neo
Forum Replies Created
Something else I discovered that was very interesting. The Texas Department of Public Safety publishes most all of their publications and forms online. However, there is in fact one form they do not give a Citizen access to online, and that is Form DL-13. The Form DL-13 is entitled: SOCIAL SECURITY AFFIDAVIT. No — this form is NOT published online for easy access, nor is its existence revealed or publicized anywhere on the DPS website. Only after specifically inquiring as to whether or not a Driver License would be issued to someone who is NOT a U.S. citizen, to which the agent responded, “Yes.” Then I inquired as to how a non-U.S. citizen could be required to provide a SSN when in fact they may not have one. That was when I was told about Form DL-13. The form DL-13 reads as follows:
Quote:As a condition of the issuance of a Texas driver license, I hereby certify that I have never applied for, been issued or assigned a Social Security Number by the Social Security Administration; or I have applied for and been denied the issuance of a social security number due to my ineligibility.Further, I do hereby authorize a review of and full disclosure of all records concerning the issuance or use of a Social Security Number to any duly authorized agent of the Texas Department of Public Safety, whether the said records are of a public, private or confidential nature. This information will be used to determine my eligibility to receive a Texas driver license based on the requirement to provide a Social Security Number.
NOTICE: I understand that failure to provide required information during the driver license application process will be cause for cancellation of my Texas driver license and/or driving privilege pursuant to Texas Transportation code 521.315 and will subject me to other criminal penalties including Texas Transportation Code, Section 521.451 and Section 521.454.
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct.
The form is appropriately worded to give the educated the latitude to opt out of this form of “voluntary compliance.” Those of you from other Union states should start inquiring of your DMV as to the eligibility and requirements for an “alien” or non- “U.S. citizen” to obtain a Driver License. Then, check to see how “United States” is defined in the Union state government statutes where you live. Then inquire of the DMV if they offer an affidavit for those described above to affirm they do not have a SSN.
Of course, some of you will have a SSN if you are a “public officer” “employed” or “effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States,” whereby, you would in fact earn “wages” and be statutorily required to participate in Social Security. This is not problematic. The main goal, I believe, is to document and create evidence as to your true and correct status of “nonresident alien” because of where you live (NOT “reside”). A “nonresident alien” must participate in the Social Security franchise if he/she is defending We the People and the Constitution while in “public office” and earning “wages.” This “service” is voluntary, yet taxable and regulated under Federal statutes.
The Union state is Texas.
The link to the Statutes is as follows: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/
First, looking under the Transportation Code (4th from bottom), it says therein:
Quote:Sec. 1.002. CONSTRUCTION OF CODE. Chapter 311, Government Code (Code Construction Act), applies to the construction of each provision in this code except as otherwise expressly provided by this code.
The reference above directs one to Chapter 311, Government Code, which has the code sections I posted in the previous post.
I have an acquaintance who is a public officer. It just so happens that he is an “alien” and visits the “United States” from time to time in the course of his “trade or business.” They requested his SSN in the course of obtaining his License. He had no problem giving it to them because, as a “public officer,” he is a “wage” earner, and thus REQUIRED to participate in the Social Security franchise. He understands that he is required to have a License to operate a motor vehicle as a public officer on property belonging to the “United States.” He just wants the DMV to recognize his proper domicile as being WITHOUT the “United States.”
This is the incredibly powerful aspect of the situation he finds himself in. His goal here is to NOT defeat any tax. Rather, it is his goal to be truthful and law-abiding. Would it not be powerful for public officers all over this great nation, who have “income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business” to claim that under their proper legal status of “nonresident alien,” and then pay their lawful tax? Then what would they do?
As for the private aspects of his life, well, he would not be required to produce a driver license while traveling in his carriage. The carriage in which he would be traveling would not belong to him, but to a foreign corporation, and would comply with all of the inspection and registration protocols of the STATE OF TEXAS. What's more, he could use the government issued ID or License as evidence to show other “United States” agents such as FDIC insured banks, to declare his proper lawful status as a “nonresident alien.” They could then accept a photocopy of his ID card, and keep it as evidence to indemnify them for accepting his declared status. Along with the status would of course be an affidavit of no “trade or business” activity. For those activities connected with a “trade or business,” well, he would give them his SSN in conjunction with a W-8ECI. For those activities not connected with a “trade or business,” a MODIFIED W-8BEN would be submitted without a SSN. Two accounts for two different types of activity. Both illustrate a true and correct lawful status for Union state Citizens: “nonresident alien.” The real question then becomes, is there a “trade or business” affiliation?
These bills are a veritable “Who's Who” from The Creature from Jekyll Island — Morgan, Rockefeller, Warburg, Aldrich, McAdoo, House, and I'm not sure who that joker was on the “one-spot!” My feeling is that this is a very good display of Adobe Photoshop in action. I mean . . . how audacious could these NWO guys be?
I had read once that each of the Union state governments were also corporations which were organized under the laws of the “United States.”
In essence, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, for example, is a Federal subsidiary corporation of the “United States.” That being said, THE STATE OF FLORIDA is headquartered in the State of Florida, but the corporation is still a “domestic” corporation of the “United States,” complete with a Federal Tax ID Number.
If in fact this is true, then any other corporation, created by and under the laws of THE STATE OF FLORIDA would also be a subsidiary corporation of the “United States.” It's as if the “United States” is the umbrella corporation, the Union state governments are subsidiaries under the “United States” — and any other . . . ahem . . . “private-sector” corporation created by and under the laws of THE STATE OF FLORIDA is actually NOT a “private sector” corporation, but just another Federal subsidiary.
I have been searching for evidence of corporate charters for each of the Union state governments — to see if in fact each of those Union state governments were created under the laws of the “United States.” It has been elusive thus far. I will post something as soon as I find it.
Combo,
Could you please tell me EXACTLY how the endorsement reads? And does the endorsement on the card appear the same as in the passport?
The endorsement should read:
“The bearer of this passport is a non-citizen national”
The endorsement should NOT read:
“The bearer of this passport is a non-citizen national of the United States“
The first endorsement works for American Samoans, Swains Islanders, AND Union states citizens, whereas the second endorsement ONLY works for American Samoans and Swains Islanders. The addition of the language “of the United States” disqualifies Union state citizens and would render your document as fraudulent if it in fact was present in your passport/ on your card and you were a Union state Citizen.
I would prefer to say:
Citizenship connotes domicile . . . , but it could be contextual. For example, I am a citizen of Springfield (not Federal), or I am a citizen of Allegheny County (not Federal), or I am a citizen of Missouri (not Federal), or I am a citizen of the United States*** (not Federal), or I am a citizen of the United States* (not necessarily Federal), or I am a citizen of the United States** (Federal). Citizenship is contingent on context.
I like your definition of Nationality, and stand by it 100%.
So if posed question:
Quote:What is the difference between Citizenship and Nationality?I would say:
Citizenship connotes contextual domicile, and Nationality connotes place of birth or naturalization within the context of the Constitution.
I'm not sure why you PRESUMED I have not read the above posted documents. Do not presume — Numbers 15:30.
. . . not sucking on the “TEET” either!!!
I was just engaging in some thoughtful exchange. 😉
Have a good night!
- Quote:1. The term “lawful permanent resident” is defined in Title 8 and it doesn't include anyone born in a state of the Union and certainly nowhere expressly includes a “non-citizen national” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452.
That shouldn't matter, because the term “lawful permanent resident” that I am referring to is in 26 USC 7701(b)(6), and preceding that definition is the legal language: For the purposes of this title (other than subtitle 😎 —
Quote:2. The rights of people domiciled in states of the Union are INALIENABLE according to the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law.I agree . . . the rights are INALIENABLE . . . but the obligations from a franchise agreement must be adhered to. When one enters into a contract, that doesn't mean his or her underlying rights are gone. It just means the person has availed themselves to a contract agreement . . . which is, I believe binding. If the implications of being in the contract are not beneficial, either A. Don't enter the contract, or B. Lawfully terminate the contract. The rights are always there and INALIENABLE, but if one chooses to enter into binding contracts, that doesn't mean the rights are gone, it just means your latitude is bound under the terms of the contract. The rights are always there to fall back on if need be. Nobody took your rights away, you entered into a contract. And the rights weren't contracted away, they are still there, but the contract is binding.
Quote:3. Nowhere is the status of “resident alien” declared or expressly conferred by simply filing IRS form 1040.This may be true, but nobody has said so more than you that a Form 1040 is for residents. Of course it's obliquely implied. A “United States person” is defined as a citizen or resident of the United States. This is about as close as you can get to expressly declaring it other than out-right language. I think we both agree the Form 1040 should be used by a “resident alien.”
Quote:Therefore, if you asked the IRS whether you can change your status from being a non-citizen national to a resident alien by filing form 1040, they would say no. Your hypothesis can't therefore be true.Since when does ANYTHING the IRS say drive whether or not someone's hypothesis is true or not. My “hypothesis” is predicated on the clear letter of the Code and the Regs . . . not what the IRS says. No one says more than you that anything the IRS says cannot be relied upon. Why would I put any legal weight behind ANYTHING they say? I do not!
Quote:4. You can't be a “resident” in a place without a physical presence there. The non-citizen national in the state who made the UNLAWFUL election to be treated as a statutory “resident alien” is committing perjury because the physical place where he/she lives didn't change.Well, your first sentence here is technically false, but I know what you mean. However, the point is not whether you are actually residing in that place or not. The point is they provide the legal language which allows one TO BE TREATED AS IF he or she were a resident. The practical effect of that legal language is to corral 300 million people into what appears to be a system of European-style National taxation, when you and I know this is not the reality of our system. They don't have to physically be in the “United States” in order to administratively elect to be TREATED AS IF THEY WERE. This is nothing more than a slick lawyer trick. You and I both know that. Furthermore, I do NOT agree that such an election causes one to falsely “elect himself into public office.” The legal language absolutely DOES NOT connote this. The status whether it be “United States person” or “nonresident alien” does not connote taxable activity. Now “trade or business” certainly does, but residence does not.
Quote:Furthermore, aliens are NOT permitted to serve in public offices, hence, even if he was lawfully appointed, he is serving ILLEGALLY. EVERYTHING they are doing right now is illegal and a SCAM from the get go.Well . . . this depends on which “alien” you are referring to. A Constitutional alien or a statutory alien? Two perspectives, two different meanings. Almost every single person serving in a public office in our government can be described as a statutory alien. Of course as American Nationals and American Citizens (United States* Citizen and United States*** Citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment) we are NOT alien. But that is from the perspective of We the People, not the Federal Government. But if the Government is asking if you are an “alien,” then in almost every instance I believe the answer is yes. I have not seen ONE statute that precludes an “alien” from holding public office. I don't believe you can produce one.
Quote:1. They are domiciled on federal territory not protected by the Constitution. The District of Columiba IS protected by the Constitution because it was inside of Virginia before it was ceded and was protected by the Constitution at the time it was ceded, and according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) the protection of the Constitution against that land can't be removed by any act of congress. That is because rights are unalienable and can't be bargained away, which is further confirmation of what we are saying.By this logic, any military base in the 50 Union states is also protected by the Constitution, and free speech and immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures still reigns supreme. I will admit . . . I do not know the answer to that one. By your logic and by the opinion offered by the Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell supra, that is certainly the case.
Again, it's my position that the banks and the customers ARE NOT doing anything illegal. They have all collectively availed themselves to some legal language that afforded them the “privilege” of unwittingly transporting their status to that of a resident of the “United States” administratively by virtue of their naive election of submitting forms reserved only for TRUE residents. I don't believe the action is illegal or a crime. It's just a mechanism built into the code which allows for the ignorance and false presumption to reign supreme. They of course have arranged this language in the way that they have because it benefits them for all of these people to be corralled in this manner. But I believe it is very far from illegal. Just sad and unfortunate.
I think I may have found it:
Quote:26 USC 7701(b):(b) Definition of resident alien and nonresident alien
(1) In general
For purposes of this title (other than subtitle :cool:—
(A) Resident alien
An alien individual shall be treated as a resident of the United States with respect to any calendar year if (and only if) such individual meets the requirements of clause (i), (ii), or (iii):
(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence Such individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time during such calendar year.
Paragraph (6) defines “lawful permanent resident” as follows:
Quote:(6) Lawful permanent residentFor purposes of this subsection, an individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time if—
(A) such individual has the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, and
(:cool: such status has not been revoked (and has not been administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned).
Notice that it DOES NOT SAY:
Quote:Such individual HAS BEEN lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States.It DOES SAY:
Quote:Such individual HAS THE STATUS OF HAVING BEEN accorded the privilege . . . .This is a HUGE difference. If a nonresident alien submits resident forms unwittingly, he therefore obtains administratively the STATUS of resident, and thus meets the legal definition of paragraph (6). If he meets the definition of paragraph (6), then he also meets the definition of (b)(1)(A)(i) above, and can thus be legally treated as if a resident alien for the purposes of banking, and submitting form W-9 as a contractor. This of course is done unwittingly, but it is legal.
I believe this is the legal mechanism that allows the masses to legally wrongfully represent themselves to financial institutions and payers while indemnifying the acceptance agent . . . which is the whole objective anyway. It's my personal feeling that these guys are slick enough to not blatantly do something that big that would be ALL-OUT illegal.
I'm not trying to walk the tightrope here and have it both ways. But as I have said in the past, I have seen some inconsistencies in application of the law (my opinion) that can be labeled as “curve fitting.” An officer in the military earns “wages” and is required to participate in Social Security. There is no way around that. Furthermore, the code and regs clearly state that if you have a SSN, you may NOT obtain a TIN, but you MAY change the status of the number. I have no problem paying my lawful tax. And I don't have a problem receiving a military pension. I don't like Social Security as I understand how the system is implemented. But that doesn't relieve me of my obligations under law, it is on the shoulders of those who engineered the scheme.
If a nonresident alien receives “United States” payments . . . he better be paying Federal Income Tax on them. That is my personal opinion and conclusion. I have not seen ONE thing that relieves a nonresident alien of that burden.
I'm just trying to provide some thoughtful and alternative perspectives that may allow us further insights into how the system operates.
- Quote:1. There is no statute or regulation authorizing a nonresident alien to make an election to be treated as a resident alien unless they are married to a statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizen” or “resident alien” pursuant to 26 USC 6013(g) and (h).
Well, this is a BIG problem then for those wishing to pursue the “Nonresident alien position.”
Why? Because if a bank is going to permit this status, one has to show the bank how the granting of this status does not somehow render the other 99.9% of their other account holders' status of “United States person” as illegal through their own explicit action of granting you an account under the “nonresident alien” status.
Until we can find a provision where ANY “nonresident alien” (not just a married “nonresident alien”) can elect to be treated AS IF HE WERE a “resident alien,” the bank or other financial institution will not grant this as it is a tacit admission that their other customers have illegal statuses. For if we really all were “nonresident aliens” . . . and I believe we are, then a very, very small percentage of the population would actually qualify as a “United States person.”
However, if there is a mechanism somewhere . . . perhaps in 31 USC or 31 CFR, which presents this “TO BE TREATED AS IF” mechanism, then you have something. Obviously this provision exists for “employment” in 26 USC 3402(p)(3). But what about that person's bank account, issued under Form W-9? If we can't demonstrate how all of these other “nonresident alien” people LEGALLY obtained the “United States person” tax status, then the only reasonable conclusion to be made by a bank or financial institution is that the Union states Citizen requesting the “nonresident alien” account has lost his marbles.
I agree with the “nonresident alien position.” But if I were an attorney or president of a financial institution, I personally would be unwilling to grant a customer the “nonresident alien” status unless he could show me how all of my other account holders' legal statuses are just that . . . legal!
I do believe false paradigms can be overcome with a cogent and logical presentation. These people don't really care about your tax status . . . they just want to be indemnified. And I frankly don't blame them. But until we can show how all these “nonresident aliens” in our country have LEGALLY obtained that status when it in fact appears NOT legal, any effort to justify the “nonresident alien position” may be dead in the water.
OK . . . I was studying Figure 2. Citizenship and Domicile Options and Relationships at the bottom of this link:
http://famguardian.o…pVTaxStatus.htm
On the left-hand side, towards the bottom, it appears that “Statutory Nationals” have been characterized as “nonresident aliens.” I do not agree with this conclusion . . . here is why.
If an “alien” of 8 USC 1101(a)(3) is neither a “citizen” or “national of the United States,” then how could anyone domiciled in Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Swains Island, USVI, or the Northern Mariana Islands be an “alien?” They cannot, for they ALL fall under one of three characterizations:
1. “national/citizen of the United States” per 8 USC 1401
2. “national but not citizen of the United States” per 8 USC 1408
3. “national of the United States” per 8 USC 1101(a)(22)
Remember, the “alien” of 8 USC 1101(a)(3) is anyone who is NOT a “citizen” or “national of the United States.” This eliminates EVERYBODY domiciled in the top two circles of Figure 1. These two domiciles are part of the “United States**”.
If one is an “alien,” the question becomes is he a “resident alien” or a “nonresident alien?” Both of these “individuals” are subsets of an “alien.”
There is no need to designate a “citizen” as an “individual”, as a “citizen” or “resident” of the “United States**” is transformed into a “United States person” per 26 USC 7701(a)(30), and we all know what happens after that designation occurs.
I submit that ONLY a Union state constitutional citizen (a “national”) and a foreign nation state “national” qualify as an “alien,” and are thus the ONLY “persons” statutorily eligible for this designation.
The IRC talks about RESIDENTS of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. But it DOES NOT talk about those who are domiciled (aka citizens of) those places. At first blush, I must admit, it appears as if they are talking about domiciliaries of those places . . . when in reality, what they are referring to throughout is the taxation protocol of an “alien” who would be a “resident alien” of the “United States**” as those geographic regions are part of the “United States**” per the Venn Diagram. RESIDENTS of the “United States**”!!! Not citizens of!!!
Deep in the recesses of my mind, I seem to recall something about those from American Samoa or Swains Island being afforded the “nonresident alien” designation. But I may be confusing that with an “alien” who is RESIDING in American Samoa or Swains Island. Does anyone on this forum recall of any statutory or regulatory language which grants those domiciled in American Samoa or Swains Island the status of “nonresident alien?” My conclusion is that there is not . . . for a citizen/domiciliary of American Samoa and Swains Island is a “national of the United States” and is thus barred from ever being characterized as an “alien” per 8 USC 1101(a)(3).
If I, an “alien” and “nonresident alien” were working and living (NOT DOMICILED) in American Samoa or Swains Island . . . I would still be characterized as a “nonresident alien.” However, a “citizen” or domiciliary of American Samoa or Swains Island is in fact a “United States person” and suffers all the financial infirmities that come with that domicile.
It's my opinion that Figure 2. needs some tweeking.
Thoughts?
Admin,
Glad you liked the diagram. I had to pull it down, as I found a couple of small administrative errors with it. A new, updated version is now posted. I also tried to post it in Word format, but it would not permit such an upload.
The little circles represent “residents” where their color represents their citizenship/domicile. Every color (citizen) is represented in every DOMICILE (BIG CIRCLE) so that each unique situation can be seen.
So . . . for example, a blue Union state citizen (small blue circle) who is residing in the United States** (BIG RED CIRCLE), has a corresponding tax status of “resident alien.” The tags on each instance allows folks to see the pattern and recognize the various alterations based on domicile/citizenship, nationality, residency, and of course, their resulting tax status that can change based on the combination of the three.
The only two that seem to confuse me are:
A blue Union state citizen in a YELLOW DOMICILE. Is he a “resident alien” because American Samoa is a Federal Possession, or would the Union state citizen in American Samoa still qualify as a “nonresident alien” because American Samoans themselves are “nonresident aliens”? That is a little tricky.
Anyway, feel free to use it if you want. I'm visual, and it helps me way more than the charts. But that's just me.
As for our previous conversation about All United States** sourced income being effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States. Social Security payments are United States** sourced payments, yet the IRC identifies SS payments as being NOT effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business. That is just one example of an exception to the language in 864(c )(3). There are more, but it is a ridiculous maze of cross references and other confusing rabbit holes. Suffice it to say, it's not cut-and-dried!
I'm still reading through the changes to the linked thread referenced in your previous post. I'll work my way through it and let you know. I'm sure it's great as always!!
Is it possible that the way the United States** affects the venue of law with regards to Social Security is through provision (3)(A) below?
Quote:IV. PARTIES > Rule 17.Rule 17. Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers
(b) Capacity to Sue or be Sued.
Capacity to sue or be sued is determined as follows:
(1) for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity, by the law of the individual's domicile;
(2) for a corporation, by the law under which it was organized; and
(3) for all other parties, by the law of the state where the court is located, except that:
(A) a partnership or other unincorporated association with no such capacity under that state's law may sue or be sued in its common name to enforce a substantive right existing under the United States Constitution or laws; and
(:cool: 28 U.S.C. §§ 754 and 959(a) govern the capacity of a receiver appointed by a United States court to sue or be sued in a United States court.
My thought process is that Social Security is a “domestic partnership” between the United States and the other party. Since the United States** offers the purported “benefits” and terms of the “partnership,” then the legal venue is the United States**. I just have a real hard time believing that some toothless 75 year old man receiving SS payments qualifies as a public officer in a court of law . . . in the United States** or elsewhere. Obviously the United States** has the right to litigate over Social Security, which is a contract, and property belonging to the United States**, and thus a substantive right existing under the United States Constitution or laws.
- Quote:You contradicted yourself. First you say that the military retirement is a payment from “sources in the United States” that is not connected to a “trade or business”, and yet 26 USC 864(c )(3) says all payments from “sources in the United States” are all associated with a “trade or business”. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
Yes, I am very familiar with this. It would appear that way wouldn't it? But if you dig into it a little deeper, they actually reveal exceptions to this statement. To be perfectly honest with you, when I saw these exceptions, my analysis (IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA) stopped, and remains incomplete. I was very encouraged originally sometime back when I found 864(c )(3) but then put my application of the above statement on hold as it requires A MUCH CLOSER LOOK! Unfortunately I don't have the time to elaborate on it now . . . but there is a mechanism for exceptions to the above conclusion. You might take a look yourself while I am gone. Others can feel free to chip in too if they like.
Quote:2. Social Security is a franchise that operates within states if it acts upon or creates “persons” within states of the Union. The number functions essentially as a de facto license number to act as a public officer.No! The franchise is in the United States** and the participants MAY BE in the Union states. The conclusion that it acts as a license number is true . . . a license number to label private property as attached to the public domain. But to say that it makes one a public officer, I believe is incorrect. And we have illustrated this in the above posts.
I will be offline for the next day or so. I have something I must attend to. I will elaborate on the exceptions to 864(c )(3) at a later time . . . but they are there.
- Quote:The language you are confused about describes the diagram in section 10.4 of the “Why you are a national” pamphlet.
I'm not confused about the context. I was confused by the way you worded the sentence. It did not make sense. But you did clarify when you told me what you REALLY meant.
Quote:A state domiciled “non-citizen national” is what I really meant, not an 8 USC 1101(a)(21) “national”. I am trying to describe the affect upon one's statutory citizenship when a state-domiciled “non-citizen national” moves to federal territory.Then you say:
Quote:If that same person who started out as a state-domiciled non-citizen national and “national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452 returns his domicile to the state of the Union he started in after accomplishing the above, he returns to his former status as a non-citizen national and a “national” under 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452.Again, this sentence is poorly constructed. What do you mean?
“he returns to his former status . . . . ?????? When? When he returns back to his original domicile and place of citizenship? I think that is what you meant.
Then you say:
Quote:I disagree that a state domiciled non-citizen national is eligible to sign up for Social Security.1. Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress cannot establish or license any franchise within the borders of a sovereign state, including the “trade or business” franchise. See LIcense tax Cases. See:
First off, Social Security is NOT a license or franchise within the borders of a sovereign state. Social Security is a franchise belonging to and seated in the United States**, just like the Union Pacific Railroad was when Brushaber made his error. Now, the citizens of the Union states are free to sign up for that United States** franchise, but they suffer from all the infirmities that come with that darn number.
Stija goes on to point out and confirm what I was saying when he said:
Quote:I think he never meant to say that a state domiciled nonresident national is electing to become a permanent resident or that he is eligible to do so but simply that if one applies for the privilege of working for the feds by occupying an office and is authorized to do so, he may be granted a SS#.Stija, that is precisely what I meant!!! And you hi-lighted the precise phrase I was using to reach my conclusion which says:
Quote:(2) An alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting you to work in the United States.By the way . . . what is the United States**? It is the government. You have said so many times. That being said, the above sentence from 20 CFR 422.104 can be interpreted as follows:
“. . . or under other authority of law permitting you to work in the United States (Government).”
Again, it's not who is right . . . but what is right. I don't see any way around this conclusion. All of these conclusions are predicated on the fact that a Union state Citizen is in fact a statutory “alien.” The question is, is he a “resident alien,” or a “nonresident alien,” OR has either one of these “aliens,” resident or nonresident, been granted the privilege to work in the United States** Government? That is why there is a W-8ECI. This form is for those “nonresident aliens” who are domiciled outside of the United States** but are connected with the “trade or business” franchise. This too proves, I believe, that ANY payment from the United States**, such as a military retirement, constitutes “income” from “sources within the United States**” for a “nonresident alien,” and I believe is “income” which then becomes “not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business” once said “nonresident alien” retires, and is no longer actively connected with the “trade or business.” That retiree then just becomes a “beneficial owner” of “United States** sourced income” and would be taxed at the 30% rate. Social Security payments are also addressed as “income which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business.” 85% of these payments would be taxed at 30% as well. I have no problem meeting this lawful obligation after serving the United States** in the interest of the people and the Union states for many, many years.
Also, if you would be kind enough to elaborate on the “national government” versus “federal government” monikers and when each moniker applies, I would be VERY grateful. Thank you.
I also just noticed this:
Quote:6. Title 26 doesn't define “alien” but it doesn't need to, because it is the same statutory “alien” as that described in 8 USC 1101(a)(3), which is either a foreign national or a state national. Most people think “alien” means a constitutional alien and a foreign national when they read government forms, but in fact, it is exactly the opposite, which is why so many people fill the forms out INCORRECTLY.[….]
7.2 Statutory “nationals” (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21))
A “national” of 8 USC 1101(a)(21) CAN also be a “national/citizen of the United States**” pursuant to 8 USC 1401 and vice versa.
Then you say this:
Quote:Because it is ANY state that is “foreign” in relation to the “national” and not “federal” government.Would you please elaborate on this. I find this VERY confusing. It is my understanding that it is a national government when they act directly against people and not the states insofar as they have been granted the power to do so. In a federal government, they act directly against the states and not the people insofar as they have been granted the power to do so.
The “tax” we all loathe so well is called a “Federal Income Tax.” So why is this a national tax? Is it because that a “person” both “individual” and juristic person are taxed directly (national function) and not through apportionment (federal function)? Any light you could shed on the difference would be much appreciated.
Then in 12. you say:
Quote:The minute that statutory “national” and “alien” changes his domicile to a federal territory or possession, he becomes a statutory “U.S. citizen” (8 U.S.C. 1401) if he moves to Guam or Puerto Rico or a “national of the United States**” (8 USC 1101(a)(22)) if he moves to American Samoa or Swains Island. Once he moves to American Samoa, for instance, he continues to be a “non-citizen national” per 8 U.S.C. 1452 but changes from an 8 USC 1101(a)(21) “national” to an 8 USC 1101(a)(22) “national of the United States**”.I can't follow the first sentence. It seems fractured and I'm not really 100% certain what you were trying to say. Could you reword this please?
Also, a “national of the United States**” is still an 8 USC 1101(a)(21) “national” as per the Venn Diagram.
In 13. you say:
Quote:The regulations at 26 CFR 301.6109-1 establish that such a number may ONLY be used in connection with those engaged in a “trade or business”, meaning a “public office”, in the government.The ONLY remark makes this statement false because 26 CFR 301.6109-1 provides for one to be treated as a “resident alien” pursuant to elections made in 6013(g) and (h). Neither of these provisions have ANYTHING to do with a “trade or business,” but rather an election to be treated as a “resident alien,” and thus eligible to receive/use a Social Security Number pursuant to 20 CFR 422.104(a)(2). The revelations that a sovereign Union state citizen is an “alien” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(3) does make it legal for any citizen in the Union to obtain and avail themselves to the Social Security Franchise without participating in a “trade or business.” This in fact is the reality of the situation because some 300 million or so Americans actually have a number . . . and now it would appear they have indeed obtained it legally, albeit in a truly uninformed manner.
That is all for tonight . . . good evening.
