neo
Forum Replies Created
Regarding the DOS refusing to place the declared endorsement in a passport —
What would be the harm in a person writing the DOS, and informing them that they are placing the following endorsement themselves onto page 27?
Quote:This passport has been issued to the bearer under the declared statuses:
POLITICAL STATUS — National of the United States of America pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21);
CIVIL STATUS — Non-citizen national pursuant to 8 USC 1452 and alien pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(3)
Can that be considered tampering if it's true? Also, give them 30 days to deny the declaration, and then move forward with it upon default.
Thoughts?
Wow! This is really an incredible thread! Thanks to both Admin and jb!!! I never would have been able to piece that puzzle together. The differences (at one time) are reconciled to make them similar by virtue of the 15th and 19th Amendments. Man, no wonder people are so confused. And then a provision to make Union state officers beholden to the federal government in order to protect the “civil rights” of Union Citizens adds a “nice” bit of fog and friction as well, but totally makes sense now. What are the chances Sotomayor or Kagan understand these nuances?
jb,
In your post (time stamped 4 June, 02:12 am), you quoted the following:
Quote:'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the [federal] United States, and subject to the [federal] jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the [federal] United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.'To be 'completely subject' to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.
Could you please provide the citation for this?
Thanks,
neo
- Quote:Even when you were mistaken, you still had to call yourself right and blame it on a misunderstanding of words that we did not mince in the least and which you even started off this topic with a definition of.
Yeah, that's true, but it was for good reason. There was a confusion going on that I believe you had trouble elucidating. Perhaps the exchange helped you and others refine the method by which the concept is prevented. I'm a military pilot, and have been an instructor for 22 years. I have extremely good insights as to how one best communicates complex topics in a time-critical environment. People are sheep. They need pictures, and shorter explanations. They are lazy, and sometimes need to be spoon fed. You would not believe the progress I have made in my own “circle of influence” regarding this topic. People are coming around. But you have to give them a break. I do believe I have brought worthwhile contributions to this ministry, and if that helps people, then you can have the credit for it. I just want the government off my back. I think I can accomplish that very well from the inside. What better way than to have all of these public officers start filing Federal Income Tax returns with a 1040NR. It's perfect!! There would be no dispute!!!
Just remember, for effective communication to take place, there must be good transmission and reception. If one of the two is missing, then the effective communication is compromised. I have found, that if one of my students doesn't understand something, it is almost always a failure on my part to explain it in a way that makes it easy for them to understand. Once they understand what is going on, then I can refine my instruction, and they are then able to pick up on the finer points that escaped them while trying to grasp the bigger picture. I would suggest that this could be what is going on . . . or I'm just an idiot!
May I say, when you accuse people of being a “mole”, or a “judas”, or a “harlot”, or government “whore” on their way to the pit of hell, it does not bring out the best in people. Shame on me for letting that kind of language get under my skin. That's my fault, not yours. You will have to deal with your own issues.
At any rate. I'm very thankful for this forum, this research, and you. I just would humbly ask that you deburr your rough edges, and cease with the ad hominem attacks. People are here because they are trying their best and need help. Unfortunately, many need help right away, and then come here looking for some relief. By no fault of their own, they are learning all but too late. I can only imagine the response that poor lady Jeanine (?sp) got when she inquired about foreclosure help.
Thanks for the exchange. If nothing else, it will help tremendously with my ability to explain it to others. This is the “fruit” I was referring to.
Blessings
After an entire day of re-reading the exchange, and hours of contemplation, I have come to the conclusion that we are both right . . . but you are way more right than me. Here is why.
Yes, the definition of “United States” of 28 USC 1101(a)(38) does couple the Union states and the Federal Territories together. We know that those from 28 USC 1101(a)(38) as well as 28 USC 1101(a)(29) all meet the criteria of a “national” defined in 1101(a)(21). This is the “nationality” part of the equation and the central theme that allows every Citizen of every political subdivision to obtain the same passport. As I pointed out, an American Samoan is eligible for the following endorsement: “The bearer of this passport is a non-citizen national of the United States.” An American Samoan is free to travel and domicile himself throughout the nation as he sees fit. Thus, he could be domiciled in Puerto Rico, and he would no longer be a “non-citizen national of the United States”, but a “citizen”/”resident alien” of the United States** (either or — the net result is the same). Thus, his endorsement in the passport MUST BE a statutory civil status, because that status can be changed by virtue of merely relocating, yet the endorsement remains permanent in the passport. It's his nationality that never changes, and this is declared by the fact that he possesses a United States* Passport.
If that is the case, then the other major political subdivisions must be broken apart from within the entity described as the “United States” in 28 USC 1101(a)(38). By the way, the entity defined as the “United States” of 28 USC 1101(a)(38) is not one of the entities described by the Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt. The “break out” of the two major political subdivision components allows for each to have a statutory civil status under Title 8 while still possessing the political status of “national”, which implies “nationality”, which implies “United States*” citizenship. It also removes the situation of having two statutory definitions describing the same geographic region, which I always thought was wrong.
The points I was making, and the one's you used in your PRO/CON analysis were all applicable to “nationality” which is often and self-servingly substituted with the word “citizenship” in order to trick the people. So the “citizenship” of the United States* which I was constantly referring to was the “nationality” of the “national.” And the “citizens of the United States”, as you adamantly pointed out, and jb too, is the real 'snake in the grass', and definitely something to be avoided.
I think the key to really understanding this and communicating this to others is to show them the following definition from Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed., 2004):
Quote:nationality. 1.NATION(1).2. 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.And then to always think of “United States* citizenship” as “nationality” which is equal to being a “national.”
Maybe you said this, and it didn't sink in exactly. I'm a 5 banana monkey. I retract my earlier position about a Union state Citizen being described within the meaning of “nationals and citizens of the United States” of 8 USC 1401. In order for me to maintain a shred of dignity, perhaps this wasn't adequately communicated to me. That certainly makes me feel better, so I'll go with it. I feel pretty humbled right now.
Correction to 6) above. My statement about 6) above is not correct. So I reworded it to read as follows:
6) An American Samoan is a “U.S. person” under Title 26 because an American Samoan is not a “citizen” but a “resident” on the “State” defined under 4 USC 110(d), which is part of the “United States” of 7701(a)(9).
But, Pub 515 says the following on page 26, out of the blue, under the heading “Nonresident Aliens”, in the right column, about half-way down.
Quote:“A U.S. national is an individual who, although not a U.S. citizen, owes his or her allegiance to the United States. U.S. nationals include American Samoans and Northern Mariana Islanders who chose to become U.S. nationals instead of U.S. citizens.”So, is this to say that an American Samoan and a Northern Mariana Islander are “nonresident aliens” for the purposes of Title 26? This threw me for a loop, especially since CNMI is not an outlying possession, and is also part of “State” defined in 4 USC 110(d). The passage does NOT directly say that American Samoans and Northern Mariana Islanders are “nonresident aliens,” but it is implied because of where the above quote is situated in the text.
But then on page 33 of the same publication, under the heading “Bona Fide Residents of American Samoa or Puerto Rico” it says:
Quote:“If you are a nonresident alien who is a bona fide resident of American Samoa or Puerto Rico for the entire tax year, you generally are taxed the same as resident aliens. You should file Form 1040 and report all income from sources both in and outside the United States.”Now, it seems to me that when they refer to “residents” of American Samoa or Puerto Rico, our average Joe will presume this to mean “citizens” of American Samoa or Puerto Rico. But this is NOT the case. So when I read this, I take it to mean, when a Citizen of New Mexico, or a Citizen of Italy is a “resident” of American Samoa, he then becomes a “resident alien.” Well, why would this be? It seems to be because these territories and possessions fall under the legislative authority of the United States Government which are part of the United States defined in 7701(a)(9).
But why then is it at least implied, that a “citizen” of American Samoa is a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax?
Title 8 itself is pretty adamant that an American Samoan is NOT a “citizen” of the United States.
The term “citizen” is defined in 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ) and makes reference to a whole bunch of stuff from the Title 8:
Quote:(c ) Who is a citizen.Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489),Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.
So, by the above language coupled with the logic that American Samoa is a Federal Possession, can one conclude that a Citizen of American Samoa is a “resident alien” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax, since he is not a “citizen” as defined above, but a “resident” on a Federal possession that is a “State” defined in 4 USC 110(d)?
I say yes. But our Title 8 Venn Diagrams (both versions) do NOT identify an American Samoan as an “alien” under any circumstance. Thus the meanings between Title 8 and Title 26 are NOT the same.
Do we know for a fact what the filing status is of a Citizen of American Samoa? Is it in fact, “U.S. person” or “nonresident alien”? A definitive answer to this would be VERY helpful!!!
OK, here's a thought. Follow the bouncing ball!
1) We know the Constitution attaches to the land, and not the People.
2) We know that American Samoans are allowed to move freely throughout the country because they are members of the USA body politic.
3) The DOS grants them an endorsement which states: “The bearer of this passport is a non-citizen national of the United States.”
4) We know the DOS refuses to grant that endorsement to a Union state Citizen.
5) We know that choice of domicile is a political issue, and a free choice.
6) If an American Samoan took up domicile in DC, he would be a statutory “citizen” under Title 26 because he would be a “resident alien” for the purposes of Title 26.
7) The “non-citizen national of the United States” endorsement would still be present.
8) Being a “national” is the requirement for a passport, not “U.S. citizenship.”
9) The “non-citizen national of the United States” is a statement of status upon a political subdivision of the USA body politic, which is NOT part of the “US proper” (my term)
10) 8 USC 1101(a)(38) defines what appears to be “US proper”.
11) 8 USC 1101(a)(38) must be regarded as comprising at least two political subdivisions.
So, is it incumbent upon the reader to extract these two meanings out of 1101(a)(38) in order to recognize and make sense of the various statutory statuses in the way that the 2nd Venn Diagram does?
Furthermore, where is the 1101(a)(36) definition of “State” ever used within Title 8? I can't seem to find it.
This is really quite the conundrum. I want to avoid the label of 8 USC 1401, but I can't legitimately defend it. The “devil's advocate” question would be, “Why can't there be two definitions describing the same statutory entity?” as in the first Venn Diagram posted above. I don't know why not. The second Venn Diagram makes more sense, but 1101(a)(38) comprises the Union and Fed Territory without breaking them apart.
The only justification I can make to avoid the 8 USC 1401 label, is that American Samoa is broken off as a political subdivision, thus, the other political subdivisions within 1101(a)(38) also need to be broken out.
Admin,
Now that was a very noble effort to compare and contrast the two perspectives objectively. Thank you very much for that.
I agree, it is absolutely a necessity to attach an addendum to EVERY SINGLE government form to clarify who you are and who you are not. I'm not saying your approach to this is not warranted.
I do think however, that the term “nationals and citizens of the United States” of 8 USC 1401 may not have the negative connotation that has been presumed in the past. I DON'T KNOW!!! But it certainly appears to be different than a Title 26 “citizen.”
One thing that you pointed out, and which I cannot reconcile are the following facts:
1) “State” is defined in 1101(a)(36) to include Federal Territory. Why?
2) What is the point of defining both “national” and “national of the United States”?
3) What is the point of defining both “national but not citizen of the United States” and “non-citizen national”?
These questions are EXTREMELY STRONG circumstantial indicators that you are correct, and that I am wrong.
Attached are two different visual analyses of the two perspectives.
The first one (we'll call it the Neo perspective) seems superfluous by virtue of two definitions defining the same entity. But it makes sense in view of 1101(a)(38) and in terms of “nationality”. I cannot reconcile this in my mind. Especially the fact that two out of the three entities are described by two definitions.
The second one (we'll call it the FG perspective) seems to make much more sense in the grand scheme of things. It also explains why the DOS and the DHS qualify the term “non-citizen national” by adding “of the United States” to the end. This “of the United States” phrase added to the end disqualifies Union state Citizens from otherwise designating themselves as a “non-citizen national”, which is a statutory status that Union state Citizens and American Samoans share. The “non-citizen national of the United States” shows up on the DS-11, a passport endorsement for American Samoans, and on the Form I-9. This is very suspicious. But it does make sense in terms of “nationality” which is what I believe these forms and the passport apply to.
It would actually help me if you would prove me wrong! I prefer the second chart. It seems very “crafty”, and I suspect that this representation absolutely describes what is going on to some degree.
1. The phrase “citizen/national” appearing in the USA passport cover means “citizen OR national”. The slash is called a vigule, and the Legal Redbook says it means OR, not AND.
It's not the virgule I'm referring to, it's the “of the United States” part that you left out. Which “United States” are they referring to in that phrase?
United States*, United States**, or United States***?
Regarding question 12:
12. Admit that the definition of “citizen” for the purpose of the I.R.C. is the SAME as “citizen” for the purposes of Title 8.
No, I do not “Admit” this. Sorry if I overlooked this one, but I'm quite certain I addressed this. Title 26 addresses a “citizen” which is domiciled on the United States** which is part of the United States*. A “citizen” on the United States*** is a “citizen” of the United States* but NOT a “citizen” of the “United States**”.
jb,
Where did this quote come from?
Quote:“A ZIP Code is a numerical code that identifies areas within the United States and its territories for purposes of …” [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c )].In particular, is the “[cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c )]” part of the original statement, or did you add that? The “its territories” may be referring to the nation (United States*)– “it” the nation and not “it” the Federal Government (United States non-geographical sense).
Quote:if we use the Zip Code, and/or 2 letter STATE abbreviations (CA, MI, FL), we are declaring that we are in the Federal State, and must pay Federal State Rate.Is this really true? Where can I confirm this to be the truth? I'm willing to learn!
1.1 You admitted in question 12 that a “citizen” under Title 26 and a “citizen” under Title 8 are equivalent. Therefore, the “United States” referenced in both places is the United States**/federal zone. Hence, you can't be the “citizen” identified in 8 USC 1401 as a person domiciled in a constitutional state of the Union.
I said NOTHING of the sort. Can you please provide the quote where I said this? What I said is a “citizen” under Title 26 is a “citizen” under Title 8 by virtue of the fact that a “citizen” under Title 26 is a subset of those who are citizens under Title 8. A Citizen of the 50 Union states, who is NOT a “citizen” under Title 26 is also a “citizen” under Title 8. They are not equivalent. This is simple “Set Theory” we learned in Grade School. Remember “A union B” and “A intersection B”. It's as simple as that.
1.2 The only thing that you need in order to get a passport is allegiance, and therefore to be a “national”. Even the passport cover recognizes you can be EITHER in order to get a passport.
Nope! Wrong again!! Read what the statement inside the passport says. It says “citizen/national of the United States.” If “United States” means United States*– then I am correct and you are not. If “United States” means United States** — then I am correct and you are not. Either way, yet again, you are a walking contradiction, thus your legal position is false.
3. You said that it is preposterous to assert that the “United States” is a nation in regards to international or external affairs
Nope!! Wrong again!! You said that, I did not. I said:
Quote:Why does the term “United States” only refer to a nation in the context of EXTERNAL and INTERNATIONAL affairs? This is preposterous!The term “United States” can refer to a nation where ever you happen to be! However, the court cases you cite are talking about the Union, NOT the nation. They are referring to the United States***, not the United States*. The Union is not the nation, it is the society — the body politic. Your own court citations indict you!
4. You said that ” IF Title 8 is not a NATIONAL Law, then what is?”. The answer is that it incorporates BOTH national AND municipal law. The municipal law is found in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(B ) and 1408, and 8 USC 1101(a)(36), all of which are associated with the exclusive jurisdiction of the feds over federal territory and property. If it was ONLY national and NOT municipal law, those provisions would either not be there, or would be entirely different.
This is simply “curve fitting.” This is your opinion and you have no sound basis to state this that cannot easily be contradicted.
5. I didn't say that you as a private human being are a statutory “U.S.** citizen” by virtue of occupying a public office as a military officer. I said that the OFFICE is such a citizen, because the THING BEING represented is a statutory “U.S. citizen”.
Wrong! You did say this:
Quote:7. Admit that among those acting in a representative capacity as officer of a federal corporation called the “United States” are statutory “U.S. citizens” when on official business.6. You think that avoiding SSNs on the passport application is the only thing required to protect one's sovereignty. We don't think so. The Permanent Address block of the DS-11 passport application is how they hook you up to a federal zone domicile, and it invites all kinds of presumptions about zip codes, confusion between the United States** and the United States*, etc.
Nutty “patriot queep”! The Fed's have jurisdiction over postal matters. It's an address! Period! I think the fact that you say California, or Virginia, or whatever, makes it pretty clear you are not in Federal Territory.
The stance that you are using is going to be very hard to defend, because it is based on a contradiction:
1. You claim to be a “citizen” under Title 8.
2. At the same time, you claim to be an alien under Title 26.
3. You already admitted that the “citizen” under Title 8 and Title 26 are the same by answering Admit to question 12.
Nope!! Wrong again!!! As far as 2. goes, yeah, I'm “alien” within Title 26 just like a Californian is “alien” to Arizona. That's a paper tiger! I never admitted to number 3. This is a contradiction that you have manufactured in your own mind, and any other readers here know this.
A jury is going to look at you funny when you try to convince them that you can be an alien and a citizen at the SAME TIME. They are going to say you are a loony, a tax protester, and are wearing a “tin foil hat”, as you call it. We don't think its wise to contradict yourself by doing that. You are going to destroy your own credibility by doing that unless you can at least convincingly explain the differences in context between the two titles of the U.S. Code.
It's a contradiction only if you don't understand what is going on. A Citizen of California is an alien in Texas, yet they are both Citizens of the same nation. That is not rocket science, and even the densest dolt has been able to comprehend that. No, I think it is actually pretty simple to defend. Your approach on the other hand creates a wealth of contradiction and obvious errors.
But hey! It's America! Feel free to speak as you see fit — I'll do the same!
Finally, you say:
1. Get free research that he doesn't want to do himself in order to support a hypothesis that conflicts with materials on this website.
2. Endanger the lives, liberties, and property of the people who read his posts on this subject and follow them.
The above is obviously a cheap ad hominem attack because your ego got bruised! Everyone here certainly sees that!
Did you think that just possibly that the conclusions you draw from the materials on the website are in error?
We'll let the jury decide!!
Bless you brother!
Well, you're a good sport for participating in my “admissions bank”.
Here's my rebuttal and my answers to your inquiries:
By the way, there is a limitation on the number of quotes one can include in a given post. That is why I annotated the quotes in italicised-red text.
3. Yes, the national government has the delegated authority to create a statutory status that defines your nationality? That authority comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
So what's the problem? Are you not a Citizen of the United States of America? Is that nation also referred to as the United States*? The Constitution says they have the authority in I:8:4, so what's the problem so long as one clarifies that on any form such as a DS-11 or I-9? I see no problem with it. I believe they are referring to the nation the United States* in both of those inquiries of statutory status. The I-9 also refers to “employment” in the United States. I believe this is the non-geographical sense.
4.2. Admit the United States government is the governing body which provides protection to Citizens of the United States of America in exchange for their allegiance to the nation.
Deny. It provides protection WHEN ABROAD, but not when within the protection of constitutional states of the Union.
You just contradicted yourself. Read my question again carefully. I didn't say anything about protection within the Union — I simply referred to protection. You just admitted they provide protection when abroad. Therefore, you admit that the United States Government provides you with protection in exchange for your allegiance.
4.3. Admit that the term “United States” can be used to refer to the nation the United States of America pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652 (1945).
Admit. But only when dealing with EXTERNAL and INTERNATIONAL affairs affecting other nations under the law of nations.
Why does the term “United States” only refer to a nation in the context of EXTERNAL and INTERNATIONAL affairs? This is preposterous!
4.5. Admit that Alaska and Hawaii are Union states protected by the Constitution
That depends on the context. In a statutory context under federal civil law, they are not. In a constitutional context, they are. At the time the Immigration and Nationality Act (upon which USC Title 8 is based) was enacted, 1940, Alaska and Hawaii were not states of the Union, and yet the language of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38) read the same at that time as it reads now.
No, it does NOT depend on context in this instance. The Constitution attaches to the land. The Union states are always protected by the Constitution. The reason there has been no change to the INA since 1940, is because Alaska and Hawaii, which were then Federal Territories within the nation the United States* were not Union states within the nation the United States*, but now they are. They are just not part of the continental United States, thus, their description within the context of a geographic nation have NOT CHANGED!!! There is no conspiracy to defraud here. We are talking about nationality and citizenship within a nation. Nothing more!!! There is not a judge or a jury in this country that would not laugh you out of the courtroom if you tried to say the CONUS did not also include the 48 conterminous Union states. I don't think we need a definition for that in the context of a Code entitled “Aliens and Nationality.”
4.6. Admit that the “United States” is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38) and that said definition also includes the Union states of Alaska and Hawaii.
It includes federal territory within those constitutional states, but not ALL land within the exterior limits of the state.
This is classic “curve fitting” and “results based research.” It includes all of Alaska and Hawaii. If a foreign national wants to naturalize and take up his domicile in Alaska apart from any “Federal Area,” he would still fall under the Federal Government's constitutional authority under I:8:4. Therefore, it also includes all of Alaska and Hawaii. I believe you are incorrect in your assertion above — that it only contains the “Federal Areas” within the external boundaries of the Union state.
4.12. Admit that domicile upon a political subdivision within a nation imputes statutory civil status.
Admit. QUALIFICATION: That status could ONLY be under the laws of the SPECIFIC subdivision of the nation, and not the NATIONAL laws. Hence, if the political subdivision is a constitutional state of the Union, then that status could not appear in federal law. Likewise, if the domicile was in a federal territory, it would be under the laws of that territory and could not be defined in the laws of states of the Union, because they are foreign states.
There is no qualification needed. When the government is acting over subject matter jurisdiction, they are acting as a National Government. See Federalist 39 for more proof. Thus, in my mind, Title 8, entitled “Aliens and Nationality” constitute a NATIONAL law, and apply to all Citizens of the United States of America — the United States*. IF Title 8 is not a NATIONAL Law, then what is?
4.14. Admit that in terms of nationality only, a domiciliary of Puerto Rico as well as domiciliaries of Hawaii and Alaska are “nationals and citizens of the United States” defined in 8 USC 1401.
Deny. They are “nationals”. They cannot be “citizens”. One can only be a “citizen” under statutory civil law by having a municipal or local domicile within the EXCLUSIVE civil jurisdiction of the government granting said status.
Remember, I said “in terms of nationality only”. Do you deny that one can be a citizen of a nation, which then imputes political status? It is the domicile upon a political subdivision of that nation that will determine his or her statutory civil status. But in terms of NATIONALITY ONLY, domiciliaries of Union states constitute “nationals and citizens of the United States” pursuant to 8 USC 1401 because the “United States” being referred to is the nation — not the political subdivision of the United States**.
5. Title 31 of the U.S. Code, 31 USC 5314, imposes affirmative duties upon those who claim to be “citizens of the United States” relating to reporting all of their foreign bank accounts. If that term included people in a state of the Union, such a requirement would be a violation of the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment. Admit therefore that the term COULD THEREFORE NOT mean a person in a state of the Union and could only relate to a federal instrumentality.
Teacher!!! Context! Context! Context!
The United States is defined for the purposes of Title 31 in Section 103.
Quote:In this title, “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.The term “State” is defined in Title 4, Section 110(d).
Quote:(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
The authority for the Federal Government to regulate private conduct with regard to banking is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. They must therefore be referring to the “United States**” and not the “United States*”.
7. Admit that among those acting in a representative capacity as officer of a federal corporation called the “United States” are statutory “U.S. citizens” when on official business.
Deny. I know your basis for this belief is FRCP 17(B )– but it does NOT say this. You have erroneously presumed that it implies this. Read that rule again VERY CAREFULLY. I still don't see how you make that connection. Federal Officers acting in their official capacity can be “nationals and citizens of the United States” per 8 USC 1401 (NATIONALITY), and still be “nonresident aliens” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax(DOMICILE ON A FOREIGN POLITICAL SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE NATION). You believe contrary to that as well, your basis for that belief is 4 USC 72. But that section does not EXCLUSIVELY limit public offices and “employment” to the District of Columbia. Who is going to man all of those dockyards, forts, and magazines and other needful buildings provided for by LAW in I:8:17 of the constitution? To think that Federal Officers are somehow “shackled” to the District of Columbia is ridiculous!!!
8. Admit that those representing a corporation that is a statutory “U.S. citizens” are also statutory “U.S. citizens”.
It depends. Which “U.S. citizen” are you talking about? Are you talking about a “U.S.* citizen”? Or are you talking about a “U.S.** citizen”? However, just because someone is acting in a representative capacity for a corporation which is domiciled in a given venue, they are not ipso facto, somehow magically citizens of that same venue. They may be brought into the suit by virtue of their representative capacity, but that does not change their individual citizenship, regardless of what context you are referring to.
Every other question you have posed, and to which I have not addressed, I “Admit” to.
It seems we are in agreement. It just seems like you're trying to salvage some incorrect blanket statements and a MAGNIFICENT AMOUNT OF WORK that would be required to go back and fix them.
You are the one that taught me that context is everything. I agree! And I agree, every Government Form should have an attachment or addendum clarifying your domicile and thus your statutory civil status within the nation the United States*. Let's face it — this “confusion” or “obfuscation” if you want to call it that, is all about confusing the people to import a lawful and legitimate status such as “nationals and citizens of the United States” per 8 USC 1401 into their statutory civil status within the IRC. This is really what's going on. To imply that all of the Government forms are bogus and a conspiracy to enslave you is “tin foil hat” stuff. No . . . this is all about protecting the “Goose that laid the golden egg.” It appears to me that people's conventional thinking is spot on for the most part. The sleight of hand takes place with the nature of the tax itself, and the description of the political subdivision which the Federal Government exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction over as the United States**, exactly as the nation the United States*, and the 50 Union states the United States***, by referring to all of them as . . . the “United States”. To top it all off, they refer to the Federal Government as the United States too. That's it! I don't see it as anything more than that!
Attach an addendum to everything, and focus on the meaning in the IRC. Federal Officers outside of Federal Territory need to pay their lawful tax on a Form 1040NR.
“As jb points out, the allegiance described in 22 USC 212 is characterized as follows.
1. It isn't characterized as “permanent”, which is normally associated with domicile and “permanent address”.”
Irrelevant! Make sure your context is correct! Are you speaking about domicile within a nation, and thus political status? Or are you speaking in terms of domicile upon a political subdivision of the nation, and the legislative jurisdiction that domicile imports? Context is everything! You are playing fast and loose with the term domicile and its context just like the self-serving government! You are doing this to avoid an embarrassing indictment of your past presumptions! Are you being self-serving? Read on, and let's see.
“2. It is characterized as being towards the “United States”. However, we know that in our system of Republican government, the only “United States” they can mean is We the People and not the government that serves them. Black's Law Dictionary, in fact, defines a “State” as the people occupying a territory and NOT their rulers and it is THESE “United States” that we owe allegiance to in procuring a passport.”
I have made this perfectly clear in EVERY ONE of my previous posts on this topic. The Constitution attaches to the Land, not 'We the People'. You said so yourself as well. The above point is irrelevant here to the argument. You must agree with me!
“3. There is no requirement that we must ALWAYS have said allegiance, but only when we are abroad and therefore both needing protection and being in a position to pay for it because outside the protections of the Constitution.”
Yes, I said this too! This is what being subject to the political jurisdiction entails — allegiance for protection, protection for allegiance. You must agree with me!
“1. The allegiance owed when one obtains a passsport is
1.1. To the United States OF AMERICA.
1.2. To the PEOPLE of the United States OF America and NOT the public servants or GOVERNMENT who serves them.
1.3. To the “State”, consisting of all the people of the United States of America and not their rulers.
1.4. NOT to to the people on federal territory and who are therefore statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizens” under 8 USC 1401. These people are property and franchises of the national government. These people have neither the right of representation under the constitution nor a voice in the Congress nor representatives in Congress. They are, in effect, what the U.S. Supreme Court called the equivalent of a “British Crown Colony” in Downes v. Bidwell.”
Yes, that is what I have said, with the exception of 1.4. You are not paying attention to what I am saying. The public dis-servants are talking about the United States of America too in the passport. They are just referring to it as the United States, aka the United States*. I also NEVER said we owe allegiance to the public servants or government. You're wasting everyone's time here by addressing that. Regarding 1.4, this is where I believe you are making your false presumptions. What makes you think 8 USC 1401 includes ONLY those from Federal Territory when 1101(a)(38) includes the CONUS and Alaska and Hawaii? You didn't answer that. Is it because it reveals the errors in your approach? Apparently so! You must agree with me!!
“2. The nationality acquired:
2.1 Is membership in a nation under the law of nation, and that nation is comprised of both federal territories, federal possesions, AND the USA (states of the Union). Hence, it doesn't matter where one is, whether federal territory or a state of the Union, one is still a “national”. Those on federal territory are “nationals of the United States**” and those in states of the Union are “nationals” of their state.
2.2 Documents POLITICAL and not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction.”
I made this perfectly clear in every one of my posts. You must agree with me!!
“Don't confuse political jurisdiction with legislative jurisdiction. They are not equivalent. You can be “subject to THE jurisdiction”, meaning ONLY the POLITICAL (nationality) jurisdiction, without being subject to the LEGISLATIVE (domicile) jurisdiction.”
I am NOT! But it appears that you are! Title 8 is entitled “Aliens and Nationality.” The definition of United States in 1101(a)(38) describes that part of the nation that does not include the outlying possessions of the United States. Are we discussing domicile upon a nation and the political jurisdiction that imports, or are we talking about domicile upon a political subdivision of that nation, and the statutory civil status that imports? Apples and bananas Sensei!!! You sir, are confusing the two. You contradict yourself by saying they don't, because your conclusions contradict your own arguments based on the context. If it were the truth, it would not contradict itself. Therefore, you must agree with me!!
“Whatever status you claim needs to be supported by the public record of evidence you accumulate over the years.”
I couldn't agree with you more! But then you go on to say this:
“The government's own publications prove that whenever THEY use the word “U.S. citizen”, they don't mean anyone in a state of the Union.”
It does NOT say that!! You just ASSume that it does. Perhaps the government is telling the truth by omission. Which United States are they talking about. It sounds like they are talking about the United States**, which is a political subdivision of the nation the Untied States*. And then, you quote an excerpt from a Government Publication. Right after that, you say:
“This is especially true when one considers that the IRS' own Internal Revenue Manual says you CANNOT TRUST anything they publish and that they refuse to accept responsibility for the accuracy of their forms and publications. Caveat emptor.”
Now, granted, the Form I-9 is not an IRS Form, but we certainly know that a Department of Homeland Security “Form” also has no effect of law. So, for you to quote that as evidence in an authoritative fashion is a walking contradiction. The logic is therefore faulty, and so it must not be the truth.
“Otherwise, we have beat a dead horse to death. I don't wish to say any more on this subject. Its pointless because you aren't listening to us, aren't answering our questions, and want to do things your way. So bend over and leave us alone.”
Sorry sir!! You are the one who will not answer MY questions! You think that you can write a diatribe and twist words, and then restate the exact same thing I've been saying in order to support the materials you have published. I'm not letting you off that easily and neither will the other readers of this thread. Stop with the written diarrhea, and answer the questions I pose. They will be forthcoming at the end of this post! Remember, under F.R.Civ.P. 8(B )(6) a failure to deny constitutes an admission.
“Hence, you CANNOT claim the statutory “U.S. citizen” status and MUST identify yourself as a “non-citizen national”.”
Again, this depends. What is your context. Does the Federal Government have the authority to create a statutory status that defines your nationality? I say they do! Maybe you say they don't . . . and that is really the crux of the matter. You don't think the government has any say in your life at all apparently. I believe they have the authority which is granted to them within the Constitution. But ONLY in terms of NATIONALITY. Can one be domiciled on a Union state and be domiciled on the nation the United States*? Yes!! Can one be domiciled on Puerto Rico (part of the United States**) and be domiciled on the nation of the United States*? Yes!! What is your context? You yourself say context is everything. You must agree with me!!
“The more you argue with us, the more you portray yourself as a presumptuous fool and a willing victim for the injurious presumptions of others. BEND OVER and put on your knee pads if that is the position you wish to advocate. And don't come running here if you get into trouble because they excluded all your OTHER evidence documenting your state of mind about your status and therefore don't have to address it and will proceed with their enslaving presumptions to put you into jail.”
I'm not arguing. You are. I'm portraying an enhanced view and approach to this whole thing. I don't know if it's correct. I can only go by the collective evidence and what it portrays in its totality. And do you really think I would come running to you if I got in trouble. You wouldn't help anyway. You are way to self absorbed and egotistical for that, and I know it. So do the other participants of this forum. You have made it quite clear Christian brother that you are more interested in beating your chest than helping people. Call it a ministry if you want. This whole thing looks like an obsession and a false god for you. I think some prayer and introspection is required here. James, Chapter 3 would be appropriate. Then you quote the words of the True and Living God, and use them to glorify yourself and your false teachings, as if YOU were the only enlightened one that offers the “legal salvation” all of us stupid, hell-bound sheep so desperately need.
“25 Because you disdained all my counsel,
And would have none of my rebuke,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your terror comes,
27 When your terror comes like a storm,
And your destruction comes like a whirlwind,
When distress and anguish come upon you.
28 ” Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.”
This is the Lord of Hosts talking. Not a prideful, presumptuous man. You are not God!
“As far as how you have configured your accounts and your own reporting, withholding, and taxation as a military officer, we can't give legal advice and can't even talk about it, because it is not a hypothetical but REAL situation and therefore violates the protocol for asking questions identified in Section 14.4 of the Path to Freedom. If you want to phrase your questions differently, they can be dealt with, but not in their present form as PERSONALIZED questions.”
You cannot find one place on this thread where I have asked your advice for anything. I wouldn't because I think you have “missed it” — I now believe that much of your material is erroneous. But that's my opinion. It's erroneous because it is not consistent and you contradict yourself so often. I simply shared for the benefit of others what my approach has been. Heck, I even told the IRS about it. They didn't have much to say. It's kind of hard to argue when you are actually trying to pay your lawful and legal “tax.” I found them to be very helpful actually. Maybe it has something to do with gentleness and meekness of approach. It may also have to do with it being the truth. I could be wrong though.
It appears to me that there is a tremendous amount of “curve fitting” and “results based analysis” going on by you. I believe this is because you have published so much material that is predicated on what I believe to be erroneous conclusions. Furthermore, these errors coupled with the harsh tongue in which you routinely lash your brothers puts you squarely on the horns of a dilemma. You must perhaps humble yourself, and edit a tremendous amount of material, much of which you have used to establish as the basis of defense for your own personal situation. Furthermore, pride may be getting the best of you, and clouding your judgment. I'll let the readers decide. Far be it from me to judge, but I am discerning.
“Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.”
— Ezekiel 28:17
So, answer the following admissions. If you do not answer, your silence will be construed as acquiescence, and an admission to the following questions. Under the F.R.Civ.P. 8(B )(6) a failure to deny constitutes an admission. If you deny, please clarify. Any attempt to engage in written diarrhea will be construed as fraud, and an attempt to evade answering the questions.
1. Admit that nationality imputes political jurisdiction.
2. Admit the United States government is the governing body which provides protection to Citizens of the United States of America in exchange for their allegiance to the nation.
3. Admit that the term “United States” can be used to refer to the nation the United States of America pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652 (1945).
4. Admit that Title 8 of the United States Code is entitled “Aliens and Nationality.”
5. Admit that Alaska and Hawaii are Union states protected by the Constitution
6. Admit that the “United States” is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38) and that said definition also includes the Union states of Alaska and Hawaii.
7. Admit that the “United States” is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38) and that said definition also includes Puerto Rico.
8. Admit that a domiciliary of Alaska or Hawaii enjoy constitutional protections that a domiciliary of Puerto Rico does not.
9. Admit that the nation referred to as the United States* comprises at least two political subdivisions which are referred to as the United States** and the United States***.
10. Admit that Alaska and Hawaii are political subdivisions of the nation referred to as the United States*.
11. Admit that Puerto Rico is a political subdivision of the nation referred to as the United States*.
12. Admit that domicile upon a political subdivision within a nation imputes statutory civil status.
13. Admit that from a territorial perspective only, domiciliaries of Federal Territories and possessions are under different statutory civil statuses than domiciliaries of the Union states.
14. Admit that in terms of nationality only, a domiciliary of Puerto Rico as well as domiciliaries of Hawaii and Alaska are “nationals and citizens of the United States” defined in 8 USC 1401.
15. Admit that it is a good idea to clarify legal status on all government forms in order to preclude public servants from making erroneous and damaging legal conclusions that result from their presumptuous and unsophisticated level of understanding of the applicable issues.
I as well as the other readers of this forum await your answers of “deny” and your substantive corroboration for those denials.
Blessings!
- Quote:
We agree with jb that it is a slap in the face to come here and claim to be a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.
So which 'jurisdiction' do you believe allegiance and nationality apply to?
a) Federal legislative jurisdiction as a result of choice of domicile on a political subdivision within the nation, which also happens to be called the United States**.
b ) Political jurisdiction as a citizen of a body politic defined as the United States of America in 8 USC 1101(a)(38).
It's one or the other — it can't be both, because a) or b ) are mutually exclusive subjects.
So which is it?
What about things I have stated or supported in the past? In the past I used to think that everyone had to pay Federal Income Tax. I used to think too that if I was “good” I would go to Heaven. In life, you live, you make mistakes, you study, you work hard, you make more mistakes, and you learn. I'm certainly not stubborn. I have an innate ability to be objective in all things. And that includes something like this. I'm not committed to anything except finding the truth, and applying it in my life and helping others do the same. If I made erroneous conclusions in the past, I chalk those up to being not completely educated at the time.
Yes, in my public life, I am an “employee”, a “wage” earner, and a “public officer” engaged in a “trade or business.” As a “nonresident alien” engaged in those things, I have 'income' which is “effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.” Those payments go into a bank account opened with a W-8ECI and a Slave Surveillance Number. I'm a “wage” earner, thus I am required to participate in SS. If, at some time I ever received SS 'benefits', and I'm not sure I would ever claim that — those payments would be deposited into an account opened with a W-8BEN (IRS Version) complete with Slave Surveillance Number. I would pay my legal and lawful tax on my 'income' as a public officer. Some taxed at a progressive rate (ECI), and some taxed at 30% non-ECI such as FDAP. I also have a third account opened up with a modified W-8BEN, and no SSN. This is for my private-sector receipts. The monies deposited into that account constitute a Foreign Estate pursuant to 26 USC 7701(a)(31).
So what's the big deal? I'm a commissioned officer in the military, and I want to follow the laws, and my legal obligations to the franchise I volunteered for. Is that wrong of me? It's not my goal to “not pay tax.” It's my goal to do it correctly, and maybe, just maybe, by the example of other military members, we can have a silent, lawful and legal information revolution by virtue of military members filing their tax returns as the “nonresident aliens” that they are.
It is my opinion now, that the 14th Amendment did nothing more than allow the beneficiaries of voluntary compliance to play a shell game with the term “United States”. Nationality and domicile are close enough together, they know the average Joe is not going to pick up on it. Furthermore, these identical terms invite a defendant to make a technically false statement such as, “I'm not a Citizen of the United States.” We are Citizens of the United States — The United States of America. This is the nation referred to in 8 USC 1101(a)(38). And because of the 14th Amendment, we fall into the political jurisdiction of the “United States*” — the nation. That, as opposed to the legislative jurisdiction of the “United States**” — the political subdivision of the “United States*” where the United States Government exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction.
The two topics are mutually exclusive. The legal ramifications of each form of citizenship are also mutually exclusive. The DOJ uses the passport and I-9 to prove you are a “U.S. Citizen.” They are asking and engaging in questions of my “nationality.” They, however, cannot engage in the political question of my choice of domicile within the nation itself. And that is where the definitions of 4 USC 110(d) and 26 USC 7701(a)(9) come in.
Context is everything. Just like the Consular Report of Birth Abroad deals with the question of “nationality.”
This seems like a slam dunk to me. Of course I could be wrong. But this is the path I'm taking going forward until I see proof to the contrary — of which there is none that I can see. I don't believe I am engaged in “curve fitting” or “results based analysis”. In fact, based on the evidence, I have changed my stance. This is because the data supports the change. It also passes the common sense test, and it also passes my 'oh so cynical mind' I have developed by being in the military for so long. I am skeptical of almost everything. It seems just like 'them' to create a “shell game” with the term “United States” in order to confuse people, and subsequently invite them to make technically false statements such as: “I am not a citizen of the United States.”
I think I would say, “I am not domiciled upon or resident within the entities defined in 4 USC 110(d) and 26 USC 7701(a)(9).” I would like to see them tie that to my passport or I-9!!!
jb,
Does Title 8 apply to Nationality or domicile?
Do you contend they import the same legal implications?
Look at what the Supreme Court said regarding “Citizenship” in terms of “nationality.”
Quote:“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,' and 'citizen' have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”[Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)]
As Admin always points out to me: Context is everything!!!
neo, aka, “the harlot”
Admin,
Wow!! You really come off the top rope when someone disagrees with you. I am no mole and you know it. You know who I am and what I am about. It appears however, that you are the one that is the walking contradiction here. I know you have a lot invested in your stance and in all the Terabytes of your materials. But isn't it about what is right versus who is right? Is it even possible you have misapplied something? Teacher, please refer to James, Chapter 3 regarding the barbs you hurl at your brother. We're on the same side aren't we? Regarding my dishonorable military “service”, didn't you also serve 26 years in the Navy?
Don't take my word for it. Let's look at some of the things that are available from famguardian education materials:
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, Sixth Edition]
As far as the Fourteenth Amendment goes, the Supreme Court of the United States confirmed the meaning behind the language in the Fourteenth Amendment to be referring to 'political jurisdiction' as opposed to 'legislative jurisdiction.'
Quote:“The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject to some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]
As jb pointed out, every American Citizen falls under the authority of the Executive Branch of Government when outside the nation through the Dept of State. The Federal Government has plenary jurisdiction over this nation in external matters.
Title 8 is entitled “Aliens and Nationality”. So what's the big deal? It's not entitled “Aliens and Domicile.”
You yourself said that political jurisdiction is not the same as legislative jurisdiction. Do you deny that the Federal Government has any authority over you at any time? If you deny that, it is preposterous. Now, I certainly believe the Feds have plenty to answer for, but we're the one's that signed the contract. He who consents cannot suffer an injury.
Here's more:
Quote:“We have in our political system a Government of the United States* and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own …”[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
The “citizens” of the Government of the United States* are those domiciled on the United States**. Citizens of the States are domiciled on the United States***, and also the United States*.
Quote:“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States* and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.”[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)]
The reason for the above statement is that a “citizen” of the United States**, while still a “citizen” of the United States*, has a different statutory civil status than a Citizen of a Union state (Citizen of the “United States***”), which is also a “citizen” of the United States*. Remember too, that Federal Territories and possessions are also defined as “States.”
How about this one:
Quote:“A person may be a citizen of the United States* and yet be not identified or indentifiable as a citizen of any particular state.”[Du Vemay v. Ledbetter, 61 So.2d 573]
The reason again, for the above, is because a “citizen” of the United States** is still a “citizen” of the United States*, but not a citizen of a State.
This all seems pretty straight forward to me. The definition of 8 USC 1101(a)(38) defines the United States* as:
Quote:(38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.Again, they are defining the land mass that comprises the United States* — the United States of America. And yes, Alaska and Hawaii, which are Union states, are also included in the definition. So how do you reconcile that?
The only logical answer is that the Statute is referring to “nationality” and the political status that comes with it as provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress does have the authority to define that status, but only in terms of “nationality.” Now, if you want to talk about statutory civil status imputed through choice of domicile, then we can do that. And I'm pretty sure we are in 100% agreement on that one.
Is it your “position” that “nationality” imputes statutory civil status? Or do you admit that “nationality” imputes political status, and that domicile imputes statutory civil status?
Last time I exercised my political free speech on a forum, I was bounced because the 'guru' didn't like what I had to say. I'm pretty sure we are beyond that here. So, let's rumble! I'm ready to spar here for the world to see! David v. Goliath. Neo v. Morpheus!!
Ouch!!! I'm out of here for the weekend!! To be continued!! Have a good one!!!
