neo
Forum Replies Created
A friend of mine sent me this interesting case from the California Supreme Court. It's now got me wondering if perhaps there may be something indeed “funny” going on with the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, is it possible that the Fourteenth Amendment is using seemingly “all encompassing” language in a similar way that the 16th Amendment does? The court said that a State Citizen does not owe his citizenship status to the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Fourteenth Amendment says “All persons . . . ” Perhaps they are referring to “all persons” except those “white State Citizens” who are in fact, ipso facto “United States citizens” by virtue of their State Citizenship. It now puts Reverdy Johnson's comments in a slightly different light; to wit:
Quote:“The Constitution as it now stands recognizes a citizenship of the United States. It provides that no person shall be eligible to the Presidency of the United States except a natural-born citizen of the United States or one who was in the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; it provides that no person shall be eligible to the office of Senator who has not been a citizen of the United States for nine years; but there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question. The decision of the courts and the doctrine of the commentators is, that every man who is a citizen of a State becomes ipso facto a citizen of the United States; but there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State. Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power — for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us — shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States. I am, however, by no means prepared to say, as I think I have intimated before, that being born within the United States, independent of any new constitutional provision on the subject, creates the relation of citizen to the United States.” b][u]emphasis added[/u][/b
Hon. Reverdy Johnson, Whig Dem. Senator, Maryland
Congressional Debates of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2893 (1866)
Now this is in 1866 . . . about two years before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. And notice that at this time they already agree that a State Citizen is ipso facto already a United States citizen — no Fourteenth Amendment is necessary for him. So the thought is that perhaps the blacks and those from D.C. are technically the ones embraced by the Fourteenth Amendment, as the whites were already United States citizens as a self-evident reality of their existing legal condition as State Citizens. The blacks did not qualify as State Citizens . . . and those from D.C. were not State Citizens either. But the Fourteenth Amendment provides them an avenue resulting in effectively the identical citizenship, but the avenue there is indeed different to that of the white State Citizen. The result is identical, but the avenue is in fact NOT the same. What is similar is not the same, for nothing similar is the same.
What follows is what my friend sent me and the link to the California Supreme Court case. Perhaps we need to revisit this topic again. Notice the affirmations the Court makes right at the outset — that is, a State Citizen does not owe his citizenship status to the Fourteenth Amendment. Are we missing something or is the California Justice wrong? What he says seems to be consistent with what Reverdy Johnson said. Perhaps the white State Citizen is technically NOT embraced by the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Fourteenth Amendment opened the avenue for those from D.C. and others not embraced as State Citizens in the Constitution so as to achieve the same political status as the white Citizens.
Thus, a potential conclusion being: If one claims Fourteenth Amendment United States citizenship, and he is not black, then clearly he is a citizen of D.C. . . . otherwise he would just simply say I am a Citizen of the State of 'xyz' and thus a United States citizen . . . but NOT a Fourteenth Amendment United States citizen. Does this make sense?
Quote:I just finished a radio show and the subject was on the 14th Amendment, of course I thought of our conversation. As you know I vigorously defend my freedom and maintain that I am not a 14th Amendment person for a variety of reasons.
To support my position I recently found a California 1872 Supreme Court Decision, this is an important time for the decision because California was in 1872 still operating on the 1849 Constitution.
Here is the case title from January 1872 – Ellen R. Van Valkenburg v. Albert Brown If the link doesn't work, scroll to the long link below, copy and paste into your web browser.
This description of the purpose of the 14th amendment by the Supreme Court is very interesting and I think very applicable to your studies.
I hope all is well, and look forward to our next conversation.
http://books.google….t Brown&f=false
Well, in my opinion, I don't think “the system” allows you to separate from their number. Others here have a different opinion. I think the more accurate answer is to only use the SSN/TIN at times when it is required — that is, during excise taxable, public sector activities. As a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the Federal income tax, you can separate public and private activities by providing or withholding the SSN as the case may be. But as a “U.S. person” you are always required to tender the SSN, thus everything is presumed taxable by the beast — public and private. Oh wait . . .as a “U.S. person” there is no private property.
Again, this is just my opinion.
The interesting thing about all of those links in the first part of this thread — they all deal with people of foreign nationality. There is simply ZERO reference to an American national who is a state citizen, and who thus qualifies as a “Legal Alien Allowed To Work.” This instance will not and cannot be addressed by the Federal government because it is 100% outside of their purview. This is the brilliance behind the scheme — out of sight; out of mind.
A true statement may not be the whole truth. And with regard to who qualifies as a “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” as that status relates to an SSN, the complete lack of reference to that status being afforded to a state citizen, while APPEARING to be only suitable for a person of foreign nationality, is the scheme's best defense.
I really believe this is the nerve center. This is where the transformation and the snare is set — the “U.S. Citizen” status of the SSN.
Everything the SSA does with regard to a “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” is tied to people of foreign nationality. The SSA requires either an “Alien Admission Number” or a “Work Visa Number.” Clearly these are things an American national (U.S. passport holder) would not have. In fact, it is the possession of the U.S. passport that entitles one to work, whether privately, or through a “legal employer — employee relationship.” See the “Anti-Discrimmination Notice” on page 1 of the linked Form I-9, as well as List A on page 5 of the following: http://www.uscis.gov…es/form/i-9.pdf
However, a citizen and resident of a civil jurisdiction of one of the 50 states not embraced by IV:3:2, is a “Legal Alien” with regard to the domestic civil jurisdiction defined geographically as the “United States” comprising exclusively IV:3:2 geography (See 42 U.S.C. 1301(a )(2) and 26 U.S.C. 7701(a )(9)). Clearly, a state citizen is a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. But, said state citizen is NOT THE “U.S. Citizen” to whom the inquiry is directed — but rather, the “Legal Alien Allowed To Work,” along with a “Lawful permanent resident alien” (U.S. person under Title 26 and person of foreign nationality). The state citizen is a “nonresident alien” under Title 26 along with others who may be of foreign nationality. The state citizen simply does not have any federally issued evidence of an “alien” status — the knowledge, and simply the declaration of that status must alone suffice. It is an abuse of discretion for SSA employees to deny the “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” status to an American national who is a state citizen on the grounds of not having federally issued evidence of an alien status.
Once the SSA has a number holder's “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” (CSP Code B ) status on file, it can then be shared with multiple other state and federal agencies, corroborating the “non-citizen” status made by the number holder either with the IRS during the filing of a Form 1040NR, the Selective Service (ie, not required to sign up as a non-citizen), the FBI (citizen of U.S.A. but also a “non-immigrant alien” when procuring “arms”), state DMVs (U.S. Citizen — “No”), DHS (I-9 – “Alien Authorized To Work”), etc., etc.
However, if the SSA thinks you are a “U.S. Citizen” under Block 5 of Form SS-5, every other state and federal agency will think so too. And the evidence on record will prove the number holder to be a “U.S. Citizen” — then the discussion is over. However, if a copy of the corrected SS-5 is in one's possession, and the SSA hasn't corrected the record, then the SSA is transmitting incorrect and possibly fraudulent data to other state and federal agencies.
Until one changes status at the SSA, the whole battle and the discussion is moot — in my opinion.
Since my last post . . . I have not been able to get this excerpt out of my mind, and have been pondering it non-stop. In the interest of being thorough, I have come up with an additional way to analyze this that may also prove beneficial for others who would like to try and support a contrarian view and side with the Federal government in attempting to maintain the status quo.
Consider the alternative view, that perhaps the Federal government DOES in fact further sub-categorize noncitizens. Examples of this may be as follows:
Quote:Title 26 — Internal Revenue Code
Citizens
1. United States citizen (federal domiciliary)
Noncitizens (sub-categorized)
2a. Resident Alien (foreign nationality)
2b. Nonresident Alien (foreign nationality –or– State Citizen)
–or–
Quote:Title 42 — Social Security
Citizens
1. United States citizen (federal domiciliary)
Noncitizens (sub-categorized)
2a. Legal Alien Allowed To Work (foreign nationality –or– State Citizen)
2b. Legal Alien Not Allowed To Work (foreign nationality)
In the above examples, one could make the argument that the Federal government DOES in fact further sub-categorize noncitizens in contradistinction to the states. But the way to prove their sub-categorization is not limited to only those of foreign nationality is by the fact that they cannot possibly be referring to nationality. Why? An American Samoan is not a “United States citizen” yet is an American national. Furthermore, certain domiciliaries of the CNMI may make an election to be treated as a “national but not citizen of the United States” similarly to those from American Samoa pursuant to the Compact of Free Association Act of 1986, 99 Stat. 1770 (1986), Sec. 302, 8 U.S.C. 1408 — this, despite the fact that they have in-fact been awarded a “United States citizen” status in Sec. 2(c ) of that same Act.
Government proponents of the status quo may try to argue that the government DOES sub-categorize unlike the states. But either way you slice it (my first post on the subject or this one) our case is proven. It's a lot like the Romans trying to explain away the resurrection of Christ from the tomb. They have no way of explaining it away — they are boxed in either way.
Finally, the following additional excerpt from the SCOTUS lends extra support to our position — A State Citizen is an “alien” under federal statutory law.
Quote:We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own.[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
This is awesome!!! But, as always, when what is to be gleaned from the wording is oh-so-important, its interpretation creates questions.
Let's break it down:
Quote:Insofar as state welfare policy is concerned, there is little, if any, basis for treating persons who are citizens of another State differently from persons who are citizens of another country. Both groups are noncitizens as far as the State's interests in administering its welfare programs are concerned.Now this part is straight forward. If one regards, say for example, Oklahoma's welfare program, a Mexican national, a Canadian national, as well as American nationals who are citizens of D.C., the territories, or any of the other 49 states, are “alien” with regard to Oklahoma's state body politic, and more specifically, the civil jurisdiction within that body politic, that is, the state of Oklahoma in its geographical sense. This is crystal clear.
But then it gets a little more cryptic towards the end:
Quote:Thus, a division by a State of the category of persons who are not citizens of that State into subcategories of United States citizens and aliens has no apparent justification, whereas, a comparable classification by the Federal Government is a routine and normally legitimate part of its business.They then essentially say it is redundant to sub-categorize the noncitizens of Oklahoma into Americans and non-Americans, as they are all “alien” with regard to Oklahoma, and doing so is a waste of time.
Then a comma and the word 'whereas' makes an appearance — It is defined as follows:
Quote:where – as
conjunction: 1. In contrast or comparison with the fact that
2. (esp. in legal preambles) Taking into consideration the fact that.
synonyms: while – as – since – whilst – because – inasmuch as
Then the final clause, which comprises the “comparable classification by the Federal Government.” This could be read in one of two ways.
A ) The Federal government structures its classification in the same way as the states — that is, a citizen of one of the 50 states as well as a foreign national constitute an “alien” with respect to the civil jurisdiction where an Act of Congress is locally applicable (D.C., federal territories and possessions); or
B ) The Federal government structures its classification in such a way that only a foreign national constitutes an “alien” under the Federal program.
Option B ) certainly appears to be the most “obvious” answer. However, if this were the case, the court would have been engaging in legal surplusage to even address the unique concept of diffused legislative sovereignty as it applies to American federalism during the first sentence of the excerpt. Remember, the court was addressing the further sub-categorization of a class which is foreign to the civil jurisdiction at issue — the state of Oklahoma in this example. Thus, the categorization by the Federal government of either “United States citizen” or “alien” deals with a status relevant to their civil jurisdiction — D.C. and the federal territories and possessions, and like the states, no further sub-categorization is necessary. This is a jurisdictional issue (domicile) — not a political issue (nationality).
Yes, it is true that a citizen of one of the 50 states is a “United States citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But that is not the “United States citizen” the Federal government is referring to. They are referring to THEIR domestic class of “United States citizen” under federal statutory law. Thus, A ) is the proper conclusion to be drawn from what the court said in this excerpt — in my opinion.
I think this is a very worthwhile analysis. This is darn-near a silver bullet in dealing with the SSA and convincing that agency that a number holder is completely justified in “changing personal identifying information” pursuant to 20 CFR 422.110(a) — that is, changing one's civil status on file with the SSA and its accompanying CSP Code from “U.S. Citizen” (CSP Code “A”), to “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” (CSP Code “B”).
The Congress has provided for this in the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.) and more specifically under 20 CFR 422.110(a). And it is the Administrative gatekeeper at the SSA who appears to be using in-house policy (“color of law”) to deprive certain number holders of their rights.
To Admin, I concede ALL POINTS to you which you have made in the thread above — thanks for staying the course.
Humbly I admit that I have fallen victim to the intended trick built into the regulations, and the presumptions that it is designed to cause. This is because, precisely as you said, I looked at the tree, and not the forest.
Here is how it happened: In dealing with all these issues, I am always mindful of the following:
Quote:The Government urges that since only those who violate these regulations may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, and not the broad authorizing language of the statute, which are to be tested against the standards of the Fourth Amendment; and that when so tested they are valid.For this reason, I always look for a way to fight or obtain remedy within the regs. After all, this is where the battlefield lies — and nobody will be allowed to address larger constitutional or philosophical issues in a legal proceeding.
If one wants to change the status of their SSN with the IRS they must know 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i)
If one wants to change the status of their SSN with the SSA they must know 20 CFR 422.110(a)
We have to know the bigger picture, but also important is knowing where to find the remedy and the tools within the regulations with which to fight. This is what the government uses.
I think some valuable lessons were learned here — certainly by me, but hopefully the debate will prove fruitful for other readers in the following areas:
1. Admin is correct, keep sight of the bigger picture. Statutory interpretation is a holistic endeavor. I fell for the trick — precisely in the way it was designed to work.
2. The wild goose chase I created at the beginning of the thread could very well be representative of an argument posed against YOU by a government defender of the status quo — I think it was a rather “good perversion” of the truth.
Now, the real answer and remedy under the regulations:
The FBAR regulations fall under Chapter X of 31 CFR. 31 CFR 1010.100 is titled General definitions. The first paragraph states:
Quote:When used in this chapter and in forms prescribed under this chapter, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this subpart. Terms applicable to a particular type of financial institution or specific part or subpart of this chapter are located in that part or subpart. Terms may have different meanings in different parts or subparts.“Incompatible with the intent thereof” is what Admin was referring to. The government cannot regulate private conduct of the citizens of the 50 states, thus there is no way they could ascribe a term of “United States” which includes the geography of the 50 states (such as in 31 CFR 1010.100(hhh)) in an effort to create a “Legal Fiction” by transforming the meaning of the term “U.S. person” so that people domiciled in the civil jurisdictions of the 50 states are somehow subject to the FBAR mandate.
31 CFR 1010.100(hhh) defines the term “United States” as follows:
Quote:(hhh) United States.The States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Indian lands (as that term is defined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act), and the Territories and Insular Possessions of the United States.
Then, right under that, the term “U.S. person” is defined in section 1010.100(iii):
Quote:(iii) U.S. person.
(1) A United States citizen; or
(2) A person other than an individual (such as a corporation, partnership or trust), that is established or organized under the laws of a State or the United States. Non-U.S. person means a person that is not a U.S. person.
The immediate appearance of the term “U.S. person” as being defined as a 'United States citizen' leads the unwary reader into PRESUMING the term “United States” as defined above in (hhh) is to be inserted into the 'United States' meaning in (iii). This is a mistake. Furthermore, just because the term “United States” of (hhh) APPEARS to be defined in a political sense, does not mean that it is — Admin pointed this out. For the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act, the term “United States” has a geographical meaning. This is forthrightly spelled out in the “Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act,” Pub. L. 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114 (1970), Sec. 203(d), which states:
Quote:(d) The term “United States”, used in a geographical sense, includes the States and the District of Columbia, and to the extent the Secretary shall by regulation specify, either for the purposes of this title generally or any particular requirement thereunder, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the possessions of the United States, United States military establishments, and United States diplomatic establishments.
Again, this definition has two purposes:
1. To establish a basis for determining what constitutes a “domestic” and a “foreign” “financial institution” within the reg.
2. To deceive the unwary into believing that all Americans must submit an FBAR, regardless if said American is a Title 26 “nonresident alien.” (I took this hook, line, and sinker).
Of course, if we keep the big picture like Admin said, we should be able to know that the PRESUMPTION is in fact false, as the government could not possibly regulate private activity of an American Title 26 “nonresident alien” non- “taxpayer.”
So why the explicit wording in 31 CFR 1010.350(b ) with regard to using the 31 CFR definition instead of the 26 CFR definition? This too can lead one to the PRESUMPTION that it also applies to a “citizen of the United States,” which it does not. As for the “resident of the United States,” this person has foreign nationality, and the Feds have subject matter jurisdiction over the naturalization and “resident status” of this person anywhere within the nation — this per Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 4 of the Constitution. The switching of definitions is not even necessary, but creates the presumption that the same (hhh) definition of “United States” applies to a “citizen of the United States,” which it does not. I believe this was done intentionally.
Quote:(b ) United States person.For purposes of this section, the term “United States person” means—
(1) A citizen of the United States;
(2) A resident of the United States. A resident of the United States is an individual who is a resident alien under 26 U.S.C. 7701(b ) and the regulations thereunder but using the definition of “United States” provided in 31 CFR 1010.100(hhh) rather than the definition of “United States” in 26 CFR 301.7701(b )–1(c )(2)(ii); and
(3) An entity, including but not limited to, a corporation, partnership, trust, or limited liability company created, organized, or formed under the laws of the United States, any State, the District of Columbia, the Territories and Insular Possessions of the United States, or the Indian Tribes.
31 CFR 1010.100(yy) goes on to define what a “Taxpayer Identification Number” is.
Quote:(yy) Taxpayer Identification Number.Taxpayer Identification Number (“TIN”) is defined by section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 6109) and the Internal Revenue Service regulations implementing that section ( e.g., social security number or employer identification number).
Clearly, the FBAR requests the name and TIN of the submitter. And since the TIN is representative of the franchise, its status MUST be the one that applies to the named “individual” on the form as well. The provisions of (yy) clearly establish Title 26 as the source from which the associated TIN status is derived. This means that it is the 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) definition of “United States” in its geographical sense that is used to establish whether or not an American national is a “U.S. person” or a non-“U.S. person” for the purposes of the FBAR — NOT the 31 CFR 1010.100(hhh) definition.
Admin, great discussion. Thanks for keeping me straight. I got a lot out of this, and I hope others did too.
Thanks for all the thoughtful contributions and responses. Everything you say makes perfect sense. However, I must weigh the regulatory language, and then imagine how that might be rebutted in a legal confrontation. On its face, it appears to embrace a much larger scope of people — I realize this is intentional. I am working a response and further, more in-depth analysis based on the substantial amount of case law surrounding this topic. This may take me some time. But I would like to point out a discovery that lends credence to your position, and is driving me to really dig much deeper into this issue — tracing the genealogy of ALL the legislation from which the requirement stems.In California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974), which I believe was the first SCOTUS challenge to the BSA, the following appears at 44:
Quote:The Government urges that since only those who violate these regulations may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, and not the broad authorizing language of the statute, which are to be tested against the standards of the Fourth Amendment; and that when so tested they are valid.This supports your contention, that the scope is limited. I agree based on this language. Now the “Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act” is in fact the “short title” of Title II of Pub. L. 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114 (1970), which in its totality is an amendment to the “Federal Deposit Insurance Act.”In sec. 203(d) of the “Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act,” the following definition of “United States” appears:
Quote:(d) The term “United States”, used in a geographical sense, includes the States and the District of Columbia, and to the extent the Secretary shall by regulation specify, either for the purposes of this title generally or any particular requirement thereunder, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the possessions of the United States, United States military establishments, and United States diplomatic establishments.However, in the regulatory language, the term “United States” is defined in a political sense at 31 CFR 1010.100(hhh) — or so it would seem:
Quote:(hhh) United States. The States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Indian lands (as that term is defined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act), and the Territories and Insular Possessions of the United States.I seem to remember case law somewhere that states neither codified statutes nor their regulations can exceed the limitations of the original statutory language. I understand this principle, but would like to find the authority for it. Do recall the precise authority for this?If the sec. 1010.100(hhh) language stems from the statute, it MUST be considered in its geographical sense only and not its political sense. Then your assertion that I engaged in a presumption over its regulatory meaning as being political is also correct — and I was led astray. Now, the geographical “United States” is then used in the “Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act” to establish the meanings of the terms “foreign” and “domestic” at (f) and (h) respectively. These terms are then used to establish a “domestic” status for American Banks on American soil or a “foreign” status for banks without American soil. But to apply this same “American soil” geographical definition for the purposes of establishing civil “citizenship” (domicile) of a natural person interfacing this legislation is flawed because the geography of each of the 50 states is not afforded a characteristic of exclusive civil jurisdiction, but is lumped in with a national definition for the purposes of establishing a “financial institution” as either “domestic” or “foreign.”The SCOTUS also went on to say regarding the assertion of Fifth Amendment violations by the plaintiffs in California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz:
Quote:“If a claim of privilege [Fifth Amndt protections] is made, it may or may not be honored by the Attorney General. We cannot, on the basis of supposition that privilege will be claimed and not honored, proceed now to adjudicate the constitutionality under the Fifth Amendment of the registration provisions. Whatever proceeding may be taken after and if the privilege is claimed will provide an adequate forum for litigation of that issue.”What I gather from this is that the plaintiffs were not in a position to actually challenge the provisions of the act by virtue of either their franchise affiliation or an established federal domicile. In short, they were not in a legal position to assert privacy or self-incrimination protections. I can only surmise that they have somehow been caught up in the web at some earlier point, and were therefore then in a position to comply, as they have surrendered their sovereignty at some point. Even though they recognized the violative nature of the mandate, they did not assert that violation under the proper legal characterization, therefore the court could not address it, as such a ruling would be “premature” and beyond the scope of the proceeding at hand.To be continued . . .
- Quote:“It should never be held that Congress intends to supersede or by its legislation suspend the exercise of the police powers of the States, even when it may do so, unless its purpose to effect that result is clearly manifested.”
[Reid v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137, 148]
Quote:To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 6
That seems like a pretty clearly manifested delegation of police power granted by “We the People” to the Federal government in the social political compact that WE WROTE.
The Art. I, sec. 8 enumerated powers are granted to the Federal government and extend across the civil jurisdictions of the 50 states (geographical sense). It has NOTHING to do with WHERE that subject matter is granted, rather it is the delegated subject matter itself that empowers the Feds, and it is exercised within the 50 states as well as in IV:3:2 “Territory and other Property”–that is, subject matter can be possessed EVERYWHERE within the political jurisdiction of the United States. That's not to say that I:8:6 is LOCALLY applicable in the state of Florida . . . it is not. But that subject matter is CERTAINLY exercised within the civil jurisdiction of the state of Florida — in this there is NO DEBATE. “Where an Act of Congress is applicable” is a very different issue to that of “Where an Act of Congress is LOCALLY applicable.” Similarly, the exclusive civil jurisdiction (geography) of the Feds is quite different as compared to the civil jurisdictions (geography) where the Feds may operate through subject matter jurisdiction.
Quote:3. Once in custody, the crime committed outside the territory and exclusive jurisdiction of the US is prosecuted FALSELY AND FRAUDULENTLY as though it WERE committed on the territory.Well, I disagree.
The BSA has been ruled constitutional three times by the Supreme Court — in 1974, 1986, and 1990.
I think if an American fails to file an FBAR when required to, even if a “nonresident alien” under Title 26, there's going to be a very bad result.
OK . . . so we are in agreement with what is meant by political sense. Now we can move forward.
Next, I would like to know if I can counterfeit $100 bills (FRNs) in the geography of the state of Florida not embraced by IV:3:2 without a civil or criminal penalty.
If yes, why? If no, why?
Well . . . you didn't answer the question. I'm still simply asking you to answer what you believe is meant by the phrase political sense. Once you answer my question, I will then build my case.
However, I'll play along for a second.
18 USC Chapter 25 embraces crimes relating to counterfeiting and forgery.
Let's say I counterfeit $100 bills in that geographical portion of the state of Florida not embraced by Art. IV, sec. 3, cl. 2 of the Constitution.
If, as you say, all legislation is prima facie territorial, then any federal legislation making said counterfeiting illegal would not apply to me so long as I remain in that geographical portion of Florida not embraced by IV:3:2.
Is this what you are saying? Do I have a green light to break federal laws so long as I remain on “sovereign ground”?
I believe you are confusing the issue of:
“Where an Act of Congress is applicable” versus “Where an Act of Congress is locally applicable”
I contend an Act of Congress is applicable ANYWHERE within the political jurisdiction of the U.S.A., to also include the geography within the 50 states so long as Congress has:
1. Exclusive legislative authority under IV:3:2; and
2. Specified and enumerated subject matter jurisdiction under I:8.
Now, if you would please entertain my question regarding what you believe is meant by the phrase political sense, I believe I can demonstrate why an FBAR filing is required by an American national who is a Title 26 “nonresident alien” with signatory authority over a Title 26 “foreign estate.” And I will pin it down SPECIFICALLY.
Furthermore, you are quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b ), when the issue is a criminal violation under Title 18. Context is indeed everything.
Perhaps the FBAR filing requirement for a “nonresident alien” non-“taxpayer” is indeed unconstitutional, but nobody in the country has had the legal standing on record with the SSA and the IRS to challenge it. This is why it is significant for you to be an honest broker and answer questions. I will do the same. We will get to the application of law as the discussion proceeds. I want to be methodical and come to an agreement of terms — then we can have a meaningful discussion and analysis. I think this is fair.
- Quote:
You make three presumptions in your analysis that we disagree with:
1. That Congress has ANY kind of civil legislative authority it wants over constitutional aliens.
2. That Congress has civil legislative authority within a state.
3. That the term “State”, if NOT defined geographically, implies the POLITICAL and not STATUTORY sense.
1. Deny — I have not made this presumption. Perhaps it was construed that way in something that I wrote, but I certainly do not presume that, I never have, I do not now, and I believe that I never will. This statement should alleviate any question.
2. Admit — Congress does have civil legislative authority within a state. They have civil legislative authority within the states of D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, The U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Furthermore, Congress has legislative authority within the 50 states United by and under the Constitution over any property ceded pursuant to Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17.
3. Admit — I do believe that unless the term “State” is qualified as being defined in its “geographical sense,” a political sense is implied and to be understood.
Before this discussion can go ANY further. We must come to an agreement on some terms.
I believe a “state” to be a political community. I believe a “nation” to be a “state.” I base this belief on the definitions below.
Quote:state – The political system of a body of people who are politically organized; the system of rules by which jurisdiction and authority are exercised over such a body of people. The organ of the state by which its relations with other states are managed is the government.
Black’s Law Dictionary, (8th ed. 2004)
Quote: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 ed. 2004)
Before this discussion can ensue, we must be able to agree that these definitions are valid, and that a “nation” and a “state” are political entities. We must agree that the United States of America is a “nation,” and that as a nation, it is sometimes referred to as the “United States.” We must agree that the District of Columbia as well as Wyoming both qualify as a “state” by definition, and that they each constitute a political subdivision of the nation of the “United States.” Furthermore, we must agree that when we refer to either the “United States” or a “State” in a political sense, we are referring to them as a “nation” or a “state” respectively as defined above in Black's Law Dictionary.
Because of what the definitions of “nation” and “state” comprise, I am only left to conclude that unless they are qualified as being defined in a geographical sense, they are indeed to be understood in political sense. The only caveat to that, is that the term “United States” can also be used in a governmental or corporate sense. But WHEN used in a political sense, I do not believe it to mean the United States government, or a United States corporation. Additionally, I have never seen the term “State” defined specifically as a government or corporation — only as a political entity, inside of which exists a government — by definition.
If you do not agree, would you please tell me what you believe is meant by the phrase political sense? This discussion cannot possibly yield fruit until we agree on what is meant by the phrase political sense.
This issue is of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE . . . and it must be nailed down firmly. As you have said before to me, “This issue is everything.”
Thanks,
neo
I really believe that applying the same meaning to the term “U.S. person” in Title 31 and Title 26 is a simplistic approach, and one that will get people in A LOT OF HOT WATER!!! This government loves mixing contexts and confusing its people. The best way they could nab folks who still have a pretty good idea of how it all works is through the FBAR.
There are two types of people who are a Title 26 “nonresident alien”:
1. A person of foreign nationality relative to the U.S.A. and who also resides without American soil; and
2. A citizen and resident of one of the 50 states
But 1. above is not a “U.S. person” under Title 31, while 2. is. Now, if an American nonresident alien non-taxpayer is clever, he will submit his FBAR without an SSN. However, this will cause a presumptuous Treasury Agent to roll in and demand an SSN, because after all . . . “A 'U.S. person' must always provide an SSN.” Well, this is true under Title 26, but not under Title 31 — because the meanings are different. Now then, if the “nonresident alien” non-taxpayer submits the FBAR and then accidentally associates an SSN with the form, the otherwise “foreign estate” just lost that status and now falls under the presumptions of taxability because an SSN accompanied the form. The benefits of being a nonresident alien have now just been surrendered unwittingly.
This is the purpose of the FBAR. It's a lot like the I-9. It's designed as a clean-up tool to scoop up any stragglers who aren't quite on their “A-Game,” and then lock 'em down in the tax matrix. It's nothing more than an added layer of complexity — overlapping terms and mixing contexts between Titles 26 and 31 within the same department — the Treasury.
Don't believe for one second that an American “nonresident alien” under Title 26 is not required to file an FBAR under the provisions of Title 31. This is a sure-fire path to finanical ruin and a trip to the slammer!!! In my opinion of course!!!
At the beginning of this thread, the following statement appeared:
Quote:EDITORIAL: The reporting requirement only applies to STATUTORY U.S. citizens and residents. Don't be caught impersonating one of these, which is also a crime. The users of this website may ONLY claim nonresident alien non-individual status.I do not believe this to be correct. Just two days ago I posted an in-depth reason why — the link to that post follows:
http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=6811
An American national who is a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the federal income tax had better file an FBAR if required to do so. The term “United States” in Title 31 is defined in a political sense — not a geographical sense. Thus, the term “U.S. person” for the purposes of Title 31 is not necessarily the same statutory “U.S. person” under Title 26. A “U.S. person” under Title 31 can be a Title 26 “U.S. person” or a Title 26 “nonresident alien.”
This is a trick!!! They are trying to make people believe that a “U.S. person” under Title 31 is the same “U.S. person” under Title 26. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. This is another snare designed to round up American “nonresident alien” non-taxpayers by getting them to tender an SSN or ITIN with the FBAR. Or, they want to nab folks who think because they are a “nonresident alien” under Title 26, they don't have to file. Either way, there is a mechanism in place to get you in trouble. Don't fall for it. But, if you have a filing requirement — file it.
As I read it, an American who is an American national through the “citizenship clause” of either the Fourteenth Amendment or an Act of Congress is a “U.S. person” for the purposes of Title 31 and thus, the FBAR. Even though Treasury pubs are not legally binding, the following TD F 90-22.1 (FBAR) note is consistent with the Bank Secrecy Act and its regulations as I pointed out in my linked post above.
Quote:Note. The federal tax treatment of an entity does not determine whether the entity has an FBAR filing requirement. For example, an entity that is disregarded for purposes of Title 26 of the United States Code [American nonresident alien non-taxpayer — neo] must file an FBAR, if otherwise required to do so. Similarly, a trust for which the trust income, deductions, or credits are taken into account by another person for purposes of Title 26 of the United States Code must file an FBAR, if otherwise required to do so.
If you are an American “nonresident alien” non-“taxpayer,” then a SSN or TIN had better not be provided on the FBAR, or else the private property will have been compromised through the SSN-linked FBAR filing, and the otherwise non-taxable foreign estate, will be transformed into a taxable one.
Requiem,
Here's the deal — I just don't believe the application of the words “includes” and “including” can be applied in a cookie cutter fashion. This has been done on purpose. But I do believe there are some really good ways to ascertain what is going on and there are some techniques for pinning down the legal community.
One thing that I have really learned to ask myself in EVERY instance is this: “What is the context?”
Look at 28 U.S.C. §1332. It is entitled as follows:
Quote:§ 1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs b][u]emphasis mine[/u][/bWe know the federal government has the overall say so on this issue and always has. SCOTUS rulings in the late 1800s and early 1900s are full of very interesting railroad cases that involved citizens of one state against a railroad that was a corporation and citizen of a different state. We can't have Texas courts ruling on controversies between citizens of Texas and citizens of Oklahoma. It wouldn't be fair. Thus we know the following which appears in §1332(e):
Quote:The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. b][u]emphasis mine[/u][/b
also includes the Art. IV, §3, cl. 2 political entities as part of the same general class of the 50 “States” for the purposes of diversity of citizenship issues. The Feds cover it all . . . even our beloved 50 quasi-sovereign states. We gave them that authority under the Constitution.
Likewise, look at 28 U.S.C. §1338. It is entitled as follows:
Quote:§ 1338. Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
We also know the federal government has the overall say so on this issue and always has (Art. I, §8, cl. 8). This is why it goes on to define “State” as follows in § 1338:
Quote:For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘State’’ includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.Remember the two important questions:
1. Where is an Act of Congress applicable? Answer: Everywhere when Congress possesses original jurisdiction (I:8 or IV:3:2).
2. Where is an Act of Congress LOCALLY applicable? Answer: IV:3:2 Territory and Other Property.
Thus, if the context is original jurisdiction, then it applies to the 50 states as well as D.C. and federal territories and possessions, as they fall within the overall political jurisdiction of the federal government — that is, the nation, or country.
Finally, look at this from 28 U.S.C. § 3003:
Quote:§ 3003. Rules of construction(a) TERMS.—For purposes of this chapter (CHAPTER 176—FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE)—
(1) the terms ‘‘includes’’ and ‘‘including’’ are not limiting; b][u]emphasis mine[/u][/b
Thus, if there is a federal debt to be collected, there is no limitation on where that can be done. It's all a matter of context. When the context changes, the application and meaning of “includes” and “including” can change too. Figure out what the context is, and then bind them with the chains of the Constitution . . . and by the scope of the statute.
I think WAY TOO MANY “patriots” immediately just assume the government is acting unconstitutionally. I found you can be a much more powerful force for liberty if you take an approach whereby YOU try to justify what it is that the government is doing to you. Have we inadvertantly “volunteered” for a franchise? Have we declared a federal domicile in the course of partaking in that franchise by affirming a “U.S. Citizen” status in the context of a federal inquiry? Was it fraud? Or did we not read the Constitution? The Act of Congress? The Code? The Regs? Were we really defrauded? Or were we maybe too trusting and lazy? If we committed to something with our signature whereby the federal government obtains a property and rights interest, should the law protect those interests of the government? Should the government protect its rights and interests? Should you protect your rights and interests from the government? Does the government provide you that ability? Are you sure?
All food for thought. People don't want to hear whining. But they do want a constructive and positive solution. I find people to me much more receptive to this approach.
neo
