes. They are doing this by confusing the meaning of 'citizenship' which can be used in two different contexts:
1) Citizenship imputed through Nationality/Political Status
2) Citizenship imputed through Domicile/Statutory Civil Status
You are certainly a Citizen by virtue of your 'nationality', and you being a “national” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21)– this is what is traditionally regarded as 'citizenship'. But this is pretty much where it stops. Any other definition proffered by Title 8 (I believe) is defined in terms of the political subdivision of our Nation comprising the “States” of 1101(a)(36), and the “outlying possessions of the United States” of 1101(a)(29), and it also happens to be called the “United States” … how convenient!
So, it is always important to qualify every inquiry as to your 'citizenship' by qualifying it. Maybe by stating something like this:
1) The words 'citizenship' and 'nationality' are often used synonymously.
2) Whereas, a requirement for 'nationality' is allegiance to a nation-state comprising the geographical elements of a nation's components and its governing body. My 'citizenship' imputed through Nationality/Political Status with regard to the state defined by 8 USC 1101(a)(29) and 8 USC 1101(a)(38) is specified by the term “national” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21).
3) Whereas, the statutory civil statuses of Title 8 which are defined in terms of the United States political subdivision where the Federal Government is seated. My citizenship imputed through Domicile/Civil Status with regard to the United States political subdivision defined by 8 USC 1101(a)(29) and 8 USC 1101(a)(36) is specified by the terms “non-citizen national” pursuant to 8 USC 1452 and “alien” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(3).
You were never “married” to the political subdivision of the “United States”. People and agencies were just playing the shell game with the word 'citizenship' and the term “United States”. One could just build an accompanying statement on everything that provides both definitions as written above, and then declare which one applies to you.
If someone inquires into your 'citizenship', I would ask the two following questions:
1) Are you inquiring into my 'nationality', or my statutory civil status with regard to the political subdivision where our Federal Government is seated?
2) Could you please define “United States”?
This ought to shut them down in their tracks!!!!
As Admin says, “Provide them with no wiggle room.”
Is there any provision that would allow such a self-placed endorsement to be construed as “tampering” with an official government document?
I can't seem to find one.
