Thank you. One case that came really handy I found in the first book you attached above. It was great proof of 'my territorial' argument that was ridiculed.

United States v. Dewitt – 76 U.S. 41 (1869) clearly said on a questions of where the legislative authority of Congress extends and whether such legislation (internal revenue laws in this case) was constitutional and operational within a state of the union. This is what the court had to say:

Footnote 2 is to License cases many of us are already familiar with.

I am yet finish reading the second book. Just wanted to report back and keep this thread alive.

Also on the subject of whether state chartered corporation are quasi govt entities and subject to the same limitations their creators are, i remembered that every single definition of the term 'person' in all laws whether state or federal always includes corporate entities, partnerships, associations and other fictional entities chartered by the same government. The only logical conclusion is that they function as an arm of the government itself and are constiutionally limited in their powers just as their creators are.

What does it mean when it says “federal courts sitting in admiralty or equity”? Does that mean that whatever the form of action was brought, for example an action in equity would make the court sit in equity?? In other words, depending on whatever form the suit was brought up, equity, admiralty or common law is what the court is “sitting in”.

Sometimes i don't think you listen. I have the same problem but i am trying to work on it.

The questions here are:

1. which forum is the best to compel performance (processing w8)

2. and how (what kind of action)

I did say it is a private employer, but what i really meant is that it is a union state corporation with no ties to the federal govt except insofar obtaining the EIN.

I've spent a better half of my day reading state Supreme Court cases and it seems that state Supreme Courts are really fond of quoting federal rules of procedure being that the states just copied them and used them as a template. They also do quote federal rulings and opinions some time as to point out how the feds opinionate on a specific issue. So it seems that one can use federal court cases as cites to help prove a point. It can't be binding though. it is just for comparison on same issues.

What evidence do you have that this some day will not see a day in court. Whether by my hand or another individuals.

I was trying to have a discussion with more than one (my) brain to think this thing through from all possible angles. The intent is not to try anything but succeed at whatever is tried. I don't get anything from filing suit listing all the allegations you mentioned, and i agreed with in post one, if they are dismissed by a prejudiced judge or a judge afraid to make an important precedent.

I dont want to turn the judge's personal beliefs and prejudices upside down by explaining to him in court the limited scope of the income tax laws. That's irrelevant. The question at hand here is what do you do when the employer refuses your testimony on w8 and contines to withhold?? I would want him to force my employer to processs the w8. Period.

Which is why i logically assumed that if one gets a small win under their belt on the issue of there being no legal authority for an employer to disregard employee claim on w8 and continue withholding without employees consent then one can proceed and file for damages.

I'll give you an example. Which of the two arguments would you think will be easier for a judge to leave his prejudices outside the courtroom and strictly look at the law.

1. Whether federal govt can prohibit ppl from using incadescent ligh bulbs in their homes

2. Whether federal govt can prohibit ppl from using private firearms in their home

To me it is obvious. Similarly if one brings suit in court alleging that the employer acted outside the law and the controversy at hand involves taxation and whether the employer had the right to tax and withhold the judge (who is most likely a somewhat brainwashed human like most of us) may be prejudiced because of the subject.

HOWEVER, if the argument ONLY involves whether the employer had authority to refuse to process a federal form then the outcome may be reached strictly from a legal perspective, no prejudice involved.

That is what i mean when i said 'does that make sense'? To you it obviously may not.

I apologize. I meant private as in not state or federal governments. Most private employers are incorporated within a state of some sort and this is what I meant.

In this case then, does it become approprite to treat the.corporation as a state entity and sue under 1983 or sue them in equity as mentionet above?? The 1983 has to be brought in federal court. The other one can be done at state level. Which would be easier to litigate and win?

What confuses me themost is the likely probability of the defendant bringing in foreign federal law as a defense in state court as an assumed legal requirement to do certain things. Then the plaintiff would rebut the prima fascie evidence but I am left contemplatigg how much does a state judge know and understand of federal law and how it lacks jurisdiction in this matter if that where to be brought up.

Just trying to understand it in my head before I can start explaining and answering some questions.