stija
Forum Replies Created
I think that the line of Printz, New York, United States v. Lopez of SCOTUS cases are a great example of justices explaining the federal system and also referencing dual sovereignty cases within these cases.
In fact, in Printz, all 9 justices concurred (2 in part only) – but nonetheless – all nine concurred that federal legislation cannot commandeer or require state officers/officials to execute federal schemes.
I see no way for Congress to impose a requirement for submitting/filing any federal forms upon a contractual relationship between a political citizen of a state and his state government – such a contention is violative of the constitutional scheme on so many levels that it is absurd to even take it seriously as requiring and argument against it; to argue in objection to it is to give credence to an absurdity like no other, and also to undermine one’s credibility with the court for even entertaining it as a possibility.
1. You started this thread mentioning the IRC and therefore, you created the impression that this matter deals with taxation.
Yes i did but i intend to make the plain and simple allegation that there is no authority within it and there can be none if the law is to be constitutional – which it is.
3. You should have made more plain EXACTLY who the defendant is in your initial post. If it is a state and not a human, this could have been made more clear.
4. Suing the state will require a waiver of sovereign immunity and a specific person IN the state to sue who refuses to execute an enumerated duty. The fact that that person has DISCRETION does not mean they have to choose the way you want them to. An enumerated duty to choose in a specific way must be identified so a tort can be sought for the abuse of discretion.
The defendants depend on the nature of the suit and relief requested – that is the purpose of this thread.
The state is administering illegally and unconstitutionally the said tax on its own essential public employments – a clear violation of IID even if the IRC imposed such a requirement on them.
The individual officers, private citizens occupying Arizona public office, are administering the paperwork and withholding personally and illegally and therefore amenable to private tortious actions against them because of their illegal actions.
5. A suit directly against the state could only fairly be heard in the US Supreme Courts original jurisdiction. One cannot sue a state in its own courts without a waiver of sovereign immunity.
I understand that the state cannot be sued in its own courts, but i am not aware of any sovereign individual ever filing an action directly into the U.S. Supreme Court and i would not want to compromise my integrity and actions by doing something that would be rejected – thus making a fool out of myself in relation to all future proceedings connected to this matter.
6. Our inbox is empty. There is no reason private messages should not work.
Now it is, whatever you did or did not do.
Admin,
with all due respect you are not helping me at all here in this hypothetical scenario. (except your initial post suggesting approaches in 1 and 6 only)
1. The document you referenced deals with taxation.
2. These hypothetical suits deal with:
2.1. Constitutional/common law torts
2.2. State unconstitutional administration of federal policy (printz, new york, and those line of cases)
3. Selecting proper venue/forum in relation to 2.1 and 2.2
So what does a taxation tool have to do with this?? In this hypothetical scenario no one is:
1. Asking for refunds
2. Questioning validity of any tax or assessment
3. Arguing a tax matter
4. Arguing a tax matter in relation to the individual BUT IN RELATION to the state and its alleged authority under IRC. (congress legislates for/on behalf of states not individuals in states)
In a nutshell, the scenario deals with unconstitutional application of a federal mandate by Arizona – it matters not what that mandate is – and if Arizona invokes sovereign immunity based on IRC authority, then the burden of proof is on them to prove that alleged constitutional authority needed for sovereign immunity to stand.
On another note, if your inbox is full, is that why you wouldn’t be able to get private messages?
The more i think about this, the more it seems that:
1. This is a First Amendment issue (among others – but one is enough for now)
2. There is no need to invoke any federal statute, like 1983.
3. Constitutional provisions are self executing in federal court.
3.1. Are they so in state courts as well? —-> that i don’t know for sure but i could infer from what i know that they are
Therefore, the most appropriate action a sovereign should take is sue under a constitutional tort as you suggested above. But the question remains as to how to obtain an injunction/decree/judgment barring the state from doing this again to someone else, and which would also force them to opt-out of federal income tax games.
You suggested a constitutional based suit against a state straight into the U.S. Supreme Court, which i know the states can do, but i am not aware of any case law or constitutional provisions allowing other sovereigns to do the same. And i don’t really see how a sovereign can sue the state (another sovereign) in their own courts. Wasn’t one of the purposes of the dual government system to always have the second/neutral forum to argue against the first government’s wrongdoing?
This is NOT legal advice.
Of course not, and this is a hypothetical scenario for educational and training purposes under the first amendment protected private beliefs and opinions.
Now, the above quote for original jurisdiction is inappropriate because one would not be challenging the validity of any tax, but instead tortious actions by state officers exceeding their official capacity.
So i agree with you, as this boils down to:
1. Constitutional tort – first amendment violation
2. 1. results in other private/common law torts under Arizona common law.
So, first, in this hypothetical scenario, the suit could be against a private individual occupying state public office as a public employee who exceeded his legal duties and capacity by doing/forcing something not allowed by law. I get that. But that would only grant one private/personal relief under the common law of the said state.
What if that person wanted to both vindicate his private rights AND enjoin the state official (and the state) from participating in and administering a federal program which is neither required nor constitutionally allowed? Basically, what if the private individual wanted two types of relief:
1. Private relief vindicating his private rights and injuries; and
2. To enjoin the state from doing this again to someone else AND stop administering this program unconstitutionally.
Should this be separated into two suits, one in Arizona under common law against the officer as a private individual, and another in federal court under 1983 for constitutional violations and unconstitutional implementation of a constitutional federal mandate not imposed on states?
1. Where one files depends on WHO the defendant is. If it is the state, it has to be the U.S. Supreme Court ONLY
Under what constitutional authority? I am aware that states can bring suits to the U.S. Supreme Court directly, but i am not aware that private individuals can do the same.
The legal tool you referenced deals with taxation. Do you have a more appropriate legal tool in relation to actions under 1983 or constitutional/common law tort litigation? I think the below describes the situation to a “T”.
42 U.S.C. 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Why is it that 1983 actions are only against state officers when the crystal clear language says “any person who, under color of any statute..”? Is it because the U.S. Supreme Court knows that only state officers should avail themselves of state public laws, or that anyone who avails themselves of a state public statute in fact becomes a state officer <_<
Thanks.
ps; why would someone not be able to receive new private messages? Is it possibly because the mailbox is full?
I get the inference – the sad part is that only a few chosen ones understand the inference.
It’d be interesting to see what the district courts conclusion was in regards to her Florida residency under federal alien status.
So they kicked it back to the lower court to find if she were a nra or ra. Do you have any cites to these further proceedings and how that concluded? I’d love to read/follow the whole case.
Great cite, but members of the ministry have long known this fact, thanks to the abundance of material on it.
Nonetheless, it helps seeing it being explained and recognized by the honorable justices of our American federal appellate courts.
Why do you even bother rebutting his nonsense.
Truth can stand on its own.
This guy is lazy so he operates on presumptions rather than facts. He is a prisoner of his laziness and presumptions. It also appears that he hasn’t kept up with our research. He read far enough to find an excuse to stop studying and stop questioning. He wasn’t interested in the truth, but in an excuse to not expend the effort to completely understand the massive FRAUD that has been foisted upon the American people. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and he only went as far as it took to close his mind.
You got that right.
SEDM and Famguardian rock – trust me when i say it. I transformed from an innocent butterfly to a sovereign scorpion with a mighty tail, all because of famguardian and its sister site material.
Keep up the good work.
That resource was gathered before we realized how important the versions are.
Are you saying that some versions are more important than others? I am not sure i understand the substance of that statement.
Yes, I checked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals local rules and there is nothing there.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. I did not mean a scheduled motion. If before the scheduled date for the opening brief one of the parties files a motion under local FRAP 3-6 for summary disposition, does that motion stay the proceedings until it is acted upon by a judge, or should the parties still follow the calendar and file their briefs even if the motion wasn’t disposed of by the court? The court clerk informs me that such motion would put a stay on the proceeding and parties should wait until it is disposed of by the court before filing anything else – even if the due dates for briefs come and go by.
I politely answered that, while I believe her and her best intentions, I would like to see something in writing, and the lady pointed me to local FRAP 27 which had no information on this whatsoever – but it does deal with filing motions and their form. No other rules, whether local or not, say anything about this.
Thanks.
I am conflicted about the sales tax. As far as i understand it is a privilege tax laid on the sale of goods within one’s jurisdiction. That being the case, on what basis would the buyer be granted a “tax exempt” status. Shouldn’t the buyer be granted the “diplomatic privilege” or “mission privilege” that then the seller recognizes and does not charge the tax, in respect to these privileged individuals only.
Again, the sales tax is not on laid on the buyer but seller – even though the sellers have just decided to shift the burden to the consumer.
So then, we can all safely agree, that the best status to elect, at least if one wanted to voluntarily elect to obtain a SSN in order to play the 26 USC 3402(p)(3) game, and pay into the socialist war machine, the best election would be election 4 in Block 5 of SS-5 – or “Other – ‘your-state’ national and citizen.”
We found out today that rules explain that other participants have to provide a compelling reason from a state, county or local government official that requests such a number and needs it for administration of many types of federal programs within states. Is this legal? Well…..could Arizona legislate for and enforce purely voluntary quasi-contractual franchises for foreign citizens or domiciliaries?
I would say as long as it is of purely contractual nature, not quasi-contractual legislative fiat, it is perfectly legal. But it seems that SSA laws are not purely contractual, because of a unilateral power of Congress to change the rules at any time.
Still, if one wanted to partake of a socialist benefit, or if one was required as an obligation of U.S. employment, and such individual is domiciled outside of territory embraced by U.S.Const. art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 17 and art. 4, sec. 3, cl. 2, and in a state of the union, one is definitely allowed to partake in all practicality, and the ‘most’ proper status for such individual is “Other – ‘his-state’ national and citizen.
Thoughts?
Wow. Spot on.
Kudos to whovever the secret author is.
