neo
Forum Replies Created
My case is not a tax case — it is a case in Admiralty over the terms of the SS Agreement between myself and the government. I have no dispute with the government over taxes, definitions, constitutionality of their franchises . . . nothing. My only issue is the presumptuous denial by SSA employees of my statutory and regulatory remedy both Congress and the SSA themselves have created wrt me changing my status.
I have standing under the statutory scheme.
Don,
I have a couple of points to make, which many participating with me on this forum may or may not agree with . . . but here it goes.
Chances are the IRS is correct. That is, your assertions may be frivolous. The IRS will not debate your status or your liability with you. They are simply a collection agency. They are not the party to be discussing this with. If you have a liability with them, purported or otherwise . . . I would suggest you pay it, and then challenge the tax in District Court. This is a legitimate remedy that has been in place since 1867 — the Tax Anti Injunction Act.
As for the SS-5 . . . the whole point of the SS-5 surrounds the SSN. Of course you have to submit your SSN on that form. Now, I personally believe the issue is NOT whether or not you have an SSN, but rather what status is associated with it. If you are a Title 26 “U.S. person,” then you will tender an SSN for nearly everything financially related. If you are a Title 26 “nonresident alien,” then the number is tendered only in the course of a “trade or business.” And by the way, “public office” is just one component among things comprising a “trade or business.”
If you want to change your tax status, it needs to be done as a “taxpayer.” See 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i). However, keep in mind that the SSA sends your CSP Code (Classification Settlement Program Code) quarterly to the IRS. Thus, if the SSA thinks you’re a “U.S. Citizen” for Block 5 purposes, they will send CSP Code A to the IRS. The IRS will not process your 1040NR because SSA says you’re a “U.S. Citizen.” Thus, you have to change personal identifying information about yourself with the SSA in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See 5 U.S.C. 552a(d). The specific method for doing this with the SSA is spelled out in 20 CFR 422.110(a). But ignorant SSA clerks will not process your SS-5 indicating a “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” status because they believe the status is indicative of “political association.” But we know it is a civil association thus it comprises aspect of both political association (“citizen”), and geographical association (U.S. in its geographical sense). See 42 U.S.C. 1301(a)(2). They will want an alien # from you. As an American National you will not possess it. Thus, you must try to obtain remedy under the APA. They will ignore it, and then you will have to obtain a judicial remedy under 5 USC 701 et seq.
I personally don’t believe you can abandon your SSN. Others here may vehemently disagree . . . and that’s ok. This is just my opinion. I think the issue is this. Secure your proper status. Then, once that status is obtained, don’t deploy your SSN in instances when it is not appropriate.
I believe the government system works exactly like it’s designed to. The voting issue is one of political rights, and I don’t believe there is anything sinister about it. This is precisely why they don’t want the Drivers License as proof of citizenship. Because the U.S. Citizen inquiry on a DMV app is not about political association, but civil association, just like the IRS or SSA.
If someone is creating information returns on you, the IRS is going to want the tax. If another party is creating information returns on you inappropriately, then a private cause of action in State Court will be required, or in an Art. III proceeding in Federal Court if it is a diversity of citizenship issue.
I hope this helps. Again, these are only my opinions. I think the focus should be on correcting your status first. Then and only then will you have the ability to become a non-taxpayer. And that’s only with respect to receipts that are non-taxable. If they are United States sourced, then regardless of your tax status, a tax will be owed.
Tax status is one issue — liability is the other. They are mutually exclusive issues. Receipts associated with a W-4 are always taxable, regardless of your status. And if you put your SSN on a W-8, those receipts will be prima facie taxable.
A SSN is like your “Johnson.” Just because you have it, doesn’t mean you have to use it! 😉
A lot of work has gone into those diagrams, and of course, they are always a work in progress. A picture is worth a thousand words, which is why I believe they are so powerful.
It is my belief that the appendix diagrams that exists after pg 197 of the “Why you are a National, State National, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen” pamphlet would be best replaced with the attached diagrams. The reasons are numerous, but may I point out a couple of points.
I. As far as the nation of the United States goes, the 50 states should never be regarded therein in their geographical sense, as the Federal government does not exercise municipal jurisdiction therein (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17 notwithstanding), but only specified and enumerated subject matter jurisdiction within them as bodies politic (States). Direct interface over geography = direct interface over its inhabitants. The Federal government interfaces with the States (not their geography) and the “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States (gov) extends.” Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide congressional relief with respect to a conspiracy of individuals against other individuals — only the State against individuals. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND SHOULD ESCAPE NO ONE. Think 42 USC 1983
II. Nationality is “POLITICAL ASSOCIATION” plus “ALLEGIANCE.” That political association with the nation of the United States (US1) is achieved in a number of ways:
A. Fourteenth Amendment —
1) by birth in DC or the 50 states, or
2) naturalization (note: naturalization is political citizenship PLUS the oath of allegiance)
B. An Act of Congress — citizenship under jus soli doctrine (right of soil)
C. An Act of Congress — citizenship under jus sanguinis doctrine (right of blood)
D. An Act of Congress — Non-citizen national provision (8 U.S.C. 1408, 1452)
So, don’t confuse political citizenship with political status. Political status is nationality. Political citizenship with the nation of the United States is an avenue for political association. Then, to complete the political status, the person must tender allegiance through the Oath of Allegiance given during the process of naturalization, or through the normal Pledge of Allegiance. Political status (nationality) = political association + allegiance
III. A good way to explain the U.S. citizen inquiry with respect to the SSA, IRS, or the I-9 to those who don’t understand is this:
“Yes, I am a political citizen of the nation of the United States through the Fourteenth Amendment. But I am not in the civil sub-class of United States political citizens to which your inquiry is directed. That is, I am not a political “U.S. citizen” domiciled in the geographical United States (US2). I am a political United States citizen and a Citizen and Resident of Florida, which makes me a:
SSA: “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” (alien # n/a — American National)
IRS: “nonresident alien”
DHS/I-9: “an alien authorized to work” (alien # n/a — American National)
DMV: U.S. Citizen – Y/N? “NO”
Why? Because I am domiciled and residing in a foreign civil jurisdiction — not foreign state — foreign civil jurisdiction. The states are NOT foreign, but their jurisdictions are. Thus the states are politically domestic, but their geography is civilly foreign.
With respect to the SSA and the I-9 and thus, E-Verify, as a State Citizen, you will not have Federal government-issued evidence of an alien status. Why? Because they only have authority over the alien status of persons of foreign nationality. Thus, you will not have an alien admission number or an alien registration number (A-Number). Your alien status is not subject to their “policy” because you operate outside of their policy. And they will ignore the Administrative Procedure Act and their own regs (20 CFR 422.110(a)) in favor of their own policy. This will stonewall your exit.
The SSA will not respond during a 5 USC 552a(d) proceeding, and you will have to obtain a judicial remedy under 5 USC 552a(g) through the provisions of 5 USC 701 et seq. Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief may work well.
I hope this helps. It’s a very well-designed trap . . . and 100% legal and constitutional. I have to hand it to them, it was VERY WELL DONE. And you know what, 99.99% of the people deserve to stay in the little trap they have been subjugated to. The masses are asses and they ” . . . like it this way.” To quote the prophet Jeremiah 5:31.
OK, fine . . . I’ll entertain this again. I have some spare time.
In re: . . .
1. Those who are NOT public officers can lawfully execute “the functions of a public office”. Thus social security recipients can’t be included UNLESS they are public officers. Those who try to exercise “the functions of a public office” WITHOUT in fact BEING public officers are committing the crime of impersonating a public officer found in 18 U.S.C. 912.
Obviously a public officer is in a public office. But your erroneous legal conclusion is that someone has to be a public officer to receive SS benefits. There are people all over this country receiving SS benefits and they are not public officers. They are not in public office — and there is no crime. Your conclusion is based on a fallacious premise on how YOU think things should be.
2. A de jure government can pay public tax monies to PRIVATE people, such as social security recipients who ARE NOT “officers of a corporation” or public officers. Such a government is a THIEF and a robinhood.
Agreed. But anybody receiving public money ceases to be an exclusively private party. Title 5 states that benefit recipients are federal personnel. That doesn’t sound like a private party to me. You see, an otherwise private party surrenders that status to become a part of the public/socialist system. There’s no conversion going on . . . a ponzi scheme . . . yes, but conversion, I don’t think so. To make the system work . . . . they need to not permit benefits until 72. That’ll fix the system, and people’s attitudes about a glorious publicly funded retirement. Your conclusion is based on a fallacious premise on how YOU think things should be.
3. Federal civil law or even a “trade or business” can lawfully be exercised OUTSIDE the District of Columbia or federal territory without the express authorization of Congress per 4 USC 72. Congress never authorized people anywhere in legislatively foreign states such as states of the Union to be exercise public offices outside the District of Columbia.
Disagree. I am a public officer, and I exercise my public office not only in one of the 50 states . . . I have exercised it all over the globe. Why? Because the law permits it. Read all of what 4 USC 72 says. Is a federal judge a public officer? Do we have judges seated all over the nation? Yes. Why? Because the judge, or any other federal public job is permitted under Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 18. You know . . . in order to carry out and effectuate all of the areas enumerated in the Constitution. Remember those? No sir. Just because you think the federal government is limited to DC, doesn’t make it so. Your conclusion is based on a fallacious premise on how YOU think things should be.
4. Congress can create what the Supreme Court called a “trade or business” and therefore a federal privilege inside of a constitutional state. The USSC said otherwise in the License Tax Cases, which has never been overruled. The corrupt courts skirt this problem by refusing to accept and enforce the statutory definition of “trade or business” and the rules of statutory construction that protect and enforce it.
Congress hasn’t created a “trade or business” within the 50 states. But the officers can certainly function there in accordance with the law. Their office is seated in DC . . . but the performance of such functions is carried on anywhere the law permits in order to effectuate the I:8 powers and be the trustee over IV:3:2 “Other Property.”
5. The geographical definition of “United States” in the I.R.C. includes any part of a state of the Union and therefore, that a “U.S. source” can include a state of the Union.
Well . . . I generally agree. But technically, DC is within Maryland, so your statement is legally incorrect. I don’t think the geographical United States of 7701(a)(9) embraces the 50 states. It does in its political sense — but not its geographical sense.
6. Federal civil statuses such as “taxpayer” can have any existence whatsoever outside the geographical “United States” in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). All such statuses have domicile as a prerequisite and the minute they don’t is the minute that the corporate “United States” ceases to be a government as legally defined and becomes just a wall mart that moves exclusively by private contract.
Baloney! You already admitted Brushaber was a nonresident alien taxpayer. Half of the IRS materials are for nonresident aliens. I’m a public officer and a nonresident alien. That makes me a nonresident alien taxpayer. My tax status is based on my domicile like you said. My office is in DC. I perform the functions of my public office all over the globe in accordance with the law. Me, the officer is domiciled in one of the 50 states. That makes me, again, the public officer, a nonresident alien taxpayer just like Brushaber. Now . . . in my private capacity when I am not performing the functions of private office, I am a non-taxpayer. The property in my private capacity constitutes a foreign estate under 7701(a)(31). How is this possible? Because of my foreign domicile and my choice of activities. Some are taxable, some are not. If I had a domestic domicile on public land, it would all be taxable — worldwide income. Why . . . DC and the territories are ruled more akin to a British Crown Colony than a free Republic State. That’s just the way it is. I didn’t make the rules.
7. Stockholders in federal corporations are necessarily ALSO “officers of a corporation” as defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b ) who can be reached extraterritorially in a state of the Union.
Agreed. I also don’t think stock holders in a federal corporation are ipso facto officers of the corporation under Fed. R. Civ. P 17(b ).
8. There are any internal revenue districts within the constitutional states, and therefore that the I.R.S. can enforce there. 26 U.S.C. 7601 says they CAN’T AND that the ONLY place they can enforce is where the ONLY remaining internal revenue district is, which is the District of Columbia.
What’s the difference between a revenue district and a judicial district? It’s not territorial jurisdiction they are exercising, but subject matter jurisdiction in a designated area. If your logic is true, then there should only be one federal court and it should be in DC only. This is laughable! The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The judicial districts are there to disperse these limited jurisdictional courts all over the nation in order to give the people access to the legal system in matters of federal jurisdiction. This is a non-issue. Lots of people are in jail over the “revenue district” beef. It’s not beef . . . its baloney!!
9. You can be a “resident” or have a “residence” in a place you have never physically been, in the District of Columbia, without committing FRAUD in filing a resident tax return such as a 1040?
Well, for starters, the only way one can be a resident under Title 26 is to be a person of foreign nationality, thus it’s not an issue for me. But by definition, domicile is a legal residence, and it’s the place I intend to return. Intent interfaces a future event. Thus I can have a fixed and permanent legal home in DC, although I never physically lived there because someday, maybe when I’m 80 . . . I intend to go there. It’s a political choice and nobody can make it but me. Furthermore, the 1040 is for a “US person,” not just a resident. Thus a citizen of the United States, even though he may live in one of the 50 states, can legally fill out a 1040 if his intended fixed and permanent legal home is DC. Whether or not he makes that choice naively is NOT for me to say because it is a political choice. Come on . . . this is easy stuff.
10. You can owe a tax on PRIVATE property, or that the earnings even from a franchise are anything OTHER than private property which you have the right to EXCLUDE the government from benefitting from or using.
Agreed . . . so long as the property is exclusively private. If all or part of that property interfaces with the public interest (naively or not), it ceases to be wholly private and thus is quasi or totally public, subject to taxation, regulation, and eminent domain. See Budd v. New York, and Flint v. Stone Tracy.
11. A corrupt corporation that refuses to recognize the requirement for consent in taxation or consent to BECOME a customer or a “taxpayer” is a REAL government. Thomas Jefferson said it is NOT and that it is UNJUST in the Declaration of Independence.
Oh, it’s a real government. But it’s occupied by a bunch of brain-washed and lazy people. Many of them have similar incorrect beliefs such as the ones you are espousing. This is why we as a people are enslaved. People are acting on what they believe to be right, without actually reading the law. This is called judgment and we all deserve it.
12. The Subtitles A and C income tax are either direct or indirect. They are NEITHER. It is not a CONSTITUTIONAL or UNCONSTITUTIONAL tax, but an EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL tax that applies only WITHIN the government to government payments of those lawfully engaged in public offices. It applies ONLY because of consent and is enforced as essentially un unconscionable or adhesion contract prerequisite of federal employment as a way to undermine and violate the constitution and destroy the separation of powers between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
Disagree. It’s a direct non-apportioned tax. The Constitution says so and the SCOTUS does too. That pretty much settles it. Your conclusion is based on a fallacious premise on how YOU think things should be.
13. A government can simply PRESUME you consented to unconstitutional taxation simply by receiving a federal payment, and yet can avoid the same kind of liability to me under my anti-franchise franchise when I attach strings to what I pay them. That’s an abuse of sovereign immunity, completely destroys your equality, and makes you a slave.
Well, how would the government presume you consented without an information return with your number on it? They didn’t make you get the number . . . you got it. Just don’t use it when it’s not required. But if you’re an officer, whether commissioned or non-commissioned, it matters not where YOUR domicile is except with respect to YOUR tax status. The domicile of the government you represent on the other hand is in DC. And since you receive payments from them based on YOUR activities with that payment source, YOU become liable for the tax.
Anything other than the above is all just wishful thinking. The system works exactly how it was designed to work. Too bad very few people understand it. Communism is not a political ideology — it is what happens as a result of sin. Our Congress, military, and the nation at large is nothing but communists, because they have all chosen mammon over God. I have not. I am fulfilling my constitutional oath by championing original intent in my public office — as it was designed to be. What we are all experiencing is God’s collective judgment on us and our People. We deserve it. Thank God we have a Savior.
The reason there is no private property is because people have abandoned their private domicile for a public one. Now they have no choice but to use the public number for any and all financially related activities. If they had kept their proper domicile, they could use the number when it was necessary, and not use it when it’s not. It’s a lot like that part between your legs. Just because it’s there, it doesn’t mean you have to use it all the time.
Our entire dispute stems over you remaining steadfast to the position held in ALL of the voluminous material of the respective web site. You have no choice but to defend it — there’s too much sweat equity invested in your position. And nobody is asking you to change anything. The truth doesn’t care what anybody thinks or believes. It’s just there. But, as you say, if your position contradicts itself, it cannot be the truth. Your whole position is that you have to be in public office in order to have a tax liability. This is very obviously not the truth.
I can’t continue this thrash anymore and will not. We can’t even reach an agreement on a simple IRC definition.
The court opinions clearly say one thing, and you claim they say another. So-and-so is not a taxpayer in one post, and then in the next post he is. The tax can’t extend to state domiciled parties, but half of IRS taxpayer products are for nonresident aliens. This whole thread has been a continuous string of inconsistencies and contradictions. Of course, you believe that I am the only one confused and contradicting myself . . . and thus the beat goes on.
I see very clearly what is going on, and for me and the world I live in . . . that’s what I have to act upon. And you have to act on what you believe in.
I simply believe that if you are a “U.S. person” or a “nonresident alien” and you receive a government payment, then a tax is owed unless it is specifically exempted by law. There it is . . . one sentence. Short and sweet. If you’re a taxpayer — pay the tax. If you’re a non-taxpayer, then it’s a non-issue. If you think you’re a non-taxpayer but the government thinks otherwise, then you made a mistake somewhere along the way — probably by declaring a federal domicile and giving yourself no possibility of opting out with a non-SSN W-8 — or as a nonresident alien, you submitted a W-4, or a W-8 with an SSN. It’s no more complex than that.
But as you say . . . “It’s all religious belief.”
The slander label goes both ways. What makes you think you can simply call someone “lazy,” a “taxpayer,” or persecute their character or intentions by accusing them of “not doing their homework,” etc.? Satan is also called the great accuser. So . . . take the plank out of your eye. You are perceived as arrogant and abusive — by scores of people in the liberty movement. And if you are not, then something you are doing is causing others to sin. Take that as constructive feedback. I think I know where the anger comes from . . . and I don’t blame you. But you have to harness it because it is detrimental to what we are both trying to do. You and I have enough enemies out there. Enough of that . . .
Atheists spend the vast majority of their lives trying to hate and disprove God. For someone who is a “nontaxpayer,” you sure concern yourself a lot with “taxpayer” agencies and material. Calling yourself a non-“taxpayer” doesn’t make it so.
I know what I think, and I understand that my position agrees with SCOTUS as well as lower court opinions and IRS material. You say those are irrelevant. But we know they are not. IRS material and lower court opinions rob people of their property, rights, and freedom every day. So they are not irrelevant.
The funny thing is . . . EVERYTHING you are citing just simply proves the point I am trying to make, and only serves to disprove what you are trying to posit.
For example, public office is a sub-set of the “trade or business” franchise. SS payments are a different item under the “trade or business” franchise. Retirement payments are a different item under the “trade or business” franchise. The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of public office . . . and other things in the same general class. That general class is any activity resulting in a United States sourced payment.
You want to talk all about contracts and how binding they are, yet you fail to recognize the contract nature of simply signing up to do business with the government on business terms. So what if a private person wants to contract with the government in order to be treated AS IF he were an “employee” being paid “wages” by and “employer.” Is that contract somehow not valid? If not why not? You cited the SCOTUS ruling . . . not me:
“All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [Content protected for members only] individuals.”
[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]
Public officers OR contracts made with [Content protected for members only] individuals. I know you know what “or” means. Where’s the beef?
So don’t equate a public officer with a “trade or business.” That’s like equating a ‘wheel’ to a ‘car,’ or a ‘shingle’ to a ‘house.’ The “trade or business” franchise embraces any and all “trade or business” with the federal government — not just public office. If you say no . . . you provide the evidence. The SCOTUS has already ruled on the meaning of the terms “includes” and “including.” This is settled. Linking to an SEDM pamphlet doesn’t settle squat. Those pamphlets are a compilation of fantastic material. But there are a ton of erroneous legal conclusions drawn from individual components in there in order to support the legal position of the author.
All public officers are taxpayers, but not all taxpayers are public officers. The public officer is a single component of the “trade or business” franchise. Do you claim they are equivalent? If you do, you reject the entire position paper on the terms “includes” and “including.” Again . . . you can’t have it both ways.
Then you say:
6.1 The Brushaber court said he owed a tax and therefore treated him at least as a federal officer because he was a stock holder in a federal corporation, which was “domestic” for the purposes of the federal zone. The current I.R.C. and federal rules operate like the court behaved in that case.
Of course, I was all but branded a heretic for saying the exact same thing. I’m glad you see the light on this. But just because he accrued income from a federal source doesn’t make him a public officer. Frank Brushaber was born in New York, lived, and died in New York — Brooklyn in fact. He always worked in the private-sector. He was taxed because he dabbled in federal privilege. Thus, he surrendered an aspect of his wholly private status by delving into a publicly operated profit-driven enterprise — namely, the Union Pacific Railroad. Private entities can be taxed . . . they don’t have to be wholly governmental. This according to the SCOTUS:
“While the tax in this case, as we have construed the statute, is imposed upon the exercise of the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, as such business is done under authority of state franchises, it becomes necessary to consider in this connection the right of the Federal government to tax the activities of private corporations which arise from the exercise of franchises granted by the state in creating and conferring powers upon such corporations. We think it is the result of the cases heretofore decided in this court, that such business activities, though exercised because of state-created franchises, are not beyond the taxing power of the United States.”
[Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1901)]
Where’s the beef?
So . . .
1. Brushaber was a private party who dabbled in federal privilege. He accrued income under his nonresident alien status. Because the 16th levied a DNAT on United States sourced income, he was liable. What’s so hard to understand about that?
2. Either you accept the 26 USC 7701(c ) definition of “includes” and “including” and subsequent SCOTUS rulings regarding their interpretation or you do not. Which is it?
3. If you do, then you agree that public office is only one component of the “trade or business” franchise. If you claim public office and a “trade or business” are synonymous, then you reject 2. above.
You can’t have it both ways. No amount of claiming you proved something by your citations prove it. Apparently we read and comprehend English differently.
You trying to equate a stock holder as a contractor and a federal public officer is precisely the “curve fitting” I am talking about. The very definition you proffer proves it’s not true. The contract is between the collective stock holders’ agreement to recognize it as a franchise and creation of the state . . . it doesn’t turn them into public officers. If you create a Texas LLC . . . you are going to pay a state franchise tax to the State of Texas. It’s legitimate . . . it’s how it works. If you don’t want the LLC, assume all the liability yourself. As an American you are free to do that. Don’t hate a tiger for his stripes.
We will just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the spirited debate. I have no hard feelings. But if you’re gonna dish out the slander, then you have to take it.
Now . . . I am going to go whore myself out in the defense of my nation and the Constitution I have sworn to protect and defend.
Good day!
Admin,
Why do you go back and edit all of your posts after the fact, but then we are locked out from editing ours?
Is this fair? Is this equal protection? I guess that kind of “fairness” doesn’t apply since this is your franchise site.
You have gone back and re-worded your original posts, yet you still contradict yourself. What gives?
You see . . . it is not pleasant to be treated like a dog. Treat people with dignity and respect and you will get it in return. Treat me badly 20 times . . . ok. Treat me badly 21 times and I’m coming off the top rope on you! Be a gentleman and you will be treated like one too.
neo
Hey Admin . . . you’re losing ALL credibility here.
RE 1. The dividends being paid by the corporation to Brushber were reduced by the amount of income tax it paid. Brushaber sought to enjoin the railroad from paying the tax so he would get MORE dividends, not pay less tax.
I think you better read Brushaber’s complaint he filed in the Southern District of New York. He wanted to enjoin the company from withholding on his stock dividend distributions . . . HIS!!! He was not complaining about pre-distribution payments made by the Union Pacific Railroad. You are thinking of Pollack. Now . . . who didn’t take their Geritol????
Then you go on to say:
Re 2: Irrelevant. The case wasn’t about Brushabers personal tax liability. TD 2313 appears below.
http://famguardian.o…PacRR240US1.htmBut the NRA mentioned was NOT Brushaber and we don’t know who it was. However, we agree with TD 1313 that brushaber was a “taxpayer” for the reason that those who are stockholders of federal corporations (Such as the Union Pacific Railroad) are in fact CONTRACTORS with the corporation and therefore AGENTS of the national government, which is the REAL party in interest in all federal corporations:
Oh, the heck it wasn’t. It was 100% about Brushaber’s liability. And now you want to claim you don’t know who the “nonresident alien” referred to in TD 2313 is? What a joke!! Both famguardian and the sister site SEDM are replete with materials describing how Brushaber is a NRA and citing TD 2313 as supporting evidence.
Go read TD 2313 again. It refers to interest from bonds and dividends from stock of domestic corporations accruing to nonresident aliens being subject to the tax.
Who is the domestic corporation? Duh! It’s Union Pacific. Or are you going to claim they are the nonresident alien now because the corporation is the taxpayer? But then you say Brushaber was the “taxpayer.” Yet Brushaber was a cashier in the private-sector on Wall Street at Davies, Thomas, & Co., thus he was NOT a public officer. You said you have to be a public officer to be a taxpayer. You can’t have it both ways my friend.
So is a state citizen a nonresident alien for the purposes of the federal income tax? Both famguardian and SEDM embrace that as a central theme. But now you want to claim you don’t know who the nonresident alien is? This is because you know that if you admit it is Brushaber, then your whole legal theory is wrong. And that’s what you have . . . a legal theory. Your theory is not backed up by a 100% harmonization of case law. Mine is.
Finally, you claim you have to be engaged in a “trade or business” to have a tax liability. BALONEY!!!
Are the terms “includes” and “including” terms of enlargement? Yes they are.
“[T]he verb ‘includes’ imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition. This view finds support in §2(b ) of the Act [The Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 9], which reads: “The terms ‘includes’ and ‘including,’ when used in a definition contained in this Act, shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”” Helvering v. Morgan’s, Inc., 293 U.S. 121, at 126 n.1 (1934)
Is a social security payment (from the government) or a military retirement (from the government) in the same general class as income accrued in the course of a “trade or business” (from the government)? Uhhh . . . . yes it is! Hello? It’s not limited to ONLY a “trade or business,” but also those things in the same general class as a “trade or business,” just like SS payments and military retirement. To claim otherwise would be deemed a frivolous argument in court.
The rest of your points are inconsequential because they are all based on a false premise. As the court would say, your points are moot.
You are curve fitting because all the material on the site is based on your theory and you have to protect it. Unfortunately, it has just been debunked.
The 16th Amendment authorized a direct non-apportioned tax on all United States sourced (government) payments to all United States citizens (political), regardless if they have a “U.S. person” or “nonresident alien” civil tax status. That is the truth of the matter, and that is what EVERY shred of case law supports.
Checkmate!
In re: 1. Was Brushaber’s profits diminished? Yes. That means he paid. Twist it however you want. People all over this country PAY out the WAZZOO on “gains” from corporate stock investments. I think they think they pay too. Had the Union Pacific RR truly and originally been a corporation and citizen of Utah, then we would be talking about a “nonresident alien” in receipt of non-U.S. sourced payments, and we know that’s not taxable.
In re: 2. you said:
Yes, that order came out after and as a RESULT of Brushaber, but it was not directly pertinent to the facts of BRUSHABER himself and in fact referred to the CORPORATION and not the litigant Brushaber.
Who do you propose the “nonresident alien” referred to in TD 2313 was? Yes, I fully understand that the tax is on the income. But LESS income was realized by the “nonresident alien.” When I have less than otherwise should have come to me . . . that means I paid.
In re: 3. So you were wrong. Don’t be “lazy” and “confused.” And do your “homework” and proof read your work.
In re: 4. Yeah . . . so what? How many private-sector people today are receiving taxable social security benefits? I rest my case. Again, you are wrong. You don’t have to be a public officer to have a tax liability.
In re:5 What part of the following statement that you presented can you not read?
that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct.
You said the Constitution does not apply to the territories. The above says that it does so far as Congress shall so direct. Again . . . you were wrong. You are “confused” and you are “not doing your homework.” Stop being “lazy.”
In re: 6 Yeah . . . so what? What does that have to do with anything?
If it’s an academic discussion, then keep it as such. If you wanna get rough –strap it on bro. Rough is my favorite way to play.
Admin,
Why do you ALWAYS find it necessary to attack someone who challenges your understanding of things? By virtue of any question posed, the poster is either “lazy,” “confused,” or “hasn’t done his homework.” Really? Come on dude! You gotta come up with a new song and dance. You will never get under my skin! 🙂
1. Brushaber was a “taxpayer.” If it wasn’t him, are you suggesting it was his “public office” as a cashier in the private-sector Wall Street firm of Thomas, Davies, & Co.? Ha!! Dream on. The SCOTUS does not agree with you. I guess they’re confused and need to do their homework huh?
Brushaber was a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment and a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the tax. The Union Pacific Railroad was a creation of Congress, and since this was a diversity of citizenship suit in equity, it was regarded in its D.C. “domestic” character. Brushaber received “income” from a government source. It was directly taxed by virtue of the newly enacted 16th Amendment. Again, SCOTUS said it was a direct non-apportioned tax (“DNAT”). Is the SCOTUS confused again?
Brushaber was not in public office and he PAID THE TAX. That makes him a “taxpayer” my friend. Treasury regarded him as a “nonresident alien” and he still PAID THE TAX. Why? Because it was government sourced.
You do not have to be in public office to have a tax liability. A “nonresident alien” who receives a United States sourced retirement payment for his many years of “service” in a “position” within a “department” (maybe the DoD), is going to be liable for the tax . . . making him a “taxpayer.”
Now, with regard to your comment:
2. The term “direct, non unapportioned tax” is used ONLY in the constitution and deals therefore with people domiciled in constitutional states of the Union.
Please direct me to the place where this is. I’m “lazy” and despite all of my “confusion” and trying to do my “homework” . . . I can’t find where that is in the Constitution.
And this:
Yet, the constitution doesn’t apply on federal territory.
Really? The Constitution doesn’t apply on federal territory? Are you sure? Would you bet a federal prison sentence on that belief?
Let’s start with these, and then I’ll take on the other moot points that were made in points 3. through 7.
Bring it! And don’t bring it weak this time!!
BTW Yodamaster, passport endorsements are oriented in a landscape fashion, with the top of the page being the passport binding itself, and the left-hand side, or beginning of the text being at the bottom of the passport. Thus, writing left to right, you are writing from the bottom of the passport and up toward the top of the passport.
The endorsements I have seen, such as the ones possessed by American Samoans, are centered upon the page as I described, with a landscape orientation.
But again, I just don’t think it is necessary. If the DOS won’t endorse it, then it is no “endorsement,” and it is just a self-placed annotation only re-iterating that which you already know to be true, but that no government agent with whom you would have contact is even capable of understanding.
Agent 1: “Hey ‘Agent 2’ . . . look at this! Have you ever seen anything like this?”
Agent 2: “No.” (peruses your “endorsement”) “Sir . . . where did this endorsement come from?”
You: “Uhhhhhh . . . I put it there.”
Agent 2: “Sir, would you come with me?” (As he walks off with the government’s passport (issued to you) in his hand)
The government passport that was issued to you is now back in the possession of the United States government. The passport is now court-admissible evidence of an 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1543 violation.
Likely? No. Possible? Yes.
This government will continue to find hostile ways to interact with the People. Use caution. Keep “clean hands.”
It has been my observation that the power in the propaganda is vested in the truthful aspects of it. Lies are easy to uncover. But half-truths are really deceptive. See the quoted section towards the bottom of this post taken from the IRS website regarding frivolous notions about the 16th Amendment.
I conclude that the 16th Amendment did, in fact authorize a direct non-apportioned tax (“DNAT”). The Brushaber court said so as well as several courts since then. Thus, it is so whether we like it or not. But . . . did it:
1. Authorize a DNAT on all receipts within the U.S. in its geographical sense (50 states excluded) of
a) United States political citizens (nonresident aliens obviously excluded); and
b ) resident aliens (persons of foreign nationality under a permanent resident status); or
2. Authorize a DNAT on all government receipts within the U.S. in its political sense (50 states included) of
a) United States political citizens (U.S. persons and nonresident aliens); and
b ) resident aliens
Which is it? It has to be 1. or 2. There is no other possibility.
Option 1. preserves the constitutional requirement that direct taxes in the 50 states be apportioned, however, we know a resident alien has no option of avoiding the tax as a “U.S. person” even though they may reside in one of the 50 states. Furthermore, if a state citizen who is a “nonresident alien” for income tax purposes receives government income, does the nature of the tax change to an excise solely due to the fact that he is domiciled in one of the 50 states? I think not. If a federal domicile was required, then Brushaber would not have been liable for the new DNAT — but he was, despite his “nonresident alien” tax status. And again, since he was liable, then the nature of the tax would have had to change for him from a DNAT to an excise tax, as he was domiciled in New York, and not the geographical United States so-defined in the tax code. Thus I’m inclined to reject Option 1 as the correct explanation, as TD 2313 was a clarification of the Brushaber ruling, which was solely predicated on the newly-established 16th Amendment.
Option 2. seems to make the most sense, as a “U.S. person” and a “nonresident alien” are each taxed on government sourced income. But then how can the government levy a DNAT within the 50 states without destroying the constitutional provision that direct taxes be apportioned? Is it because the government is operating in its own realm with regard to income derived from their sources that are independent of the Constitution? I believe this is the case, and I tend to accept Option 2 as the best explanation. But then where did the excise nature go? I mean, if it’s a DNAT, then why use the income as the measuring stick of the privilege? Why not just flat-out tax the income?
What’s really tricky about this, is that a state citizen is a United States citizen in a political sense (14th Amndt), but a “nonresident alien” in a civil sense (income tax purposes).
Thus, if the court cases below are referring to a DNAT levied on all receipts of political citizens, then it can only be on a subset of political citizens with appropriately taxed income, and that is all receipts (public and private) of a political citizen with a federal domicile, as well as a resident alien (“U.S. person”), which is what we seem to observe in our daily life.
But if the court cases below are referring to a DNAT levied on all political citizens everywhere, then it applies to a “U.S. person” and a “nonresident alien” alike, and they can only be referring to United States-sourced (government) receipts as the subject of such tax, because we know a political citizen, whether a “U.S. person” or a “nonresident alien” for tax purposes, is taxed on government income, precisely as a resident alien who is also a “U.S. person.” But again, I am still in want of an explanation with regard to the “privilege” or excise nature of such a tax. Or is that really a moot point since the 16th Amendment? I believe it to be. With regard to government payments, that’s their own business, and Congress has the power to tax them in a way that is independent of certain constitutional restrictions — such as the limitation on direct non-apportioned taxes.
“Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”
— Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
I conclude that the DNAT is levied across the nation (United States in its political sense), upon all United States political citizens (“U.S. persons” and “nonresident aliens” alike) on government-sourced income. Resident aliens are just plain SOL, they’re taxed on all of it regardless.
Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.
Some individuals and groups assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non‑apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.
The Law:
The constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment has invariably been upheld when challenged. Numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non‑apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws are valid as applied.
Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (relying on Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991) – the court found defendant’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens to be “devoid of any arguable basis in law.”
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1989) – the court affirmed a failure to file conviction and rejected the taxpayer’s frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax.
Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518-20 (7th Cir. 1984) – the court rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, upheld assessment of the frivolous return penalty, and imposed sanctions for pursuing “frivolous arguments in bad faith” on top of the lower court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the government.
Maxwell v. Internal Revenue Service, 103 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2009-1571, 2009 WL 920533 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 1, 2009) – the court found the taxpayer’s arguments have been “routinely rejected,” principally, that there is no law that imposes an income tax, nor is there a non-apportioned direct tax that could be imposed on him as a supposed non-citizen.
Other Cases:
Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 930 (1981); United States v. Hockensmith, 2009 WL 1883521, 104 A.F.T.R.2d 2009-5133 (M.D. Pa. June 30, 2009); Stearman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-39, 89 T.C.M. (CCH) 823 (2005), aff’d, 436 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1207 (2006).
Honestly, I don’t think anything placed in the endorsement page is necessary or warranted. The passport is a political document and nothing more. I think the statuses proffered in the jurat of the DS-11 are straight forward, unlike the SS-5, I-9, and IRC related statuses. Those statuses are made to resemble the legitimate political statuses associated with the passport, and thus, lead the unwary astray and into the snare of unwittingly electing a federal domicile.
And as for adding stuff in the endorsement section, although it doesn’t constitute an alteration of the passport, it does constitute an “addition.” That being said, read the text in the front of the passport book itself. It prohibits notations and additions by anyone other than “authorized officials of the United States or of foreign countries.”
My thoughts are this — if you are going to be challenging the government while riding on the tip of the spear, I think you should do it with “clean hands” as it were. Who wants to lose the fight over something like a self-placed notation in the back of the passport, which has no utility, and is not even recognized by those who otherwise have the power to lock you up for putting it there? It may convince a bank clerk while opening an account . . . but that’s about it.
Instead, I would concentrate on ensuring your status is correct with the SSA, IRS, and of course on the I-9. This is where it really matters.
There is no question that Title 8 applies to both political and civil contexts.
The government uses Title 8 in both contexts in order to blur the lines between political citizenship and the nationality it commutes in contexts of political status (think DOS and passport), and domicile and the civil status it commutes in contexts of civil status (think SSA and IRS).
The I-9 is the tool where the lines are attempted to be blurred. But it is easy to reconcile. It all hinges on which meaning of the “United States” is used in any given discussion, whether political (the nation), or geographical (the collective Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 municipal jurisdictions).
But make no mistake about it, the I-9 is applied in civil contexts, not political contexts. Check it out:
Title 8 status (political -or- civil) I-9 status (civil only)
nationals and citizens of the United States (1401) citizen of the “United States” (pol citizen & fed domiciliary)
non-citizen national (1452) non-citizen national of the “United States” (Am Samoans)
alien (1101(a)(3)) lawful permanent resident alien (foreign nationality only)
alien (1101(a)(3)) alien auth. to work (foreign nats & Amnats dom in 50 states)
The use of both contexts in Title 8 gives the government plausible deniability because they can switch back and forth so easily. The Title 8 definitions can fit both ways. It’s easy to counter — just establish the meaning of “United States” in any given debate or discussion and stick with it. See the Venn diagrams of this in the “Why you are a national and not citizen” pamphlet on the SEDM site.
Another clue is through the “of the United States“ add-on to the 8 USC 1452 def’n of “non-citizen national.” They had to add this on in the civil context because a domiciliary of one of the 50 states is also a “non-citizen national” in the civil sense. But, if you add on the phrase “of the United States“ like the DOS does in the passport endorsement, or like DHS does in the I-9 endorsement, it locks out State Citizens either way — politically or civilly. This because politically, State Citizens are 14th Amendment citizens, and civilly, they are not domiciled upon federal territory, or otherwise regarded as “of the United States,” so-defined in its geographical sense. Brilliant!! This is why DOS won’t give you the endorsement when you request it in your passport — because DOS applies it in a political context, and it therefore does not apply to State Citizens because you ARE a citizen politically.
Also, DHS administers E-Verify and gets the citizenship info from the SSA, while also administering Global Entry which is provided political citizenship info from the DOS. Did it ever occur to anyone that DHS administers two programs with respect to citizenship, but they obtain the “citizenship info” from two separate agencies? E-verify from SSA (civil), and Global Entry from DOS (political). Now you know why. They are trying to blur the lines between Title 8 political contexts and the SSA/Tax related contexts promulgated in the I-9.
After pondering the context of this case all night . . . I came to the conclusion that what the arguing attorneys and the judge were referring to is contextual in nature with regard to the plaintiff's status antecedent to the Fourteenth Amendment. The case should be considered in the context of the time frame of the suit and its proximity to that point in time when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified — just 4 years earlier. Van Valkenburg was already a citizen before the Fourteenth Amendment — so how could her political citizenship be granted by the Fourteenth? It couldn't, therefore it wasn't.
It's true — clearly Van Valkenburg was a United States citizen by virtue of her State Citizenship. And as a white State Citizen, she was embraced by the original constitutional provisions of nationality as a self-evident reality existing as a by-product of her State Citizenship. However, the Fourteenth Amendment rectified injustices inherent in the original constitution by creating the avenue for blacks who clearly were not white, and thus not eligible to be State Citizens under the Constitution. By the nature of the language in the Fourteenth Amendment, it applied to all persons subsequent to its passage, thereby embracing the blacks and I believe ANYBODY ELSE born within a State and not subject to some foreign power. Thus, anyone born in the nation of the United States and subject to their political jurisdiction after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (white or black) was a United States citizen through that Amendment.
It didn't create a sub-class. Rather, it brought people who were previously being disenfranchised as a “sub-class” if you will, up to and on a fair and equitable level equivalent to the other so-called “superior class” (laughable I know — but a reality of the times). This was the correct and just thing to do and consistent with the premise that “All men are created equal.” They couldn't just erase what had been written, thus it had to be amended — and the Fourteenth Amendment clarified and took care of the original flaws in the document.
Additionally, the District of Columbia was not a “State” within the meaning of the Constitution. In the Organic Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419, Sec. 34, the following provision was made:
Quote:“Sec. 34. ‘… and the Constitution and all the laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said District of Columbia as elsewhere within the United States.’”b][u]emphasis added[/u][/b
This opened up the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to those born in the Federal “State” of D.C. in the same way it created the same avenue of nationality for blacks — it simply provided an avenue equivalent to that possessed by a white State citizen. And by virtue of its language, embraced all (including a white citizen born in a State) after it was passed.
The territories are a different matter, because they were never constitutionally protected soil like the 68 sq. mi. of Maryland that now exists as the District of Columbia (Virginia took back their 32 sq. mi. in 1847).
I conclude then that if you were born in the nation (a body politic — not a civil jurisdiction) of the United States (provided it was in one of the civil jurisdictions of the 50 states or D.C.), and not subject to some foreign political power, FOLLOWING the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, then you are embraced by it. Van Valkenburg was born before the passage, as was anybody else that was addressed in her same class by the judge at that time in 1872 — so he is correct. However, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't bring State Citizens down to some “spooky federal slave status” — rather it brings disenfranchised people that existed before its passage up to the same status as the “superior class” that existed already at that time. Once passed, it applied and still applies to all who are embraced by it through the following criteria:
1. Not subject to some foreign political power; and
2. Born within a civil jurisdiction of one of the 50 states; or
3. Born within the civil jurisdiction of the District of Columbia
