neo
Forum Replies Created
With all due respect, I knew everything you mentioned in your last post. Perhaps I'm not clarifying my confusion. I don't feel like I'm jumping to conclusions at all. I knew Congress has jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
Specifically, with regard to the quote in the Articles of Incorporation:
Quote:SECTION 1. Limitation of Voting Rights.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, at no time shall shares of capital stock of the Corporation be voted by, or at the direction of, Persons (“Aliens”) who are not “citizens of the United States” as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(15), as now in effect or as it may hereafter from time to time be amended (“U.S. Citizens”), unless such shares are registered on the separate stock record maintained by the Corporation for the registration of ownership of Voting Stock, as defined in the Bylaws, by Aliens.
Based on these articles of incorporation, they are saying one must be a statutory “US Citizen” in order to vote upon shares of capital stock. Now don't get me wrong, I could care less about the business or commercial aspect of this thing. But I believe the writer of these articles is making some false presumptions about the meaning of “United States.” I would bet you dollars to donuts the writer of these articles ASSUMES Union state domiciliaries are contained within the meaning of “United States.” Who do you think they view as an “Alien” in the context above?
No, I completely understand why they added the “overlying airspace” part to the definition. But even as written, that definition does NOT include overlying airspace, say, over Missouri, or New Mexico. So one can't assume that either. Can they just claim something that's not in the definition because the Constitution gives them plenary jurisdiction over the whole thing? ie, it's understood, so we don't have to specifically define it?
OK, I just got finished reading “The Requirement for Consent” document. Like you said, there is only 5 GB of stuff to read. Sorry, I hadn't made it through that one yet.
But in view of my noobie status, maybe you could help me understand the following:
Title 49 HAS been enacted into positive law.
Title 49 Sec 40102 (46) defines “United States” as follows:
Quote:(46) “United States” means the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States, including the territorial sea and the overlying airspace.
Now in view of the fact that this has been deemed the law of the land, and applicable to all citizens of the United States of America, how is the above definition to be understood? The definition appears to be limited to the definition I have become accustomed to in the IRC, yet 49 USC has been enacted as affecting everyone.
The reason I looked at this particular definition is because the articles of incorporation for the company for whom one works, which is a Delaware Corporation, states in part:
Quote:SECTION 1. Limitation of Voting Rights. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, at no time shall shares of capital stock of the Corporation be voted by, or at the direction of, Persons (“Aliens”) who are not “citizens of the United States” as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(15), as now in effect or as it may hereafter from time to time be amended (“U.S. Citizens”), unless such shares are registered on the separate stock record maintained by the Corporation for the registration of ownership of Voting Stock, as defined in the Bylaws, by Aliens.Can anyone help me understand what is going on here? I'm inclined to believe the “US Citizens” above are statutory in nature, yet 49 USC applies to all Americans. Thanks in advance for your grace!
Where is the authority for levies by the IRS to accompanied by a court order? A friend of mine received an adverse notice at a CDPH and he has 30 days to appeal in tax court. He will not attend of court. He's expecting a 668W to make an appearance at any time. Perhaps there is some logical correspondence he can send the payroll department to get them to require a court order. What is a possible remedy here? I believe this was a CtC related incident.
I will tell you that I am reading the material and talking about it almost every waking hour with friends and colleagues. I think they are getting tired of it. I will tell you that others are starting to look at SEDM and Famguardian though , so we're making headway. I'm printing and reading the various pamphlets, as a means of corroborating in my mind that this is all true.
I'm sorry to say . . . this is all new thinking, and I think you can tell by my previous post that I'm not totally out to lunch. You have to remember, in order for someone to have a concept down firmly, they have to process it and then regurgitate it in their own way. By the sounds of your last post, I was spot on regarding my analysis of the positive law v. private/municipal law thing.
I'm not looking for guarantees, as I know there are none. But I would like to know if anyone has successfully sued a payroll clerk, or a brokerage firm, and won. Repeatedly, the author of the SEDM materials has stated that the courts will NOT acknowledge the law. If that's the case, then what is the point of any of this? I understand this is a lot of work, but even if one seeks legal remedy, and it's still not provided, then what is the point? To some degree, all you are doing is trading one form of slavery (financial) for another (putting of friends, family, and fighting the 800 lb gorilla).
Instead of replying with a scolding, can you provide any stories of success as a means of encouragement?
Are folks in fact driving without licenses or living and investing without a SSN? Of course this is possible, but so is being homeless. Has ANYONE managed to take payments from the Government without a ITIN or SSN? I know what the materials say! I agree! But has ANYONE done it successfully? Not looking for a promise, just looking for an example, encouragement, a goal.
Bing,
I concur, however, I've seen them abuse the phrase “several States” for their own purposes too. I don't think the “several States” or “several states” is defined. Furthermore, they don't appear to be consistent with their capitalization protocols.
But here's a question: Often times, you will see things that have been signed into “law” by President so-and-so.
Such as President Bush signing into “law” the following “Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003,” or the “Patriot Act.”
This “public law” is available in 50 USC App
“TITLE 50, APPENDIX App. > SERVICEMEMBERS
SERVICEMEMBERS CIVIL RELIEF ACT
ACT OCT. 17, 1940, CH. 888, 54 STAT. 1178
ACT JUNE 25, 1942, CH. 447, 56 STAT. 390″
However, we see that 50 USC has never been implemented into “positive law” IAW 1 USC Sec 204.
So when they say, President so-and-so signs such-and-such into law, are they really referring to private law, or District of Columbia Municipal Law?
My understanding is it does not become Positive Law or The Law of the Land and applicable to the 50 Union states until it has an enacting clause AND been placed into the Federal Register. If these two requirements are not met, then anything purported to be “law” is only private law or municipal law.
This is what I have gathered from my ongoing education. Comments?
That last post was really helpful admin. Especially the part about “compelled association” and being forced or at least presumed to being forced to adopt a moniker that is defined in the code. That was very helpful and clarifies that nonsense in my mind.
See, just because it's all in the “Forms/Pubs” section already is no reason to shutdown the forums. 🙄
Thanks for the extra perspective!
So have you or anyone you may know inquired of a government agency as to what their procedure is?
I can't envision the government issuing any payment without an ITIN or SSN regardless of what the law says?
Have you or anyone ever heard of this indeed happening?
No, no! I know! It's ok . . . you can put the fangs back in! 🙄
My point is, this is Hendrickson's perspective. “So what if I'm domiciled in the US, I'm still not engaged in a taxable activity!”
So, what you are indeed saying is that Hendrickson is correct. Citizenship and domicile don't matter with regard to the activity. But I see it as putting ice on your thumb after repeatedly hitting it with a hammer. Better solution is to not hit it with a hammer. Translation, don't fill out franchise forms such as W-9s and W-4s.
You gotta chill dude! People are trying to learn stuff here. Repetition is the mother of skill. Sometimes a confirmation of OPINION is nice. All the links and repeated full-page lessons are not always required. This forum is a means of engaging and discussion is it not? Confirmation of ideas and opinion can be VERY, VERY helpful!
As always, I'm appreciative of your expertise. Your efforts are being compounded! BELIEVE ME!
Regarding Hendrickson and CtC. It would appear, that even if somebody received a refund of erroneously withheld monies, the IRS could have grounds for coming back for it.
As I see it:
Quote:[C]ongress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one character as legislating for the states; in the other, as a local legislature for the district. In the latter character, it is admitted, the power of levying direct taxes may be exercised; but, it is contended, for district purposes only, in like manner as the legislature of a state may tax the people of a state for state purposes. Without inquiring at present into the soundness of this distinction, its possible influence on the application in this district of the first article of the constitution, and of several of the amendments, may not be altogether unworthy of consideration.[Loughborough vs Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 – 5 L.Ed. 98 (1820)]
Even though a CtC educated American receives a refund using Form 4852 or a 1040, he's still playing in the Fed's playground, and in fact could be damaged in the subsequent Kangaroo Court.
I'm not sure, but is there in effect a direct tax levied on all earnings in the District of Columbia? Or are they just implementing the same ruse as across the whole land? It seems like they could say, we don't care whether or not you think you have “wages” or not . . . you are a “US citizen,” so pay up. They would never come right out and say that, but that certainly seems to be their approach, and the decision above seems to reinforce their behavior with regard to CtC Americans.
Thoughts?
Admin,
I think it would be beneficial if you could split off the applicable portions of this thread under a separate heading titled “Dual status discussion.”
Why am I getting “smiley face” icons when I insert parentheses? See above.
Admin,
I believe the source of confusion lies in the very frequent referral to US Inc, FRCP 17b, and how a SSN is a de facto license number to act on behalf of the public trust. This lead me, and everyone else I am interacting with on a personal basis to reach the same conclusions I have. We are all working on this together and can't come to a consensus. So . . . no offense, but effective communication requires clear transmission and reception. I'm not pointing fingers . . . I'm just saying I've read A LOT of SEDM material and the separation of “office” and “officer” has escaped me. I thought they were one in the same.
May I make the following suggestion? It would be very beneficial to see some brief, “make believe” scenarios with typical situations Americans would find themselves in, included in one section. It might look something like this:
Joe is a LCDR in the USNR living in Florida. He also works in the private sector as a financial consultant. Because Joe is a “public officer” but physically NOT domiciled in DC, his earnings in the USNR are NOT taxable. Joe's earnings as a financial consultant in the private sector are also not taxable. Joe lives tax free. Joe is happy!
Susie is a widow who lost her husband in action while fighting in the war on terror. Susie receives a SS check each month for the loss of her husband. She also works in a flower shop. Susie's SS check is gross income under 871b, but that is the only thing she must pay taxes on, as flower shops in Sheboygen, Wisconsin are NOT considered “trade or business” income.
You are correct. I did tie the office and the officer together. I was under the impression that because an American is working for the Government, and because of FRCP 17b, he is automatically (read virtually) domiciled in DC. This was in fact 100% of my confusion. Sorry for the labor intensive replies you had to make.
But one thing still doesn't seem “neat and clean” to me. How is a retired military reservist going to receive retirement payments without a TIN or SSN? Is Uncle going to make the payments on the old SSN in spite of the fact that said number has been expunged by virtue of the privacy act? Would the NRA retiree just issue a wrong party notice every time?
So what is a NRA who is either active duty military or a part time reservist? A NRA Individual?
Admin,
Man, awesome reply. Thank you so much for that.
The “Ya'lls code is a pack of lies comment” was ABSOLUTELY referring to the government.
I will say that I have never seen all of this government gibberish presented in a more cogent and truthful way than on these websites. I am so thankful for the research and the resource. Please understand . . . if I present an opposing view . . . it is nothing more than a “thinking out-loud” position. I presume I am missing something, but if I voice that view, and am subsequently shown the error in my thinking, it provides for a full-circle path to my understanding. I completely agree with the KISS principle. And you are correct, I was under the impression that the OFFICE and the OFFICER were one in the same. Thanks for that clarification. I will pour over these postings several more times.
The point I guess I am having trouble with is a NRA who may in fact still be in public office as an officer in the military. Is he not a “public officer” appointed by the President of the United States? And if so, I understand him to be a “taxpayer.” Sorry if I'm being dense, for some reason I'm having trouble reconciling this. If this military officer commits some crime, he will find himself in a Federal Court venue. But he also has private sector work and investments. I will read all of this again!!!
So it appears, that if indeed he (Uncle) was honest about this mess as written, then the dual-status would be honored based on all I had written. I understand what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. My analysis of the facts are indeed correct and to whom and what status would apply etc. (supposing, not declaring) But because the system is corrupt, what I proposed would easily be defeated through their “methods.” Do I understand your perspective correctly? I'm right but I'm wrong? Theoretically correct but pragmatically wrong? Not that you are offering “right or wrong” answers . . . but you know what I mean.
I know that the truth will never contradict itself. The code, as you have pointed out, contradicts itself because all “taxpayers” are “public officers.” And all “taxpayers” interface as aliens. But aliens can't hold “public office.” Quod erat demonstratum . . . ya'lls code is a pack of bogus lies from the pit of (censored)!
So, just speculate on this if you please – – every year, the President and the Vice President post their 1040 tax returns on CNN.com for the whole world to see. Now, I don't know about the President, but the Vice President is certainly educated on the reality of the income tax and to whom and what it lawfully applies. It would be naive to think he didn't.
So, are these returns real? Or are they propaganda? Of particular interest was the amount claimed on last year's returns. It was a rather small amount in contrast to what we know to be the reality of these people's true financial condition. That leads me to believe that they are filing 1040s for their US activities and the earnings therefrom, and their private monies and property . . . well, they would be private because their private lives are domiciled without the “United States.”
I just want to know, if they were in fact honest . . . would my above analysis be correct? US earnings = 1040, and NRA claims for refund = 1040NR? Theoretically speaking of course. If I knew how they combat an honest approach, it may help me to fight more effectively. I just want to know if my reasoning was technically flawed, or if it was pragmatically flawed.
Thanks for your time!
