neo
Forum Replies Created
IN RE: 4
Do you agree that Art. I, Sec. 8 powers deal with subject matter versus territorial jurisdiction (I:8:17 not withstanding)? Apart from I:8:17, there is no reference whatsoever to territory or geography. Agreed?
IN RE: 4
Yeah . . . I caught that about the numbering. I went back to edit some citations as well as the numbering and my edit clock ran out. I sure wish Admin would extend the time on that clock a little bit.
OK . . . in re:4. This discussion must stop here until we get this resolved. Agreed?
Do you agree that in the nation of the United States, that sovereignty is not shared, but rather divided between either the Federal government in its sphere, or between the states in their sphere? Either one government is sovereign in a particular area, or the other government is. Do you agree with this?
OK . . . I’ll play. But since these forums are a mock court . . . we need to establish some facts upon which we can move forward. I would like for you to ADMIT or DENY the following allegations and their supporting authorities. If you DENY, you must provide a legal basis for your position. Personal opinions hold no authority here.
ADMIT or DENY
1. Domicile and Residence are not synonymous.
Domicile – A person’s legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310m 213 A.2d 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one’s home are the requisites of establishing a “domicile” therein. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges. The established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished form his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him. See also Abode; Residence. “Citizenship,” “habitancy,” and “residence” are severally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as “domicile,” while in other uses may have different meanings. “Residence” signifies living in particular locality while “domicile” means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Schreiner v. Schreiner, Tex.Civ.App., 502 S.W.2d 840, 843. For purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, “citizenship” and “domicile” are synonymous. Hendry v. Masonite Corp., C.A.Miss., 455 F.2d 955. [emphasis added]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990
2. An “elected domicile” can be made for the explicit purposes of an agreement.
Elected Domicile – The domicile of parties fixed in a contract between them for the purposes of such contract. [emphasis added]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990
3. The term “United States” can be used in several senses.
The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
4. Per the SCOTUS citation above, “United States” the nation is something other than the [“United States”] territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends.
5. A nation is a political body comprising territory, people, and government.
nation – A community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state. When a nation is coincident with a state, the term nation-state is often used.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, 2004)
6. According to the SCOTUS, the word ‘citizen’ can have several meanings.
In the constitution and laws of the United States the word ‘citizen’ is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution, which provides that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,’ and that ‘no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ But it is also sometimes used in popular language to indicate the same thing as resident, inhabitant, or person. [emphasis added]
Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (1887)
7. According to the SCOTUS, civil status is established through domicile.
And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, [emphasis added]
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
8. According to the SCOTUS, political status is established through allegiance and nationality.
nationality – The relationship between a citizen of a nation and the nation itself, customarily involving allegiance by the citizen and protection by the state; membership in a nation. This term is often used synonymously with citizenship. [emphasis added]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, 2004)
The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,-one by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status. [emphasis added]
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
9. The States maintain a residual sovereignty under Art. I, Sec. 8 legislation.
Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, § 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898. 919 (1996)
Let’s start with these.Passports are evidence of nationality. Nationality = political association + allegiance. Avenues for political association in this nation are:
1. Fourteenth Amendment — Birth or naturalization;
2. Act of Congress through citizenship extended ex proprio vigore through either the jus soli or jus sanguinis doctrines;
3. Act of Congress through the “National but not citizen of the United States” provision.
To claim to be a “United States citizen” on a DS-11 IS NOT BIG DEAL . . . there are no domicile implications with the jurat on the DS-11 . . . they are political association affirmations. The “noncitizen national of the United States” endorsement in a passport applies ONLY to American Samoans and certain domiciliaries of the CNMI who have made the election to be treated similarly under section 302 of the Compact of Free Association Act.
The statuses on the Form I-9 are MADE TO LOOK LIKE Title 8 statuses, but they are civil statuses. DHS administers the I-9 along with the E-Verify program. And DHS receives their civil status information from none other than:
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
And where does the Social Security Administration get the civil statuses from?
YOUR BLOCK 5 ELECTION.
If it is federal civil status that one is electing, then id say not completing it is the best course of action.
That’s fine. But what if you work for the Feds as a State Citizen? Then what do you do? Avoiding an issue does not solve the problem.
The fact that SSA says that an American Samoan is a U.S. Citizen in Block 5 of the SS-5 raises BIG questions about exactly who a non-citizen national is on the DS-11 form if it ISN’T an American Samoan. The only thing left that it COULD be is a state citizen. Since “OTHER” does not appear on the DS-11 but it has all the same blocks other than OTHER, I take “non-citizen national” on the DS-11 and “OTHER” on the SS-5 to be equivalent.
Admin, you continue to contradict yourself and demonstrate flip-flopping on your application of concrete principles.
Why in the world to you assume that the context and terms of an SS-5 have ANYTHING to do with a passport application? Are you new here?
You yourself have said that statuses for Americans under social security are civil statuses based upon domicile. And you have also said that a passport is a political document that is evidence of nationality (not political citizenship). Nationality is a combination of political association and allegiance — NOT domicile. Hello??? These two issues are like night and day.
A “non-citizen national of the United States” is an American Samoan and certain domiciliaries of the CNMI who have made an election pursuant to section 302 of the Compact of Free Association Act of 1986, 99 Stat. 1770. The “non-citizen national of the United States” is not a civil status, but an alternative avenue for political association with the nation of the “United States”, as we know that citizenship has never been extended ex proprio vigore to the inhabitants of American Samoa.
If the “Citizen” referred to in Block 5 is a political citizen, then I agree with you, an American Samoan would be “Other.” But the SSA has made it clear (as have you more times than I can count), that Block 5 statuses are civil statuses. And we know what that means . . . citizen = domiciliary.
Come on man . . . get on board with the program!! 😉
Why are you avoiding my question?
I’m sure you have evidence to back all of this up . . . right?
On the I-9, this would be a non-citizen national of the United States, where “United States” means the NATION or POLITICAL United States*** and not the statutory “United States*”, just like in the perjury statement at the end of the DS-11 passport application.
Now here, you are making some sense. However, this cannot be. The SSA has already said that an American Samoan is a “U.S. Citizen” for the purposes of Block 5. Thus, they are not referring to political citizenship like they are in Title 8–they are talking about civil citizenship based upon domicile.
The problem is, you are curve fitting. You yourself have said that if it’s the truth, there will be no contradiction. Yet your positions often times contradict statutory language and court rulings.
So, again I ask. What Block 5 status would a person of foreign nationality have, granted employment authorization (I-766), and a non-LAPR?
Hint: It’s not “Other”.
1. So Admin, is it your contention that LAATW is a status that applies only to a “Lawfully Admitted Permanent Resident”, or LAPR as POMS refers to them?
2. Next question:
SSA issues an SS 1042S to benefit recipients with a nonresident alien tax status. Tell me . . . what Block 5 status (CSP Code) do you suppose these SS 1042S recipients have on file in SSA information systems?
I bet this question will be avoided . . . yet again.
“Other” is not a work-eligible status according to the SSA.
It is my personal feeling that neither alien status listed on the SS-5 (LAATW or LANATW) is relevant to a state citizen because congress has no jurisdiction over such a party and can neither ALLOW or DISALLOW them from working.
To say that Congress has no jurisdiction over a State Citizen sounds like something Larry Becraft would say. I would sanction such a statement.
Congress ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over a State Citizen who wants to work for the Federal government. So the question is, what is the proper status for such a state-domiciled officer?
Nobody here wants to answer that question.
Again . . . I AM TALKING ABOUT CHANGING STATUS STATUTORILY.
EVERYTHING else you propose is valid for your endeavors with a private party.
The E-Verify system will not be able to verify a State Citizen with an “alien authorized to work” status because when you elect this status, E-Verify will not allow the query until an A-Number or a USCIS Number is input into the system ALONG WITH the SSN.
This has the practical effect of HIDING the truth of what I am trying to reveal here. The system will ONLY verify domestic domiciliaries and persons of foreign nationality who have the requisite A-Number or USCIS Number.
But, since the system will not actually verify an “alien authorized to work” status of a State Citizen, they provide the manual verification process of permitting you to show a passport.
My point is, we have had folks at my company ATTEMPT over, and over, and over again to try to do what you are saying . . . but to no avail. The company says, “E-Verify says you’re a ‘U.S. Citizen’ so we will not accept your W-8.” But if they query E-Verify and it will not verify a “U.S. Citizen” status, and then you present the passport and explain why together with your Numident and perhaps a copy of your IMF or other document, then you have cold-hard evidence PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT that you are who you say you are — because they will NOT take your word for it OVER what the government system says. This I have first-hand experience with.
Now imagine if you sue this company, and then they subpoena or otherwise enter into evidence your E-Verify status. Well, I think the evidence will show that you are NOT who you say you are.
One’s walk has got to match their talk.
Again . . . I agree with all of that.
So, there are two separate issues here:
1. Public — STATUTORILY correcting status to LAATW (SSA) & nonresident alien (IRS) as a taxpayer;
2. Private — declaring yourself as a State Citizen and indemnifying a private party with a modified W-8 as a non-taxpayer.
With respect to the E-verify program. I am very familiar with it.
If you claim U.S. Citizen, and you are with the SSA, it will verify you . . . end of ordeal. But . . . if you claim to be an “alien authorized to work” (I-9 term), the system will ask for an A-Number or a USCIS number — neither of which you would have. So, the system comes to a screeching halt because they cannot verify your alien status without federally issued evidence. So what do they do in order to make the system not be unconstitutional? They provide a State Citizen the opportunity to produce a passport (evidence of political status/nationality) in satisfaction of Column A, row 1 of p. 9 of the I-9 form.
Do you not see the power in this?
Then, tell the HR lady — “Here’s my passport ma’am . . . and here’s my SSN. Now go ahead and try to verify me as a ‘U.S. Citizen.'” It won’t do it because SSA sent DHS a CSP Code of B. The system won’t deny you . . . but it won’t verify either.
The HR lady might say, “Well, if you have a U.S. passport, why won’t it verify you as a U.S. citizen?”
And then you demonstrate that as a Citizen and Resident of constitutional state Florida (for example), you are politically a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment . . . and that you pledge allegiance to the nation which commutes nationality and allows you to have the passport– but you are alien under Federal law because you are domiciled upon CIVILLY FOREIGN land with respect to the “United States” so defined at 42 U.S.C. 1301(a)(2) and used in its geographical sense.
This MIGHT break them out of their cognitive dissonance — but they certainly will NOT take your word for it when the system is in disagreement with everything YOU say.
This is why I believe my approach has merit.
No . . . they provide the relevant statuses. It’s incumbent upon me, as an American National, to ELECT the proper status.
If I want to be a domiciliary of the “United States” defined at 42 U.S.C. 1301(a)(2) and used in a geographical sense, then I, as an American National, will elect “U.S. Citizen.” Whether I naively elect this status believing it to be somehow representative of some mysterious “citizenship” related to the USA Today weather map, or whether I actually want to be domiciled on the Federal plantation . . . the result is the same–a domicile on the Federal plantation, and a municipal duty to perform.
Or . . . if I want to declare my status as a constitutional state domiciliary under Uncle’s franchise, then as an American National, I will elect the LAATW status.
In either instance, I am a Federal taxpayer, precisely as you described. But as I have tirelessly tried to point out, if you want to change your status with the IRS so that at least you have the proper status of state domiciliary and “nonresident alien” on record with that agency (yes, I know this has nothing to do with whether or not a third party submits an info return on you– a separate issue), then you have to do it as a taxpayer.
See 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i). This is their rule. I determine my status when playing in their game . . . the “you lose game” as you call it. But I have to do it in their game using their rules.
Now, if you can move forward and do all of this stuff in the private sector and get third parties to cooperate, then that is awesome. I have not found anyone who will cooperate or listen. But don’t you think a third party would feel a bit more indemnified and in fact LISTEN if you demonstrated to them:
1. A Numident Record from the SSA that indicated that you were a “non-citizen”;
2. An IMF Record from the IRS that demonstrated your tax status as “nonresident alien”;
3. The ability to actually be not-verified as a “U.S. Citizen” within the E-Verify program while producing a U.S. passport.
And then be able to explain why the above three things are so using the diagrams in order to complete their understanding.
Doing these three things lends credibility to your argument and makes a third party much more willing to accept your modified W-8 and therefore recognize your wholly private status when a wholly private status is appropriate. In some instances, you may also be a taxpayer. And by all means pay your tax. Correcting your status statutorily provides you the tools and leverage to prove it later to others as well as the government and quickly prevail in any legal dispute.
It takes the hammer away from the government, because now all of their evidence in their information systems corroborates the status you claim to be to others. But as it is . . . the government uses your status on file in their information systems to fine banks who grant a NRA status to a person who has a “U.S. person” status on file with the IRS. Also, what do you think FinCEN will do if you claim to be a NRA but their records say you are a “U.S. person” . . . and they subsequently find unreported foreign bank accounts? INTERPOL will seize your account. Then what? Heck, they may discover you have a fat Bitcoin account. I personally want to have the proper status on file — penalties are draconian.
Does this not sound so much better?
Why would the Federal government acknowledge this “State Citizen” status from the perspective of their seat under a term used by another State?
They wouldn’t. The term they use is, by necessity, a term which describes a status relevant to their locus–the seat of government — Washington, D.C.
Come on guys . . . this is easy stuff!
A “nonresident state citizen” is NOT something the Feds are going to call you. A Citizen and resident of a State IS a nonresident non-citizen– or– a “nonresident alien” with respect to the seat of government. State Citizen is something the Citizen’s own state would call him–not the Feds. It’s all a matter of perspective and who is defining the terms.
I feel like we’re re-inventing the wheel here.
SSNs and federal income taxes are the domain of the Federal government. The various civil statuses are going to be defined using THEIR terms from the perspective of THEIR domestic locus . . . not your State’s terms from the perspective of your locus within your State.
You can’t elect ANYTHING with the SSA in a private capacity because the very essence of an SSN is the public domain. There is no private right of action against the government when it comes to one’s interfacing the Social Security franchise as a number holder — only statutory causes of action. Quitting SS as Admin describes is a private undertaking — not a statutory one. I AM PURSUING A STATUTORY REMEDY, thus, I play by their rules . . . not Admin’s. What some will get to do one day is argue in their (the Feds) Court about their payments under their rules and whether or not he/she needs to pay tax on their payments with their number issued to him/her. He/she may say, “Well, I quit that program.” And I think they will call it frivolous. But that’s my opinion. That certainly seems to be their MO . . . and I understand why now.
Guys . . . the government’s “trade or business” is by its very definition public “stuff.” And the statuses under SSA are described relevant to home plate (D.C.) within the game called public “stuff” and those who pay for it — “taxpayer” individuals . . . whether “U.S. person” or “nonresident alien.”
If I was not clear before, what I am attempting to do is CHANGE STATUS STATUTORILY. When you get gum on your shoe . . . you deal with the gum on the gum’s terms . . . not yours. You can say that it’s not there . . . yet it is — whether you like it or not.
I think you will find that SS-5 status “Other” is not a work-eligible status. So if one was a State Citizen who wanted to serve his nation as a public officer (and yes, taxpayer as a result), what status would that be? It can’t be “Other” if that is a not a work-eligible status. There is ONLY one possibility — LAATW.
If you say the taxpayer is the office, and thus a “U.S. person” — then why is half of the IRS’ taxpayer products for a “nonresident alien”?
Please tell me . . . who is a nonresident individual taxpayer? What does that look like? Please describe this person to me.
They have reserved the LAATW for special persons of foreign nationality.
Stija,
Under this logic, the IRS has reserved the “nonresident alien” status ONLY for special persons of foreign nationality.
If the SSA and the IRS have no status for a State Citizen, then we can all fold up our tents, this website can be shutdown, and the discussion can cease and desist because the Federal government simply does not recognize a State Citizen and all we are doing is discussing something that doesn’t exist anyway, and we can all go on and live a happy and prosperous tax free life of liberty and wealth! 🙂
Well, I don’t really believe that.
I believe an SSA status of LAATW and an IRS status of “nonresident alien” apply to both certain persons of American Nationality as well as certain persons of foreign nationality.
How can one claim to be a “nonresident alien” under the code, but deny the parallel status said “nonresident alien” would have on file with the SSA?
After all, the only “nonresident alien” talked about in the IRC is a “nonresident alien” individual. Thus, said individual is a taxpayer, and if employed a LAATW with the SSA.
We know tax status is not based on nationality. So geez . . . how is it these statuses are determined?
Answer: With respect to locus and the definitions applied with respect to the person in question, whether American National, or person of foreign nationality.
Admin and Stija,
I don’t know how many ways I can say this. I understand and agree with what you are both saying.
I am just trying to effectuate a statutory change of status. Why? Because nobody else has tried it yet.
I don’t care about trying to open up a bank account . . . I don’t care about paying into a system . . . I don’t care about not paying into a system . . . I don’t care about what an employer might think . . . I don’t care about what an employer may not think . . . I don’t care about these things. These things that are being brought up are OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THESE PLEADINGS if you will and the points being made . . . with respect to what I am trying to do are M-O-O-T!
If I was not clear enough before:
I AM TALKING ABOUT CHANGING STATUS STATUTORILY.
I AM TALKING ABOUT CHANGING STATUS STATUTORILY.
I AM TALKING ABOUT CHANGING STATUS STATUTORILY.
WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND?
