neo
Forum Replies Created
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!!
That is EXACTLY what I was proposing . . . every word.
The only thing I saw that I believe still needs to be addressed from the previous post is:
Quote:19. REGARDLESS of all the above citizenship baloney, one cannot be an “individual” unless they are a public officer in the government. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that jurisdiction over PRIVATE conduct is “repugnant to the Constitution”. Therefore, all “individuals” must be engaged in “public conduct” as public officers, and they ALSO must be statutory but not constitutional “aliens” per 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3).This is certainly true in Title 5. This is NOT ALWAYS the case in Title 26. The meaning of “individual” cannot be transported from Title 5 for the purposes of Title 26. The meaning of “individual” cannot be transported from Title 26 for the purposes of Title 5. An “individual” in Title 26 certainly CAN BE an “individual” in Title 5. But an “individual” from Title 5 is not always an “individual” in Title 26. An example of this would be an “individual” who is a “nonresident alien” who at no time was engaged in a “trade or business” in the United States.
That is why, in both titles, each definition is preceded by the language” “For the purposes of this title, section, etc.”
An “individual” in Title 5 IS NOT ALWAYS the same “individual” addressed in Title 26. Look at the definition of “individual” in Title 5 — specifically 5 USC 552a(a)(2):
Quote:(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;Since “alien” is not defined in Title 5, one could apply the definition from Title 8. This would explain how a Union state Citizen (an “alien”) can be an “individual” working for the government as an “officer” or “employee” as a statutory “resident alien” in the Federal Zone. This guy is NOT an “alien” in the Constitutional sense, though.
Check this out from 20 CFR:
Quote:Sec. 422.104 Who can be assigned a social security number.(a) Persons eligible for SSN assignment. We can assign you a social security number if you meet the evidence requirements in Sec. 422.107 and you are:
(1) A United States citizen; or
(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
An “alien” LAWFULLY admitted to the United States under authority of law permitting you to work in the United States!!!
This illustrates how a “nonresident alien” who is an “alien” can become eligible for a Social Security Number merely by becoming a “resident alien” by choosing a domicile in the United States** either actually or statutorily. The IRC provides the “authority of law” permitting “aliens” that are “nonresident aliens” to be treated as actual “resident aliens” through 6013(g) and (h) elections. . . even though they may not physically be domiciled there!! WOW!!!
BTW, my new diagram is coming along nicely. I just have a lot of family stuff going on this weekend.
You said the existing diagrams and tables are WRONG, which is fine, but you didn't indicate what they SHOULD look like to make them right.
I never said they were WRONG. I said:
Quote:My perspective (assuming it is correct) renders much of the table above incorrect. Especially in the conclusions of “aliens,” “nonresident aliens,” and “nationals.”
This is a far cry from saying that your materials are WRONG. This really seems to be a trend here. Presumption, and inaccuracy with regard to “quotes” or “conclusions” I did not make. I am going to make it a point to call you out on that EVERY TIME from now on.
For example . . . you go on to say:
Quote:Anyone can say you are wrong, discredit, slander, and ciritcize, but few would step forward and accept responsibility for showing how to make it RIGHT.Again, I haven't said ANYTHING IS WRONG. I gave my perspective based on what I read and understand. If this discredits the political speech and religious views on this forum . . . what difference does it make? Since it is all just that. And I certainly haven't criticized anyone . . . particularly on this forum. If anything I have been continually thankful and complimentary. Please produce ONE instance of slander or criticism by me on this forum. As you say . . . happy hunting!!!
We want NEW diagrams and tables that are consistent with what you say, consistent with the statues you cite, and consistent with themselves.
I'll start working on these immediately. One must crawl before he can walk . . . walk before he can run. This thread has been (at least for me) a session of you and your expertise sharpening me. You are the guru . . . not me. I'm looking for ANYBODY AT ANYTIME to rebut what I am saying . . . but it is not happening. This is leading me to believe that my interpretation of what is going on is correct. With all this discourse back and forth, I feel confident enough that I can reconcile it all with an updated table and diagram. I will do my best to do this.
We are trying to eliminate cognitive dissonance
Why in the world would you want to do this? Cognitive dissonance is the beginning of paradigm breaking . . . and the beginning of unlearning untruths, and learning truth. It's what one does with the cognitive dissonance that is important. Do they reject the dissonance and plug back into the matrix? Or do they take the “red pill,” and see just how far the rabbit hole goes?
You analysis is also week on caselaw. Please show us more caselaw that supports your position.
Every single case from the West Law link in your previous post addresses “nationality” and “alienage” from the standpoint of foreign nationals and those seeking citizenship with the United States**. Of course ALL of these cases are consistent with what I am saying. Why though is there no case law regarding the sovereigns?
Quote:“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.”[Julliard v. Greenman: 110 U.S. 421, (1884)]
If sovereignty is not subject to the law because it is the author of the law, wouldn't this explain why there are no cases about Union state Citizens and this subject matter? That of course coupled with the fact all of this scheme has been cleverly hidden from the American people, and it is ONLY because of the internet and a venue such as this that this fraud is brought to light.
So, all of that being said . . . there is no case law regarding the term “alien” as it relates to an American national because it has been hidden with the United States citizenship ruse, and the “black robes” wouldn't hear it anyway because it would reveal the scam.
We think the real issue is that you are confusing Title 8 and Title 26. We don't think an alien in Title 26 is the same as an alien in Title 8.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. There can be no confusion if one just follows and applies the terms accurately and consistently. The term “alien” is nowhere defined in Title 26, although the word ALIEN does show up in reference to both a “resident alien” and “nonresident alien,” which are defined in Title 26. Also, the reader needs to read and heed the legal language that states . . . “for the purposes of this title,” ” . . . section,” ” . . . paragraph,” etc.
It seems as though an alien in Title 26 is anyone not domiciled on federal territory while an alien in Title 8 is anyone who is not a “national”.
Alien is not defined in Title 26, only “resident alien” and “nonresident alien.” Alien is used only in Title 26 when talking about either a “resident alien” or a “nonresident alien” as a superordinate general description for the two definitions. Besides that . . . isn't a Spaniard from Spain a “national?” If he is, then how could he NOT be an “alien” and a “national?” This is obviously impossible. It all comes down to context.
Then post it as an attachment to these forums for all to review.
How do I do this?
Is this forum capable of hosting a program called “Word Press?” It's a great tool I just learned about the other day which allows for forums such as these to also allow diagrams, charts, and pictures to be posted together with text for a richer and more informative post.
And with regard to your other previous post:
This
Quote:The term ” non-resident” as herein used means a citizen of the United States who does not reside in the state in which the question arises for decision, or in which the act complained of or relied upon was performed. It does not mean an alien, or a citizen of a foreign country.”[A Treatise on the Law of Non-Residents, Conrad Reno, p. v,
http://books.google.com/books?id=FhE1AAAAI…;q=&f=false.]
and this
Quote:A “national” of the United States, for purpose of the Nationality Act, does not include an alien. Nationality Act of 1940, § 101, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101.See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.[Scholz v. Shaughnessy, 180 F.2d 450, C.A.2.N.Y.,1950]
reveal nothing new or inconsistent with what I have been saying. It is referring to citizens of the several states and how they are foreign with respect to each other. But even if it did say something illuminating, is Conrad Reno an authority we can trust our lawful conclusions to in a society of law and not men? It's just a treatise that some dude wrote . . . far from authoritative and conclusive for our purposes.
And the Scholz v. Shaughnessy quote above just confirms what I have been saying . . . that a “national” of the United States does not include an alien. That is precisely what 8 USC 1101(a)(3) says too! It doesn't say a “national” of Spain, or a “national” from Missouri. It says a “national” from the United States, which could be an American Samoan or a naturalized citizen of the United States** or a sovereign Constitutional Citizen who chose his domicile in the United States**.
Quote:(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.I'm beat!!! Have a great night!! And thank you again for all your leadership and time!!! I'll start working on the table and chart!
I’m not saying that you are wrong, but simply that the arguments won’t get you anywhere in a legal forum and will hurt your position.
That’s your opinion. I can justify my “position” perfectly while maintaining harmony and consistency with the definitions they are presenting. You switch gears between what the meaning of United States is in order to support your position. This, I submit won’t get you anywhere in a legal forum. But that’s my opinion.
1. How does your position reduce cognitive dissonance for the average american not schooled in the law?
It does not. But neither does yours. Try to tell even the most intelligent of Americans the difference between a “direct tax” and an “indirect tax,” and they will chuckle and roll their eyes. Try telling even the most intelligent of Americans that there are 3 definitions of the United States as provided for by the Supreme Court . . . show them the definitions in the case law . . . and then watch them roll their eyes and listen to them tell you that “you are going to get in trouble.”
I have yet to meet ONE person that doesn’t struggle with a SEVERE bout of cognitive dissonance when presented with any of the material over which we are discussing. I have literally presented this information to hundreds of people. They simply don’t care to know the truth . . . and in fact, they reject it.
2. How does this help your position in a court of law?
Presumably, if due process was actually followed, one would conclude that my application of the code was consistent with the definitions provided for within the code, versus ‘cherry picked’ to suit some other desired conclusion based on a belief that is not backed up by definitions. I’m not saying you are doing this . . . so no . . . this is not an attack!
3. Is it above the head of the average American to comprehend?
Yes it is! Almost nobody understands the principles that you and I are even discussing . . . let alone the nuances involved in our debate of United States* versus United States**. That being said, I have given many of your published materials to people that I would consider above-average Americans with regard to intelligence . . . and I have had it returned to me 100% of the time with the comment . . . “I don’t understand this stuff. It’s way over my head.”
4. How are you going to explain to a jury that a person is a “national” and an “alien” at the same time?
Very simple! I am going to explain that United States as defined in Title 8 is legislated by Congress, and thus applies in the Federal Zone. . . the United States**. I am then going to apply the definitions from the Venn Diagram consistently using the United States** meaning. I will also apply this same meaning to 8 USC 1101(a)(3) and show how using the Venn Diagram, that both a foreign national and a sovereign American meet the qualifications of “alien” as defined. After all . . . isn’t a Citizen of Nevada (a national) just as sovereign as a Citizen of Spain (a national)? And are they not both “alien” to the United States**? If not why not? The only difference I will point out is that a foreign national (a “national”) is an “alien” all over the geography of our country, while a sovereign Union state Citizen is an “alien” only within the Federal Zone. In the former instance, Congress has plenary jurisdiction over that “alien” anywhere within the American territory . . . this would qualify as a geographical sense that would include Alaska and Hawaii pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(38).
Quote:“The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects [foreign nationals who are aliens] it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects [said aliens], legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.”[Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)]
Otherwise, they are using the Federal Zone meaning. This is logical, and consistent with the definitions as provided in the code, with no ‘shifting of gears’ required.
This is how I would explain it to a jury.
5. What does it do to the table at the top of the following article, if anything?
http://famguardian.o…pVTaxStatus.htm
My perspective (assuming it is correct) renders much of the table above incorrect. Especially in the conclusions of “aliens,” “nonresident aliens,” and “nationals.”
6. What does your position do to the diagram in section 10.4 of the following:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
It renders it as incorrect. The reason is because in my analysis, “aliens” are either “resident aliens” or “nonresident aliens.” Both “resident aliens” and “nonresident aliens” are indeed subsets of the term “alien.” This is corroborated many times over in 26 CFR where a “nonresident alien” is referred to as an “alien.” It is the residency status of the “alien” that is the big issue . . . which equates to his chosen domicile. This you have said many times yourself.
If the “alien” which is an American national, is domiciled on sovereign Union state land, then he is a “nonresident alien” vis a vis the United States**. If the “alien” which is a foreign national, is domiciled on sovereign Union state land, then he is a “resident alien” vis a vis the United States*, the United States**, and the United States***, because Congress has jurisdiction over THIS “alien” everywhere in the American territory.
Where the “alien” is domiciled determines whether or not he is a “resident alien” or a “nonresident alien.” But of course, we have to know if we are talking about a foreign national, a United States** national, or an American national.
The fact that a “resident alien” and a “nonresident alien” are subsets of the term “alien” renders this diagram inoperative. The language as used throughout the Treasury Regulations indicate that a “resident alien” and a “nonresident alien” are indeed subsets of the term “alien,” which by the way, IS NOT defined in Title 26.
This discussion isn’t worth pursuing further without supporting and corroborating evidence and without more help and less criticism.
Are you talking to me? I have corroborated EVERYTHING with THEIR DEFINITIONS, and I have corroborated it logically and consistently. Also, show me ONE place in any of my posts where I have criticized anyone!
The reason you are getting resistance from us is that you aren’t providing supporting evidence and are relying mainly on opinion and conjecture and forcing us to produce all the evidence.
I have provided plenty of supporting evidence, and it is all consistent. I am not the one stating an opinion or offering solely conjecture. Evidence can be true or false. If it contradicts itself, then by your own admission, it is false. Show me one place where ANYTHING I have said in this thread contradicts itself.
This is not an equal interchange and you are not pulling your own weight.
What do I need to do to pull my weight? I have provided you with a diagram that has now been incorporated into your materials. But only 8 USC 1101(a)(3) has been left out. Why? I know it destroys a lot of conclusions previously drawn and published . . . but does that make it wrong? If it is right it is right. If it is wrong it is wrong. How can United States** be used in all the other definitions but NOT be used only in 8 USC 1101(a)(3)? To omit it because the implications are damaging to previous work is not a good reason. It’s not about who’s right . . . it’s about what’s right. I’m trying to help. If this is not pulling my own weight, then I will try to do better.
That approach won’t get you anywhere here or in a court of law. We don’t have the slightest concern about the work required to correct our materials if they are provably incorrect AND if the change would strengthen the position of fellowship members in a litigation context. BOTH criteria are necessary, and you are only addressing one.
This does not appear to be the case. It would appear that I have proven my position as I have consistently applied the definitions and terms as used in the code and regs. This too would strengthen anyone’s chances in the course of litigation. So, I believe I have addressed BOTH.
1. What factor determines “alienage” under the I.R.C. and Title 8 of the U.S. Code:
1.1 Municipal domicile…OR
1.2 Nationality
That depends and you know that. An American “national” can be a “US person” or a “nonresident alien.” And a “US person” is considered “domestic” regardless of where he is domiciled. Alienage in Title 8 depends on whether we are talking about American “nationals” or foreign “nationals.” This has been exhaustively discussed between you and I and we are both in agreement on this 100% I believe.
2. By what authority one can be a “non-citizen national” and an “alien” at the same time within the context of both Title 8 and Title 26 of the U.S. code?
Congress
3. That “nonresident aliens” include non-citizen nationals not in American Samoa and Swains Island, but in states of the Union.
This has been proven through the commutative property of a logical argument. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. If United States as used in Title 8 means United States**, then an “alien” is found in the same circle as a “non-citizen national” (the United States***). And since we are talking about an “alien” who is also a “non-citizen national” who is a nonresident in the United States**, then we are talking about a “nonresident alien” which is NOT in the same circle as those from American Samoa or Swains Island.
4. That the I.R.C. is not administered by or for the benefit of the “national government”, but the D.C. municipal government or corporation that is foreign to states of the Union.
This has been exhaustively proven . . . and we are in 100% agreement here.
5. That you can be an “alien” in relation to a corporation owned by the national government that is a part of the national government and yet not be an “alien” in relation to the owner, even though they are one and the same.
All sovereign Americans are “alien” to the owner because they are in a foreign legal venue. The question is: Are they a “resident alien” or a “nonresident alien?” Of course, one could also be a “national/citizen of the United States**” which is the same owner of the “domestic” corporation. In this case, he would not be “alien.” Because as a “national/citizen of the United States**” he falls into a different circle as the sovereign American who is “alien” to the United States**.
6. Which of the three “United States” are implied in the phrase “national of the United States” found at 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)?
United States**
This because those from American Samoa and Swains Island are not sovereign, Constitutional United States*** Citizens. Their nationality has been conferred on them through an Organic Act of Congress, which is seated in the United States**, thus their legal standing is a creation of the United States**. That legal standing is “national of the United States**”
If you want to advance your position, you are going to have to explain it to all and it must be consistent with everything else on this website or explain why it isn’t.
I believe I have explained everything in a cogent and understandable manner.
Why does it have to be consistent with everything else on this website? Is this website inspired by the Holy Spirit or does it constitute free political speech compiled by fallen man? We are not a society of men, we are a society of law. Please show me where any of the aforementioned is contradicting, and I will address it.
These forums exist to eliminate cognitive dissonance, but right now, they are only increasing it with the position you are advancing.
There is nothing wrong with cognitive dissonance per se. It’s what one does in the face of cognitive dissonance that counts. I believe it was “Bing” that taught me that. If cognitive dissonance is increasing, then paradigms are being broken.
You are going to have to flex your muscles and look beyond them to caselaw, government publications, etc.
Everything here is consistent with case law that you have presented in your publications. As far as government publications . . . well, the court has said they are unreliable . . . as has this ministry. Let’s stick to the law, case law, codes, and regs.
This has all been submitted with a loving attitude and a spirit of thanksgiving for the education this website has provided me. My enlightenment to this material would NEVER have happened were it not for this ministry. However, I believe I have stumbled across some inconsistencies in the SEDM/FG materials which are leading to incorrect conclusions. Based on what I am reading and applying with their (Congress’) definitions, I conclude that:
1. A “resident alien” and a “nonresident alien” are subordinate to an “alien.”
2. A Union state Citizen is an “alien” vis a vis the United States**.
3. A Union state Citizen is a “nonresident alien” when domiciled in a Union state or abroad.
4. A foreign national is an “alien” vis a vis the United States**.
5. A foreign national is a “nonresident alien” when in his own sovereign country.
6. A foreign national is a “resident alien” when anywhere on American territory.
7. There is NO infirmity whatsoever with being an “individual” within the context of Title 26 ONLY.
8. An “individual” is either a “resident alien” or a “nonresident alien” in 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3).
9. A “citizen” of 26 CFR 1.1-1( c) is automatically a “US person” by their own definitions [at 26 USC 7701(a)(30)], so no connection with an “individual” is necessary, and in fact is never made.
Now, it’s my turn. Please show me how any of the conclusions in 1 – 9 are wrong with evidence or by ANY of their definitions. And lest I be damaged by presumption . . . I am not attacking you, the website, or the material. I am challenging conclusions with a logical and consistent approach using canons of statutory construction, and definitions.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on all right!!!
So, does 8 USC 1101(a)(38) describe:
a) United States*
b) United States**
c) United States***
Let's work through it!
Now if United States* also includes the 50 Union states as well as the federal territories and possessions, then 8 USC 1101(a)(38) can't be addressing the United States* because Congress cannot legislate for the 50 Union states. This you have said yourself.
We know it cannot be the United States*** for obvious reasons.
So, the only other possibility is it means the United States**
So how do you reconcile 8 USC 1101(a)(3)?
Just because it's inconvenient does not mean we can change the meaning to fit our purposes. This is not consistent with logic or due process. And as you have pointed out to me many times before, if the definitions and rules of statutory construction contradict our conclusions, then the conclusions cannot be true, because the truth will not contradict itself.
How can we apply definitions 1 through 5 on the new Venn Diagram within the context of United States** and then 'change gears' because we don't like the moniker of “alien” defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(3) being associated with a “national?”
There is something else going on here . . . and no offense, but it appears this is being summarily dismissed because there are about 50+ publications authored by SEDM/FG that are contradicted by this logical conclusion. Is it even remotely possible that the author may have overlooked something? Or is it just that 8 USC 1101(a)(3) is a 'bogus' definition?
We have to be methodical and consistent . . . we can't pick and choose. We can't 'curve fit,' and this appears to be what is going on in the post previous to this one. What does the “Trading with the Enemy Act” have to do with any of this?
Now . . . in order to consider a different approach I pose the following questions:
When can Congress legislate for the United States*? Can it do this when acting for the national government?
When can Congress legislate for the United States***? Is there ANY scenario when Congress can legislate for the Union states? My understanding is it cannot when acting for the federal government. But can it when acting for the national government? Is there ANY scenario where Congress can legislate for the 50 Union states? Do the specific and enumerated powers allow Congress to legislate for the 50 Union states for that subject matter ONLY? Is Congress acting in its capacity as a national government when it is legislating for its specific and enumerated powers? I'm asking!
Is it possible that an approach I took some weeks back is in fact the truth? That for the purposes of Title 8, everything can be taken at face value. That perhaps there is nothing tricky going on with the definitions, and all American Citizens are United States citizens and nationals pursuant to 8 USC 1401 — this because the government is acting in its capacity as a national government over matters external and with regard to our Citizens abroad and “aliens” from foreign countries. Possible? If not . . . why not?
Is it also possible that both United States** is there for those purposes, and United States* is there for those purposes? And the reader must apply the proper meaning of “alien” to the proper context. The SCOTUS even said in the Slaughter House Cases:
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 of the individual.”[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36, 2l L.Ed. 394 (1873)]
Now this concept can apply too to citizens and nationals of the United States** such as Puerto Rico and Guam. These “individuals” are quite a different group from Citizens of the United States*** but the SCOTUS' application above applies equally well to the United States** citizens and nationals as well as to Citizens and Nationals of the United States*** and of the United States*.
And this from the SCOTUS
Quote:“The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.”[Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)]
Within the American territory? This seems like a geographical sense to me . . . and they are talking about “aliens” in the national sense . . . not the federal sense.
I believe there is very strong evidence for Title 8 to be serving a dual purpose. It serves as a basis for controlling “aliens” and “nationals” as they would interface with our national government. And it serves as a basis for addressing “aliens” and “citizens” as they would interface with our federal government.
Why is this wrong? Where have I contradicted anything? I have not and I can back up everything with definitions, rules of statutory construction, and case law.
I want to nail this down. And there are many loose ends right now with a lot of contradiction going on.
I'm not being prideful about this. I'm being methodical, and I want to get to the bottom of it! Come on!! Let's sharpen some iron here!!!
BTW, your reference to Vattel and the Law of Nations speaks to our country as it interfaces within the family of nations. In this sense, the government we are referring to is a national government, and they have plenary jurisdiction over all “aliens.” Americans in this national context are just that — “nationals,” not “aliens.” But for the purposes of the federal government, the application of Vattel and The Law of Nations to matters internal to our country are moot. And in this context, a “non-citizen national” CAN be an “alien.” These are their definitions . . . not mine.
And why do you think I am being arrogant or showing off here? I'm just putting out some serious effort and study. Geeez! People get reprimanded here for being lazy . . . and they get reprimanded for putting forth extraordinary effort! This attitude towards me and my posts have me baffled. If I've come off arrogant somewhere . . . it was not intended. It's been my intention to contribute something of value. If my input is not wanted or is proving detrimental . . . just let me know.
- Quote:The “United States” they are talking about above would appear to be the “United States**”. If it is in fact the “United States**” and not the “United States*” or the “United States***”, then you would be correct in concluding that those domiciled in states of the Union are “aliens” under Title 8. But WHERE is the proof of which “United States” they mean? We're not talking about religion here, but law.
In previous discussions on these forums, you were admonished that 8 CFR 215 and the definitions relating to aliens, of which an “alien” would be part, includes the 50 states. Therefore, for the purposes of aliens only, “United States” means “United States*”
Now this is a good point!!! I concede . . . I find that perspective perplexing.
But, consider this possibility:
It can mean both . . . depending on which “alien” the government is referring to. . . depending on the context.
For example, a Union state Citizen is no different from a foreign national in his own homeland. They are both “nonresident aliens.” But as soon as the foreign national sets foot on any part of United States* soil, they become “aliens” and are subject to the plenary jurisdiction of Congress . . . even in all 50 Union states. . . an “alien” to the national government and the United States*.
Now consider the sovereign American from a Union state. He is also a “nonresident alien” so long as he remains outside of the federal domicile or a status that would transport him there. Yet, because of his unique status as an American, he is still a “nonresident alien” vis a vis the United States** even though he is present in the United States* and the United States***.
So the issue is one of context, and as you pointed out . . . they provide both definitions, and allow for the ambiguity to exist to cloud the issue.
It's like when being asked if you are a citizen of the United States.
Anyone with any knowledge of the situation would ask, “Which definition of United States do you mean?” So it is when asked if you are an alien. It would really depend on which context of the United States we are referring to. They provide for the latitude for both to be used depending on the context. If we are talking about foreign nationals, then we are referring to the United States*, and “aliens” to the national government. If we were talking about Union state Citizens, then we are talking about the United States**, and aliens to the federal government. The duality of our government is addressed in Federalist 39. Again, just ask for clarification when asked — “Sir, which “aliens” are you referring to? Aliens of the United States* national government, or aliens to the United States** federal government?”
This is what I believe they mean by “except as otherwise specifically herein provided” in 8 USC 1101(a)(38).
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.When they are NOT 'specifically addressing' (which of course they leave for you to figure out when they are specifically addressing a particular party by context) Union state Citizens, they are referring to “aliens” of the national government, ie the United States*. Hence, the all encompassing definition which is further elaborated upon in 8 CFR 215.1.
So . . . I contend we are both right.
How's that for an answer?!! 🙄
QUOTE As we have said before, a “national” described in 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452 who is domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union:
1. Is a “nonresident” but not an “alien” in relation to the national government. Therefore, they can't be a “nonresident alien” but rather a nonresident national.
Yes, but he is “alien” with regard to the federal district . . . ie, the United States** which I believe is something entirely different from the national government. This is also consistent with 8 USC 1101(a)(3). How does one reconcile 8 USC 1101(a)(3) any other way? They are not referring to the United States* or the United States*** because United States* also includes United States*** . . . and Congress can't legislate for them. So they must be talking about the statutory United States**. If this is the case, then the “alien” of 1101(a)(3) MUST be a Constitutional United States*** Citizen. There is no other possibility.
Quote:2. Is not the “taxpayer” described in the I.R.C. All “taxpayers” are federal instrumentalities, and all such federal instrumentalities are statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizens” because part of the “United States” federal corporation.I know of many “public officers” who are domiciled on Union state territory, and who ARE engaged in a “trade or business.” Now, if these public officers declared their proper status as “nonresident aliens,” and submitted a W-8ECI instead of a W-4, they would still incur a lawful Federal Income Tax liability while still not being domiciled on Federal Territory. 4 USC 72 states that all public offices shall be seated in the District of Columbia. I submit the office IS in the District of Columbia, yet the activity (which is what is taxed) often occurs elsewhere.
Now a “taxpayer” is any “person” subject to the tax. And a “person” can be an “individual” pursuant to 7701(a)(1). And an “individual” can be either a “resident alien” or a “nonresident alien” pursuant to 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3), each of which is an “alien” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(3). Thus, a Constitutional Citizen can be an “alien” vis a vis the United States**. The question is whether or not he is a “resident alien” or a “nonresident alien.” If this “individual” remains in the United States*** but engages in taxable activities, he is:
1) A “nonresident alien” vis a vis the United States**
2) An “alien” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(3)
3) A “person” because a “nonresident alien” and an “individual”
4) And a “taxpayer” because a “person” involved in a “trade or business”
If your argument was correct . . . it would be impossible to be a “nonresident alien” and incur a Federal Income Tax liability. What is the purpose of a 1040NR or any of the W-8 variety forms? Obviously a “nonresident alien” CAN incur a Federal Income Tax liability. Although domicile does play a part, I believe the tax itself is dependent on the activity.
Quote:The only way that a Constitutional but not statutory Citizen can be an “alien” in relation to the national government is:1. If the IRS is not part of the government and therefore everyone is an alien who doesn't work for it…OR
2. The tax is a municipal and not national tax that is unenforceable outside the District of Columbia, in which case anything outside D.C. is “foreign” and “alien”. This is confirmed by the definition of “United States” in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)
Again, we are not talking about the national government. We are talking about the statutory United States** or a corporate entity created in that same legal venue such as in 28 USC 3002(15)(A). But the taxable activity can be performed anywhere. Even a “US person” can incur a taxable liability in a foreign country through a tax treaty pursuant to 26 USC 911. I agree that anything outside the United States** is considered foreign and “alien” from the perspective of the United States**.
Quote:My question to you is: Which of the two above are you assuming, in concluding that those born in America and domiciled in a state of the Union are “individuals”, aliens, and “nonresident aliens” as described in the I.R.C.? You must pick which one you are assuming, or any analysis beyond this point won't make sense.I am assuming that anything outside of the United States** is foreign and “alien” from the perspective of the United States.**
QUOTE 1. “aliens” in Title 26 are not equivalent to “aliens” in Title 8.
There is no definition for “alien” in Title 26 . . . only “resident alien” and “nonresident alien” so this statement would be inapposite.
QUOTE 3. The IRS is not part of the government, so anyone outside the IRS is “alien”, including “nationals”.
I think this is also not really an applicable argument as “nationals” are not addressed in the IRC.
Admin,
You said:
Quote:Therefore, American Samoa and Swain's Island and the Canal zone are under the jurisdiction of the United States for the purpose of aliens ONLY. The definition of “United States” found in Title 8 seems to refer to the “United States**” in the venn diagram. These areas are within the “American Union” as described in the case above, although not being territories of the United States under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17..
This is why I find the Venn Diagram so confusing. The Venn Diagram shows the “American Samoa” and “Swain's Island” “nationals of the United States**” as being contained within the larger body of the Venn Diagram . . . that is, “People born in United States* the country.”
This implies, by virtue of how a Venn Diagram works, that the those from “American Samoa” and “Swain's Island” are part of “People born in United States* the country.” But your quote above indicates the contrary.
Which is it? It cannot be both ways.
And again, where is “United States*” defined in Title 8? Or is it?
Admin,
Quote:8 CFR 215.1(e) includes American Samoa and Swains Island while 8 USC 1101 doesn't because, as we said before, that reg relates to ALIENS ONLY and NOT “citizens”.I'm very much aware of that . . . you pointed that out to me a couple of days ago.
Where is a definition of United States* for the purposes of Title 8? I contend there is NOT one.
But “American Samoa” and “Swain's Island” are expressly excluded from 8 USC 1101(a)(38).
By this I can conclude that 8 USC 1101(a)(38) does NOT describe the United States.*
8 CFR 215.1(e) DOES include “American Samoa” and “Swain's Island”, as well as the “Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands”. Additionally I see the “Canal Zone” and “and all other territory and waters, continental and insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
The “Canal Zone”? This doesn't seem like it would be part of the United States*!
Is it your opinion that 8 CFR 215.1(e) DOES describe the United States*?
- Quote:The “United States of America” was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean the collective states of the Union and exclude federal territory. See the United States v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936).
Is this to say then, that the geographic description of 8 CFR 215.1(e), (f), and (g)
Quote:(e) The term United States means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Swains Island, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and all other territory and waters, continental and insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii.
(g) The term geographical part of the United States means: (1) The continental United States, (2) Alaska, (3) Hawaii, (4) Puerto Rico, (5) the Virgin Islands, (6) Guam, (7) the Canal Zone, (8) American Samoa,
(9) Swains Island, or (10) the Trust Teritory of the Pacific Islands.
or this
Quote:8 USC §1101(a)(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, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.does NOT describe the Nation of the United States of America?
If, according to US v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936), federal territories are EXCLUDED from the nation United States of America, would the following Venn diagram at the bottom of this linked page in fact be flawed?
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…pVTaxStatus.htm
This diagram seems to purport that federal possessions as well as Union states make up the Nation the United States of America.
You know, it just dawned on me . . . A W-4 is for “public officers” domiciled or resident on Federal Territory. I often had trouble reconciling how a “public officer” not domiciled or resident on Federal Territory would actually preclude the dangerous presumptions that come with a W-4, when it appears that all “public officers” or “employees” must indeed submit a W-4.
Then I started thinking about the W-8ECI. A “public officer”, such as a commissioned military officer who is domiciled in one of the several states of the Union, I believe could best present his legal status to the government by submitting a W-8ECI . . . with a SSN and all that number connotes. This recognizes both his accurate domicile and residence, while still allowing for his “taxpayer” status as a “public officer”.
Now I know it is the policy of this ministry to not assist a “taxpayer”. But may I submit, a better mission, which I do believe this ministry supports, is to promote the correct and honest application of the law. Why not do this for both a “taxpayer” and a nontaxpayer? Why not promote and support those in government who actually have a servants heart, and want to properly apply the rule of law? There are many, many Americans that feel the government/banking marriage is out of control. They just lack the education, and, since they are in government, they feel there is nothing they can do anyway — thus no personal reward for the effort required to declare a sovereign status. This would be huge, and a movement from inside the beast would assist those who are fighting from the outside. Now members in the government have a stake in the fight, which if established while working for the government, makes for a much easier transition during their return to the private-sector.
I can see a tremendous opportunity for enhanced awareness and leverage in promoting the reality of the tax by virtue of our brave men and women in the “United States” military and other government agencies. All the people in Oz were not evil, just the man behind the curtain.
So these men and women participate in the Social Security program! So what?!! They are required to if they earn “wages”. After all, if a sovereign American volunteers to defend the nation, and selflessly surrenders his sovereign status for a time, and submits him/herself to the sovereignty of the Federal Government, they are certainly entitled to the . . . ah hem . . . “benefits” of the Social Security contributions they made from their pay.
The promotion of this does a very important thing: It does not deprive the Central Bank of the interest payments on the National Debt, because donations are being paid by those participating in the excise taxable franchise. The pushback comes from the naive gatekeepers not wanting to process payments without an identifying number. A W-8ECI submitted with a SSN, makes everyone happy, while promoting awareness in a VERY BIG WAY as to the reality of who we are and more importantly, what the definitions actually import in the United States Code.
May I present one more opinion. I believe the SEDM/FG opinion on what constitutes a “public officer” is a little narrow. In many of the pamphlets I have read, it is often quoted, “public office is a public trust”. I believe that anyone, who actually works for the federal government, CAN BE justified in being labeled a “public officer”. TSA members all wear a badge that has their last name and then says “Officer”. Customs Agents, FBI Agents, CIA Agents, IRS Agents . . . I believe they all take an Oath of Office. Even the moniker, NCO stands for Non-Commissioned Officer . . . an Officer . . . for the public trust . . . the government. A “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of public office. This pretty much describes, in broad terms, what every government worker essentially does.
Therefore, if these workers are not domiciled or resident on Federal Territory, the “income” or “wages” they earn could be processed through the submission of a W-8ECI, reflecting not only their foreign status, but the nature of their earnings, which is Effectively Connected with the conduct of a “trade or business” in the “United States”.
This of course . . . only after they receive the proper “non-citizen national” endorsement from the State Department. But, even without that, an information return issued by the “United States” government that reflects a “nonresident alien” status is a very compelling bit of supporting evidence to those doubters elsewhere in the government and also in the private-sector.
Thoughts?
- Quote:“citizen/national”. The “/” is called a “virgule” in the legal field and it means OR, not AND. You can be one or the other but not both. The passport doesn't distinguish but the application does.
Yes, BUT . . . it does say “citizen/national of the United States.” It does not say “national/citizen of the United States.” So really, the inside cover does NOT address just a “national.”
I am not a “national of the United States.” These are the folks from Swain's Island and American Samoa. It seems to me they are not being comprehensive on the inside cover.
Do you agree with this?
Admin,
OK, I think I see what you are saying.
Let me try to summarize this in my own words to ensure proper comprehension.
The definitions of Title 8 DO IN FACT describe a nation, the geographic United States of America:
Quote:8 CFR 215.1(f) & (g)(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii.
(g) The term geographical part of the United States means: (1) The continental United States, (2) Alaska, (3) Hawaii, (4) Puerto Rico, (5) the Virgin Islands, (6) Guam, (7) the Canal Zone, (8) American Samoa, (9) Swains Island, or (10) the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
The definitions in 8 USC provide ALL possible options for all Americans within the nation. Under the guise of addressing Constitutional United States*** Citizens, the legislators address United States** Citizens only, which leads to dangerous presumption on the part of most Americans (the intended goal). The only way an American can protect him/herself is by adopting the status of “national,” which is NOT an option on the DS-11. An affidavit of Domicile, Tax Status, and Nationality as well as some “clarification” written in the margin of the DS-11 should remove all dangerous presumptions.
I notice they are very careful to qualify “United States” with the word geographical . . . otherwise they are referring to the territorial United States**.
Because the United States** does have plenary jurisdiction over their possessions and territories pursuant to I:8:17, the on-the-face language is not a problem. The United States** also has the granted subject matter jurisdiction over the states of the Union, (thus the language FOR THESE PURPOSES is identical) precisely as they have plenary territorial jurisdiction over Federal Territory. But in order to conceal the only escape route, the majority of the language is pointed towards United States** Citizens, and in order to keep it Constitutional, they quietly offer the “national” option.
BAM!!! I got it!! A Labor Day Light Bulb moment!!! Thanks for your patience! I've got it!!!!
Now, one other question:
What can a “national” expect to have in a USA Passport that designates him or herself as a “national,” since the only thing addressed on the inside cover is Citizen or National of the United States**?
Is there an additional endorsement inserted somewhere that qualifies and corroborates the “national” status?
One other thing I'd like to add about Form F90 221, which is for “US persons” only.
If an American “national” and “nonresident alien” obtains a passport in the manner presented in SEDM/FG, and goes to say, Switzerland and opens an account at UBS, the Swiss are going to be clueless when you try to tell them that you are not a “US person.” They are going to see a United States of America Passport and conclude you are a “US person.” So in this regard, the result is the same. You're going to be “ratted out” by the Swiss (or whomever else) even if you know your status is NRA, yet you hold a USA Passport. Imagine trying to explain it to them when our own countrymen don't understand this.
Where the IRS technically gets people with the passport is whether or not they have volunteered to attach their passport number to a SSAN pursuant to the statutory language in 26 USC 6039E. It's just a matter of the IRS/DOJ asking a foreign bank to produce all United States of America Passport Numbers they have on file, and then dumping those into a database and looking for a connection to a SSAN. If there is a SSAN connected, voila . . . probably a “US person.” If the database does not spit up a SSAN, then the IRS more than likely would not pursue, as the passport may belong to a NRA. Why even go digging around someone like that? If they knew enough to get a passport without supplying their SSAN, then they may shine a bright light on the whole thing. Bad risk/reward ratio!
But it is my opinion that the reason the State Department is pushing back so robustly against the SEDM/FG passport application model is because American citizens/Union state citizens have no reason to deny “United States” citizenship within the context of a passport and Title 8. The State Department knows they have jurisdiction over the matter of naturalization, immigration, and border protection. It's no wonder, at least in my mind, why people are being viewed as a little bit “kooky” and perhaps as lawless protesters, resulting in extreme pushback from the passport agency.
Whereas, a passport application without a SSAN is, from what I understand, not a problem. One just has to know their proper standing — namely, public-sector American, or private-sector American.
The SSAN is like a fishing license. Just because you have one doesn't mean you are going fishing. So, for an American to claim they do not participate in the Social Security Program as a private-sector American is in fact a true statement. Only public-sector Americans connect their SSAN with their activities. Proof of this is right on the envelope that comes from the IRS. “Official Business — Penalty for Private Use, $300.”
The DS-11 asks: “Have you applied for a United States Passport before?” It depends. Many have applied as public-sector Americans, aka a “US person.” But many have not applied as a private-sector American . . . a “nonresident alien.” For this reason, people can apply honestly and truthfully and not offer a SSAN without perjuring themselves if in fact they are applying as a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax.
Please tell me where this is flawed. It seems logical and correct to me.
- Quote:5. Are you saying you disagree with the above, and if so, what part? If you don't, how could you possibly want to be confused with a statutory “citizen and national of the United States” found in 8 USC 1401? You can't have sovereign immunity per 28 USC 1605( 😎 (3) and you have to snitch on yourself by reporting all foreign bank accounts. See:
Yes, I disagree. I contend the “United States” referenced in Title 8 describes a nation. That is why Hawaii and Alaska are expressly given as integral parts of the “United States.” Alaska and Hawaii are Union states, and this would prove VERY problematic in a cross examination.
You are right though. I DO NOT want to be confused with a “statutory citizen or national of the United States” referenced in Title 26. But a “statutory citizen or national of the United States” in Title 8 is a different matter all together. The conjoining and cross-referencing of the two titles is for specifically that reason — to confuse. But let's keep track of what the purpose of each title is for. Title 8 is for Title 8, and Title 26 is for Title 26. To try to “clean oneself” in Title 26 by accepting the moniker of “national” and also ignoring Alaska and Hawaii is what I refer to as “curve fitting.” It's what the evolutionists do all the time in order to justify in their minds that they are not accountable to God.
Why can't I have sovereign immunity per 28 USC( :cool:(3)? Again, by saying that I cannot have this sovereign immunity, you are contending there is some evil import involved with Title 8. Does not our Federal Government have the authority over the entire nation with regard to this subject matter? I say, “Yes they do!” It's like saying an American cannot have sovereign immunity if they ever used a “United States” Post Office. Again, that is something that we have granted the Federal Government plenary jurisdiction over. I believe the subject matter of Title 8 is another such area.
As for form F90 221 . . . this is for “US persons” only. A “US person” is defined in Title 26, and not Title 8. Again, I cannot import legal language from one Title for the purposes of the other Title . . . especially when the legal language “for the purposes of this title” is used preceding the critical definitions. This would be presumptuous and a dereliction of due process. But you are right. The presumption that the monikers from one title can be transferred to another title is precisely the reason for the similar sounding definitions, and the inherent confusion spawned by these similarities I believe would be exploited to the max by those with a corrupt agenda. Heck, they are probably confused themselves.
Quote:You also can't invoke sovereign immunity in a federal court and must also file resident tax forms such as the 1040. It also subjects you to the possibility of criminal prosecution for impersonating a statutory “U.S. citizen” in violation of 18 USC 911. That's a ridiculous disadvantage to impose upon yourself for no reason or benefit whatsoever.Why can't I invoke sovereign immunity in a federal court? Because I admit to being a “United States” citizen for the purposes of Title 8, but not Title 26? And again, just because one is a “United States” citizen for the purposes of Title 8 does not make one a “resident” for the purposes of Title 26, thus, I can be a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of Title 26, but a “United States” citizen for the purposes of Title 8.
This inherent confusion is unique to our form of Republican Government, and has purposely been exploited by the proponents of “voluntary compliance.”
It appears to me, that by trying to escape the definitions of Title 8, it can act like an “insurance policy” against the monikers in Title 26, or can be used as corroborating evidence for a tax status justification. But I contend it doesn't matter, and in fact, it IS a misapplication of the principles we are trying to espouse. Title 8 and Title 26 serve two very different purposes. Title 8 covers an authority and power that has been granted to the Federal Government as it deals with matters external, thus it can legitimately cover an entire nation. Whereas Title 26 deals with an excise tax levied on those who may or may not be domiciled on federal property, but more importantly, those who engage in excise taxable activities with the “United States” regardless if they are domiciled in a state of the Union or Mars.
These are the reasons I disagree. We may have to agree to disagree. But I contend, the definitions of Title 8 describe Americans as we all understand it on the surface. The fact that Alaska and Hawaii are expressly included in the description of “United States” leads me to this conclusion. It is in fact, the only logical conclusion to draw in light of the definitions, and my understanding of how our country and the government works.
Where am I wrong here? I understand that avoiding the moniker of “United States” citizen is indeed corroborative and helpful for the purposes of Title 26 . . . but is it in fact really necessary so long as we stick to the facts and due process?
