stija
Forum Replies Created
Admin,
What you refer to as ‘my presumptions’ are factual statements based in reality and supported by the law and court opinions. Thus if you DISAGREE, you CARRY the burden of proof, not reality and facts.
Your have the burden of proof. Prove with evidence that:
1. You can have a civil STATUTORY status without a federal domicile.
I am assuming you are referring to a federal statutory civil status. If that is the case, then my simple act of voting in federal elections some years ago with MY DOMICILE in AZ is factual proof that i can be a federal voter WHILE domiciled in AZ.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if you believe or assume some NONSENSE of federal authorities kidnapping my AZ domicile and transporting it to D.C. for federal voting purposes. then YOU CARRY the burden of proof to prove such frivolous and baseless presumptions.
2. There is such a thing as a “national domicile” recognized in law separate and apart. You were already asked for this by neo and myself and didn’t provide it, and therefore admitted it didn’t exist. Now you contradict yourself yet again.
There is United States residence (domicile)–see 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (10) which YOU PRESUME IS and CONFLATE WITH federal domicile. I provided it to you AGAIN yet you and Neo choose to presume that the United States is some kind of federal domicile only and does NOT include the states which goes in complete contradiction to:
1. EVERY court opinion; and
2. Article I:8 constitutional provision which is a grant of powers to United States FROM the states of the union and NOT ANYONE else.
3. That there is any delegation of authority whatsoever in regards to territories or possessions. The constitution is SILENT on such entities, as you already pointed out, except 1:8:17. All it says is that jurisdiction is exclusive and nothing more.“Under these circumstances it is little wonder that the question of annexing these territories was not made a subject of debate. The difficulties of bringing about a union of the states were so great, the objections to it seemed so formidable, that the whole thought of the convention centered upon surmounting these obstacles. The question of territories was dismissed with a single clause, apparently applicable only to the territories then existing, giving Congress the power to govern and dispose of them.
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]Obviously, The territories are covered by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. But in regards to courts, it is silent as pointed out by SCOTUS in Mookini.
Article I:8:17 deals ONLY with D.C. Article IV:3:2 instead is a delegation of authority with regard to federal possessions. I thought i made that abundantly clear through my dozens of EXPLICIT posts on this subject. Apparently not so, so here it is again.
You’re the one making presumptions.
You wish man. I am still waiting on JUST ONE court opinion supporting YOUR PRESUMPTIONS. Go ahead, any time now.
It is rather sad to see you flip-flop back and for and allege frivolities not even supported by SEDM and famguardian materials. How can you say the following:
3. That there is any delegation of authority whatsoever in regards to territories or possessions. The constitution is SILENT on such entities, as you already pointed out, except 1:8:17. All it says is that jurisdiction is exclusive and nothing more.
When Article IV:3:2 is EXPLICITLY clear as to this:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv
And Article I:8:17 EXPLICITLY clear as to this:
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
Where in the above it is not made EXPLICITLY CLEAR by the constitutional language that:
1. Article IV:3:2 grants authority to United States over territorial possesions; AND
2. Article I:8:17 grants EXCLUSIVE authority to United States over D.C.
The REAL QUESTION is:
1. Why are YOU PURPOSELY OBFUSCATING the truth and clear constitutional language?Admin,
As usual, my responses are in red faced font–the commie font.
1. Even those in receipt of a CONSTITUTIONAL franchise and therefore POLITICAL privilege such as voting don’t automatically acquire a CIVIL status under federal law by doing so. They have to accept a STATUTORY franchise and have a domicile on federal territory BEFORE they may do so. We already talked about how civil status extinguishes when domicile extinguishes and we even gave you a SCOTUS cite proving that, in the case of marriage.
Feds can implement a constitutional franchise only through civil law and anyone who accepts the mission of becoming a federal voter has accepted the civil status (what you call public office) in order to complete the mission of voting. Once mission is complete, that civil status becomes superfluous. Their domicile is and remains where they were, except the context becomes national and Congress legislates over the nation-union called the United States which includes the 50 states and D.C. (and legislatively other territorial possessions to which Congress extended such public privileges EX PROPRIO VIGORE by a leglislative act.)
2. An NRA is one who has no domicile or resulting civil status under federal STATUTORY law. As we said, the acceptance of a CONSTITUTIONAL franchise such as voting does not automatically impute a CIVIL status under federal statutory law. You’re making presumptions again.
See above statement. Acceptance of such mission does NOT change one’s domicile to federal land domicile–rather, one’s domicile within the state for state purposes becomes, or takes the character of, national domicile within the nation-union called the United States comprised of those 50 states one was domiciled in. I am not making presumptions, rather, you are making FRIVOLOUS presumptions not based in or supported by law, reality, or court opinions.
Again, CIVIL status and POLITICAL status are two opposing and completely different contexts. Most civil statuses under federal law are STATUTORY franchises not expressly granted by the constitution, such as public offices. Hence, they are EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY rather CONSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL in nature. All such offices existing under such franchises are artificial entities domiciled on federal territory. You are confusing contexts again.
NONSENSE. Federal government can ONLY legislate and act under express delegation of constitutional authority. Our federal government is one of enumerated and limited powers, and any legislation has to find its authority within a constitutional provision of some sort. Therefore, ALL federal public offices are created under a constitutionally approved authority, but may be done wrt to different geography/entities depending of where the source of authority is derived from. Compare Article I:8 and Article IV:3:2 for example.
Give me ONE example of federal law legislated by Congress that is NOT based on a constitutional provision of authority conferred to make such law. Go ahead and try and prove such a frivolity.
Please go back and reread:
Why You are a “national”, State national, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Sections 2 through 4
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdfAdmin,
I will explain it to you as easily and simply as possible.
If you think possessions are not legislatively foreign, then why are:
They are NOT legislatively foreign because they are included in the definition of States in 4 USC 110, BUT they ARE constitutionally foreign to Article I legislative powers extending over the United States–the 50 states united who surrendered that power. Remember, possessions are constitutionally reached by the United States through legislative acts passed under Article IV:3:2 and NOT Article I:8:1 which is why they have to EXPLICITLY be included in 4 USC 110.
1. The people in them non-citizen nationals of the United States per 8 USC 1191(a)(22)(B )?
http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htmThey are not 14th Amendment citizens because not born or naturalized within the United States union-nation, which is really only the 50 States (and D.C.). The other geography is territorial possessions which had not inherent sovereignty to delegate or be party to the U.S. constitution.
2. They listed as NRAs in IRS Pub 570 and 515?
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p570/index.htmlFrom the above link:
Nonresident alien. If you are a nonresident alien of the United States who does not qualify as a bona fide resident of American Samoa for the entire tax year, you generally must file the following returns.
An American Samoa tax return reporting only your income from sources within American Samoa. In this situation, wages for services performed in American Samoa, whether for a private employer, the U.S. Government, or otherwise, is income from sources within American Samoa.
A U.S. tax return (Form 1040NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return) reporting U.S. source income according to the rules for a nonresident alien. See the instructions for Form 1040NR.
THEREFORE, they ARE resident aliens per legislative inclusion in 4 USC 110 for income tax purposes, so you are wrong wrt to legislation. WRT constitutional context they are not United States residents but territorial residents which, again, is why they needed to be EXPLICITLY included in 4 USC 110.
NOTICE that “possession source income” is NOT treated as “U.S. source income”, thus implying that “U.S.” does NOT include possessions:
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p570/ch02.htmlConstitutional U.S. does NOT include possessions but they are statutorily included in 4 USC 110, thus they are legislatively not foreign. Your link supports this AND it demonstrates that United States (constitutional) and territorial possessions (constitutional) are two different entities, which they are. The territorial possessions were NOT a party to the constitution and do not constitute the United States in the constitutional sense. Instead, they are separate territorial possessions and property of the United States government not the nation-union which is the 50 states.
I hope that makes sense because it is:
1. The truth; and
2. Consistent with SEDM and famguardian material.
If you disagree, please cite SEDM or famguardian material which:
1. Alleges that territorial possessions are party to the constitution; and
2. Alleges that territorial possessions are a part of the union-nation comprised of the 50 states called the United States and NOT property of United States government. (do not confuse the United States union-nation of 50 states WITH the United States government itself–two distinct contexts per Hoover & Allison which YOU love to quote).
Admin,
I think you are wrong and i am going to explain why and prove it with quotes. My corrections of your assumptions are in red faced ink.
ANSWERS:
1. District courts cannot act under Article III except against constitutions states or constitutional citizens. They can only do what legislation expressly authorizes in respect to a federal state and are not bound by Article III in any way. As you already said, Article III and the rest of the constitution only deal with CONSTITUTIONAL states and the inhabitants thereof and are silent on federal states, territories, and possessions.
District Court are Article III courts when properly invoked period. They are NOT only Article III court when dealing with citizens or constitutional states but rather their Article III jurisdiction extends to any federal questions–a questions of federal law or federal constitution. This is precisely how i am going to sue Arizona to obtain an injunction against it for volunteering to be a federal taxpayer. The Article III wording is EXPLICIT on this:The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Article III:2 of the U.S. Constitution.
2. When it gives up those powers through legislation. However, even then they powers can be returned to them by changing the legislation. The only exception is that when they extend the protections of the Bill of Rights, they cannot afterward REVOKE those rights by legislation. This was covered in Downes v. Bidwell.
What Congress extends by legislation CAN be revoked by legislation at ANY time. Furthermore, what Congress extends by federal legislation is subject to EXCLUSIVE judiciary review under Article III because such questions arise under the laws of the United States or the federal constitution, per Article III:2 above. Thus federal district courts are not always bound by legislation because such legislative acts may be unconstitutional and thus courts have judicial authority to render it void under the federal constitution and grant relief. BUT federal courts have no judicial review powers under UNION STATES’ law or their constitutions and CANNOT grant review in those instances.
CONCLUSIONS:
People in possessions like American Samoa and Swain’s Island:
1. Are independent and self-governing, just like the Constitutional states.
Not even close to the constitutional states man, but they are self-governing in as much as Congress lets them.
2. Make and enforce their own laws and they are therefore legislatively foreign in respect to the U.S. government, just like Constitutional states.
They are not legislatively foreign man. How can you say that when they ARE FEDERAL territorial possessions under Article IV:3:2? What land is not foreign to the feds if their own territories are?
3. Are nonresident aliens and statutory non-citizen nationals OF THE UNITED STATES per 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(B ).
American Samoans and other territorial possession residents are NOT NRA and statutorily foreign. They are residents of Article IV:3:2 possessions and thus live on federal property. Unless i am missing something or don’t know what you know, do share it with me so that i can understand on what knowledge you base your conclusion.
That is NOT to say that people in Constitutional states don’t have standing to sue a federal actor. However, all such standing is provided NOT by the Federal Tort Claims Act or any other “Act of Congress”, but exclusively the Constitution, which itself is self-executing and needs no enacting legislation for violation of rights. Those in possessions or territories, on the otherhand, have no such remedies at their disposal because they are not protected by the Bill of Rights or any part of the Constitution. As the SCOTUS said in Downes v. Bidwell, they are more like “British Crown Colonies than republican states of America”.
Who do the first two sentences in the above paragraphs refer to? You later say “on the other hand” those in possessions…which leads me to believe that you talked about someone else in the first two sentences. Who are you referring to?
The Federal Tort Claims Act not only PROVIDES statutory remedies, it LIMITS them with a statute of limitations. Congress in respect to a state protected by the Constitution, CANNOT limit any remedy provided by the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that Congress can simply pass a law to nullify the very document from which ALL of its authority to even exist derives. Nonsense.
I agree. Why are you including the federal tort claims act in this discussion? Are you assuming that 1332(d)(5) refers ONLY to Federal Tort Claims Act? If so, use your own logic and do NOT assume what is not EXPLICITLY included there. Now, assuming it talks about Federal Tort Claims Act, the DC could still provide relief under Article III:2 judiciary review of the Tort Claim Act if it found improprieties under it or something non-constitutional. However the ONLY state officer or agency that DC ABSOLUTELY CANNOT provide relief against are constitutional state officers and agencies acting under state law or state constitutions, which is what 1332(d)(5)(A) refers to.Admin,
Section 28 USC 1332(d)(5) says:
(5) Paragraphs (2) through (4) shall not apply to any class action in which—
(A) the primary defendants are States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; orQuestions:
1. In what instance would a federal Article III District Court be foreclosed from ordering relief against a federal state or territorial possession?
2. In what world does United States not enjoy exclusive (over D.C.) and proprietary (over territorial possessions) jurisdiction over its states?
I contend, you are COMPLETELY wrong and making an argument where there is NOT an argument to be made. The Judiciary Act is an obvious law passed on Article III of the federal constitution and is thus constitutional law.
28 U.S.C. 1332(e)
(e) The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
I contend that there is no need to include the states, as that term is used in the constitution, in its own definition. BUT there is need to include other geographical locations and “federal states” which are not states as that term is used in the constitution so as to extend them the diversity jurisdiction by statute. You know, Congress can extend constitutional protections to its own land. See Downes v. Bidwell.
But because you are stubborn with an irrelevancy, let me send you on another irrelevant mission.
Question:
1. Where in the U.S. Constitution are the states EXPRESSLY included in the definition of the term “state” or “states” as they are used in that document?
The same answer to my question applies to your own STUPID question.
Using inflammatory and accusatory language without all the facts will get you nowhere. Now I know why you lost in court. If you want to keep losing, don’t change your tactics.
😆 I lost in court because i prejudiced myself with the judicial officer by claiming the following FRIVOLITIES:
1. That i am a NRA BECAUSE domiciled in a state; and
2. That the United States in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (10) does NOT include the states; and
Had i NOT alleged such frivolities, the judicial officer maybe would have not taken me for a kook and idiot and may have moved past these FRIVOLITIES to get to the underlying issues of liability. Instead, I got the THE SAME EXACT TREATMENT that Hansen got–a cold silent shoulder–which is a polite middle finger.
Trying to attack my character or appeal to my ego won’t work. I am willing to concede that i am wrong WHEN I AM WRONG, unlike some other people. The truth begins with the mirror. Try it, it is not that bad.
2. Here is an example of voting, which is a constitutional franchise privilege, being identified as a franchise.
“Long ago in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1071, 30 L.Ed. 220 the Court referred to ‘the political franchise of voting’ as a ‘fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.’ Recently in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561—562, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1381, 12 L.Ed.2d. 506, we said, ‘Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.’ There we were considering charges that voters in one part of the State had greater representation per person in the State Legislature than voters in another part of the State.
[Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections Butts v. Harrison, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d. 169, 1965 WL 130114 (1966)]
When not serving as voter, you are PRIVATE. Only when on duty are you PUBLIC. It is only a franchise to ensure that aliens can’t vote and to ensure that felons don’t vote either. The purpose is public protection, and I endorse that type of regulation.
1. The political franchise referred to in the above quoted opinion, is either federal or state. Which one are they referring to?
2. If you agree that it is federal, then who administers it, feds or states?
3. If you agree that the feds administer it and that it is a federal franchise, can feds franchise rights within a state for state citizens?
4. If you agree that feds can’t franchise rights within a state for state citizens, which is the truth, then the only other citizens they are franchising for purposes of federal elections are constitutional (14th Amend.) U.S. citizens who can only be private people because only private people can vote.
QUESTION:
1. When one is serving as a federal voter, is he serving a FEDERAL public duty or STATE public duty? (the answer is obvious as this is a rhetorical question)
Thus, one cannot be:
1. A constitutional state citizen to vote in a federal franchise, but has to accept a federal public office called the U.S. citizen for PURPOSES of voting in the franchise.
2. An NRA–as a state citizen–in relation to the feds and vote like that.
Which is why the NRA and state citizenship arguments are flawed and frivolous when federal rights are at issue. When such is the case, or context as you like to call it, then one assumes the ONLY OTHER possible capacity which is the U.S. citizen.
So a state citizen would have to accept a federal public right/office to vote in federal elections right?
So he has to accept the u.s. citizen status right? I agree and that is my whole point with this dual sovereign character. He can’t vote as a state citizen or NRA or can he?
Admin,
You are beyond wrong.
3.1.1 Constitutional franchises all relate to humans.
3.1.2 Statutory franchises all relate to public offices.
Nothing in the constitution is a constitutional franchise of private rights. Where do you allege the evidence for this FRIVOLOUS claim is?
The constitution is a delegation/conferral of powers to the United States and prohibitions against certain acts in the Bill of Rights. NOTHING in the constitution grants a private right or privilege, which is what franchising does. So you ARE BEYOND WRONG.
Because the U.S. constitution deals with government rights, and because Article I:8:1-18 is a DELEGATION of FEDERAL RIGHTS to Congress, then any law passed on it will also deal with strictly FEDERAL RIGHTS and any proceeding dealing with these rights will properly end up in an Article I court and NOT Article III court.
You SERIOUSLY need to re-examine your foundation man. Or get your head out of your ass. The sooner the better. Your whole premise is wrong and needs not be addressed by me until you pose a proper question.
This is ALSO the EXACT reason why Hansen did not get a response from the court. The courts are not under an obligation to respond to unfounded claims or requests. Because these forums should be a mock court, you will get the same treatment that Hansen got until you post something that is supported in:
1. Reality;
2. Constitution;
3. Statutes;
4. Courts.
What you are posting is not congruent with the above enumerated requirements. Sorry.
RESPONSES:
1. Post 3:
1.1 STATEMENT: Second, the United States in 26 USC 7701 is the constitutional United States because IRC is promulgated on Congress Art. I:8:1 constitutional authority thus IT CAN ONLY be the constitutional United States.
REBUTTAL: FALSE. Produce the EXPRESS inclusion of the constitutional states in the GEOGRAPHICAL context consistent with the rules of statutory construction. You still can’t and therefore the exclusio unius rule applies. Neo is right. If it really is an article I power:
I will produce it when you produce the EXPRESS inclusion of the constitutional states in the GEOGRAPHICAL context within the U.S. constitution itself. You are beyond ridiculous man, hopefully you will wake up one day. Or not, that is your choice.
1.1.1 Why is it heard in an Article 1 franchise court as described in 26 USC 7441 instead of an Article III court? This implies that even when heard in a district court, its still an Article I rather than III function. Article 1 courts only deal with matters INTERNAL to the executive branch of the government. See Freytag v. Commissioner.
It is heard in an Article I court because IRC is a matter of United States federal right, thus it is heard in their Article I court. Are you alleging that IRC deals with private rights and should be heard in an Article III court? Again, your contention is BEYOND RIDICULOUS.
1.1.2 Why is there no express delegation of Article III powers to any district court except Hawaii?
I have no idea. Would you mind referencing what you are talking about?? Every DC within a union state is an Article III court if properly invoked by a party under Article III.
1.1.3 Why do the geographical terms limit it to NOT include constitutional states?
I don’t know what reference you are talking about.
1.1.4 Why are the taxes upon PUBLIC “persons” and PUBLIC OFFICES. Article 1 deals ONLY with PRIVATE humans, not artificial entities.
Taxes are on corporate privilege (trade or business) or a federal kickback scheme in Subtitle C (national government) in perfect harmony with the 16th Amendment proposal by Taft. Article I deals with United States rights, and Article III deals with private rights, so your second statement is false and RIDICULOUS.
1.2 STATEMENT: “2. 28 USC 1332 deals with states of the union just like 28 USC 1652 Rules of Decision Act deals with states of the union. Or does it not Admin?”
REBUTTAL: Prove it! 28 USC 1332(e) does not EXPRESSLY include states of the Union and therefore expressly EXCLUDES them per rules of statutory construction. No presumptions and no statue worshipping religion in these forums. Only FACTS. The law is the delegation order that limits government power and it HAS to be in there or it doesn’t exist.
Admin, SEDM and famguardian material rely on 26 USC 1652 called the Rules of Decision Act which, ACCORDING TO SEDM and famguardian material bind the courts to apply the laws of the union states as the decisions in federal courts, yet you DENY that now by saying that states referred to in 1332(e) and 1652 of 28 USC are the federal states. Do you see the RIDICULITY of your stance? You CANT HAVE it BOTH ways man.
2. Post 4:
2.1 STATEMENT: “4. 28 USC 1332 CANNOT be invoked to deal with public rights because to invoke a diversity of citizenship one must be an Art. 3:2 proper constitutional state citizen. Thus it can be invoked only by private parties who are indeed state citizens”.
REBUTTAL: FALSE: The definition of “States” in 28 USC 1332(e) excludes constitutional states. This statute is for diversity within territories, because the constitution is silent on territories.
Hahahahahahaha and ha. That’s what i say. What is the Rules of Decision Act in 28 USC 1652? Does that deal with territories as well and not union states? If that is so, then you need to correct some of SEDM and famguardian materials man.
CONCLUSION:
We’re still waiting for proof that constitutional states are EXPRESSLY included. No presumptions PLEASE.
“The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.”
[Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 , 238, et seq., 31 S.Ct. 145; Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1 , 5-6, 49 S.Ct. 215]
“It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.“
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
“The United States Supreme Court cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute.”
[Federal Trade Com. v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 360 U.S. 55, p. 55, 475042/56451 (1959)]
This forum, like the other one recently started, will have all additional posts by you beyond now DELETED unless and until you produce legal evidence proving that the states are EXPRESSLY include or confirming they are included by the SCOTUS. Every other form of continuing verbal diarrhea from you will be DELETED because its a political rather than factual discussion and these forums are a mock court. A judge would sanction you for talking without supporting evidence or sharing inadmissible opinions, and that is how we sanction people here. You’re trying to delay or obstruct justice and we won’t tolerate it. Its called “striking the pleadings”. If you continue in this line, your account will be locked and you will be locked out. We don’t tolerate this kind of abuse in our courtroom.
Go ahead an lock me. I don’t care man, and you obviously do NOT care about the truth. That much has become obvious to me.
You are NOTHING BUT PRESUMPTIONS and ALL materials on SEDM and famguardian are political and religious speech UNTIL someone signs their name to it under penalty of perjury in a court of law. Since this is NOT a court of law, then ALL of your material is religious speech and should be deleted BY YOUR OWN RULES hereby made.
Stop being ridiculous man, and EXPLAIN why:
1. SEDM and famguardian material contends that 26 USC 1652 deals and refers to states of the union; BUT
2. You keep contending that 28 USC 1332(e) does not include states of the union.
WHICH IS IT??? You CANNOT have it both ways. Where does 28 USC EXPRESSLY include states of the union in 1652 but not 1332(e)? Do show me pretty please.
@Neo,
The political sense is always a context in law man, but when they refer to geography they do so to delineate where the SMJ is going to be operative. I do understand that you believe that states of the union have to be explicitly included, but i challenge you to explain to me why they must be explictly included in federal law when they are not explicitly included or enumerated in the constitution either.
In BOTH federal law and the constitution they are referred to as states, and we all know that only the 50 states are states in the constitutional context, which is where the legislative powers come from Article I:8:1-18 being conferred by the STATES THEMSELVES.
Federal law is indeed law for the public officer or office, I never contended otherwise. But a U.S. citizen is neither a trade or business nor an employee and has no duty under the IRC until he receives payments in connection with the trade or business or accepts employment as an employee (public office) and also he is NOT domiciled in D.C. or federal land but within the nation called the United States over which the federal legislation is operative.
Admin said more of the same:
4. Statutes such as 28 USC 1332 would be invoked for a tax case because they deal ONLY with public rights and franchises. Constitutional diversity in Article III Section 2 deals with PRIVATE rights and would be invoked only when both parties are PRIVATE non-corporate entities.
5. There may only be ONE truth, but there is always TWO contexts.
5.1 Civil STATUTES deal with PUBLIC rights. 5.2 CONSTITUTIONAL context deals with PRIVATE rights. Both of the above stand on their own and do not overlap.
6. The court seems to deal interchangeably with 28 USC 1332 and Article III Section 2 as if they are equivalent. This is a ruse. This sort of OVERSIMPLIFICATION is a logical fallacy called “equivocation” and it is designed to advantage the person who engages in it. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
4. 28 USC 1332 CANNOT be invoked to deal with public rights because to invoke a diversity of citizenship one must be an Art. 3:2 proper constitutional state citizen. Thus it can be invoked only by private parties who are indeed state citizens.
5. Yes. One correct one. However if you partake of the public rights, such as driving a motor vehicle then you become the individual regulated by such law and your actions are deemed consent to regulation. ALL civil American laws function like this.
6. NONSENSE. Not worthy of a response because not based in reality.
Admin, .333 seems to be your batting average. Not bad for baseball at all–bad for the truth and this ministry.
Admin said:
NOTES:
1. The “United States” found in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) is different than that which is the subject above. This issue did NOT deal with a tax issue and therefore presumes the constitutional U.S.
2. 28 USC 1332 and Article III, Section 2 do not deal with the same geography because the “State” in 28 U.S.C. 1332(e) is not a CONSTITUTIONAL state. http://www.law.corne…de/text/28/1332
3. Constitutional “persons” are not equal to statutory “persons”. CONSTITUTIONAL persons are always private. STATUTORY persons are always PUBLIC. Corporations, for instance, are NOT constitutional “persons”. All constitutional “persons” are PRIVATE humans, while all statutory “persons” are PUBLIC corporations and artificial entities.
1. The issue above did not deal with taxing authority of Congress, thus 26 USC 7701 is irrelevant first. Second, the United States in 26 USC 7701 is the constitutional United States because IRC is promulgated on Congress Art. I:8:1 constitutional authority thus IT CAN ONLY be the constitutional United States.
2. 28 USC 1332 deals with states of the union just like 28 USC 1652 Rules of Decision Act deals with states of the union. Or does it not Admin?
3. Constitutional person are not ALWAYS equal to statutory persons. Admin is most certainly right that state corporations are NOT United States citizens, but federal corporations are. Although neither are constitutional citizens. A private person may properly be referred to as a person in federal law, but they are not always equal. If you partake of a subject being regulated by Art. I legislation, you have implicitly consented to being the individual regulated by you participation in the subject.
So 1/3 is not bad Admin. But you have ti be careful what you allege because sometimes it just doesn’t make sense nor does it jive with the truth.
This is just one example you reference here where courts explain that NRA can bring suits in federal courts under Article III. This shows three things:
1. Article III courts are district courts empower under law promulgated under Art. III;
2. NRA can bring suits in federal courts;
3. NRA referred to in this decision are of foreign nationality.
There’s only one truth. You seem to agree with it here with this post.
Admin,
You overwhelm with useless or moot points. There’s no need to address them.
For example, counterfeiting FRN’s is a legislated crime under Article I and not a real crime against private rights such as murder or theft, thus Mookini is IRRELEVANT man.
Also I did not avoid the question about citizenship, I simply found it irrelevant and moot. If Title 8 says they are citizens then they are just as much of u.s.citizens as any other. There’s no distinction between a u.s. citizen based on his domicile. His domicile may commute other rights such as residual state rights inherent in his domicile within a state.
I don’t propose a theory, far from it. The only one’s proposing a theory of NRA are you or Neo. I answered all your irrelevant questions and everything squares out under the truth:
1. The constitution.
2. The codes.
3. The courts.Again man, put up or shut up.
One authoritative court opinion affirming NRA position? Courts can entertain NRA claims so long as the substantive rights argued about are federal. See 26 USC 7426 as one STATUTORY example.
Yes, I agree that it’s pointless. It is pointless because:
1. You live in fantasy land.
2. No court opinion supports what you allege.
3. The court opinions you quote EITHER are not relative to the argument at hand OR plainly support the truth when read as a whole.
Take this made up and blatantly frivolous conclusion of yours:
RESPONSES:1. Post 124:
1.1. STATEMENT: R#1.1. The statutes clearly include states in every definition of the united states. This ministry is of the opinion that the states referred are the federal states, but Article I legislation deals with powers the states conferred to Congress, thus the only states it can include by default is the same states that granted them the powers. Because D.C. is not a part of states anymore, it needs to be included explicitly…and it is in 7701(a)(9) for example.
REBUTTAL: 7701(a)(9) defines “United States” as “the States”. The term “the States” is then defined as federal territories in 4 U.S.C. 110(d). 5 U.S.C. 110(d) is the basis for the Buck Act, which is the ONLY authority for state taxes, and it EXCLUDES CONSTITUTIONAL states.
The term states is the same term states used in the constitution–you know the same states that conferred sovereignty to the U.S. over subjects in Art. I:8:1-18. Thus, D.C. not being subjected by default to cl. 1 but cl. 17 instead is included explicitly in 7701 to avoid confusion and someone resorting to rules of statutory construction to avoid paying a tax in D.C. As far as 4 USC 110(d) goes, before I explain that one i’d like to point you to 4 USC 103 which requires assent from the states before lands can be purchased. By your rationale feds are requiring assent from themselves before they can purchase their own lands from themselves. RIDICOLUOUS. 4 USC 110(d) includes other things within the same general class of things into the term states because they are not states as that term is used in the constitution. But they are part of the nation. Neo and myself agreed that U.S. is geographically comprised of the 50 states, D.C. and territorial possessions. Thus, possessions are part of the union-nation and thus in the same general class as D.C. and the states, which is why they are explicitly included in 110(d) as states. But they are not states as that term is used in the constitution so they have to be EXPLICITLY included just like D.C. in 7701.TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701. [Internal Revenue Code]
Sec. 7701. – Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(9) United States
The term ”United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ”State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
TITLE 4 – FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 4 – THE STATESSec. 110. Same; definitions
(d) The term ”State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
1.2. STATEMENT: R#2.3. Title 8 includes states in United States.
REBUTTAL: Show me WHERE in the definitions the term “State” EXPRESSLY includes “the 50 states” or CONSTITUTIONAL states. It isn’t there and therefore is purposefully excluded. See: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Section%2014.htm
1.3. STATEMENT: R#2.4 “I state, in full accord with SCOTUS opinions, constitutional provisions and rules of statutory construction, that both 1303 and 7701 include states of the union in their definitions of United States.”
REBUTTAL: Show me precisely where in 26 U.S.C. 7701 and 42 USC 1301. “States” are defined as either the District of Columbia in 7701(a)(10) or federal territory in 4 U.S.C. 110(d).
See above explanation.1.4. STATEMENT: R#2.5 “Your allegation of IRC And SS being Article IV:3:2 legislation is: 1. Frivolous; 2. Not even supported by SEDM and famguardian materials;
3. A half assed attempt to wiggle out of this argument and curve fit the truth around this ministry’s material.”
REBUTTAL: Show me one piece of legislation that EXPRESSLY GRANTS Article III jurisdiction to the federal courts. In the absense of express delegation, then these courts MUST be NON-constitutional or EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL courts. The present courts don’t even have THE SAME NAME as those in Article III. They are called “United States District Courts” rather than “District Courts of the United States”. The Supreme Court said in Mookini that all “United States District Courts” are TERRITORIAL rather than CONSTITUTIONAL courts. A whole book has been written about this one subject: What Happened to Justice?, http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/WhatHappJustice/WhatHappJustice.htm
The term “District Courts of the United States,” as used in Criminal Appeals Rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, had its historic significance and described courts created under article 3 of Constitution, and did not include territorial courts.
[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938), Evidence Book 3, Exhibit 16]
[headnote 2. Courts, emphasis added]
____________________________________________________________________
Where statute authorized Supreme Court to prescribe Criminal Appeals Rules in District Courts of the United States including named territorial courts, omission in rules when drafted of reference to District Court of Hawaii, and certain other of the named courts, indicated that Criminal Appeals Rules were not to apply to those [latter] courts.[Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938), Evidence Book 3, Exhibit 16]
[headnote 4. Courts, emphasis added]
____________________________________________________________________
United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution [U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344]
[Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d. 1169 (5th Cir. 1972)]
[headnote 2. Courts]
Mookini quoted red-faced text indicates that the context was CRIMINAL JURISDICTION which is strictly territorial. Nothing in Article I suggests a conferral of criminal jurisdiction by the states to the U.S. Thus your claim is moot wrt this thread and SMJ.
The next quote says that USDC have only subject matter jurisdiction as conferred by an Act of Congress. Neo has activated such a court with such an Act of Congress granting him that right. 26 USC 7421, 7422 and 7426 are other examples.1.5. STATEMENT: R#2.5. Again, this is where we completely disagree. For a while I drank the same Koolaid, but not anymore friend. You are flat out wrong and claiming a frivolity. BECAUSE these are passed on Article I powers, and because Art. I:8:1 powers are wrt states ONLY, the Congress needed to include D.C. explicitly because it was not part of any state anymore, and so they did. The states are included by default because Article I powers were DELEGATED to the United States BY THE FRIGGING STATES and not anyone else.
REBUTTAL: You can’t add things that aren’t EXPRESSLY there per the rules of statutory construction. That legislating from the bench. If they COULD put it there, they would have and since they didn’t, we have NO CHOICE but to assume that they are purposefully excluded.
26 USC 7421, 7422, 7426 and many many more.“”When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945) ; Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”
[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]”
__________________________
KeyCite Notes
361 Statutes
361VI Construction and Operation
361VI(A) General Rules of Construction
361k187 Meaning of Language
361k194 k. General and Specific Words and Provisions. Most Cited Cases
Under rule of “ejusdem generis,” where general words follow specific words in statutory enumeration, general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by preceding specific words.
[Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 114-115 (2001), Headnotes under Westlaw]
Territorial possessions and D.C. are in the same general geographical class as the 50 states wrt the United States nation-union. They all in fact comprise the geographical component of the United States body politic. The U.S. just exercises different types of sovereignty over the three geographical components subject to the delegation of powers in the constitution.1.6. STATEMENT: R#3.1. I NEVER alleged Brushaber was either subject to IRC or subject to it because of citizenship. Brushaber was not subject to the IRC. Income earned by him in his involvement with a privileged entity was subject to the tax and the entity collected it and paid it which is when he sued. The moral of the story is that RESIDENCE was irrelevant. Also, he is not the NRA referred to in the T.D. 2313, and assuming so is dangerous.
REBUTTAL: Brushaber was mentioned in TD 2313 so why would he NOT be the subject of that TD. See appendix: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm
Brushaber’s ruling was mentioned to put on notice all NRA (foreign nationals and domestic nationals domiciled abroad) that SCOTUS just ruled that INCOME ACCRUED to ANYONE on earth FROM DOMESTIC corporate sources is subject to the tax. That is the jist of T.D. 2313. But you want to convince my that Secretary of Treasury didn’t find SCOTUS opinion as authoritative enough wrt Brushaber and wanted to put him on notice personally?1.7. STATEMENT: R#3.3. I suggest you re-read the Alfonso Larrain court opinon or Slaughterhouse Cases which explain that a U.S. citizen can be domiciled in a state or without a state and how the former confers a second sovereign capacity wrt to state matters/concerns. So you’re wrong. A U.S. citizen can be domiciled wherever he affixes his domicile but if he does so without a state of the union, the law will commute a domicile in D.C. if be invokes a federal legal right.
RESPONSE: The law will NOT ALWAYS commute a domicile in D.C. if he invokes a federal right unless it is a STATUTORY or PUBLIC right as a public officer. See 26 USC 7701(a)(39) and 7408(d). If it is a constitutional right being vindicted, the law of the geographic place he is domiciled will apply per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. If he is domiciled in Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico has had the constitution extended to it by Congress without becoming a state, then the common law and constitution of Puerto Rico would be the ONLY rules of decision under Federal Civil Rule 44.1.
You’re presuming things I did not say. Notice the red faced font in my statement. If a citizen is domiciled abroad the federal law will most certainly affix him a domicile in D.C. if he invokes his civil status under ANY federal law while abroad. What you are saying is correct but moot wrt my statement. There are no constitutional rights to be vindicated outside the 50 states or D.C. NONE!1.8. STATEMENT: R#5.1. Read 26 USC 7701, the language cannot be clearer. If not a citizen OR resident of United States, one is an NRA. I am a citizen resident–resident of AZ specifically–thus I am not a NRA. Proven.
RESPONSE: The rules of statutory construction forbid adding any thing or class of thing not EXPRESSLY appearing in the statutes. You can’t add whatever you want, even if the Constitution authorizes it. It HAS to be in the statute or it isn’t there.
I live in a state and am a political citizen of it. The states need not be included in the statutes just like apples need not be included in apples friend. But D.C. needs to be included in states because it aint a state as that term is used in the Constitution.1.9. STATEMENT: R#6.1. There is no conflict of any kind because sovereignty is split and what one govt controls the other cannot. Article I legislation is operative only wrt to individuals who accept the mission of involving themselves with the subjects regulated REGARDLESS of their civil status man.
RESPONSE: No. Article 1 legislative jurisdiction applies to those who accept the STATUS subject to regulation, regardless of whether they are engaged in the physical activity or not. Any other approach is theft, slavery, and eminent domain without compensation. Governments are FOUNDED to protect your right to NOT contract and NOT associate. You can only acquire a CIVIL status and therefore an association and COMPACT status with your EXPRESS consent.
Article I legislation mandates duties wrt transactions or actions generating or paying income, or other payments wrt a tax is imposed. The duties are most certainly mandated on individuals who can be jurisdictionally reached through their civil status. For eg. a duty on the withholding agent is mandated wrt payments made to NRA because Congress has no authority over the NRA unless the sovereign exercising jurisdiction over the residence of the NRA consents to it. But states have already consented and delegated authority for taxation in Art. I:8:1 under which the law in question is passed. Thus if I am a U.S. citizen under the IRC and DO NOT come in contact with income or payments generating/included in income, no duty is mandated on my civil status of a U.S. citizen domiciled in United States as that term is defined in 7701. Thus the status by itself is NOT subject to legislation. It’s a combination of status and action/partaking of the subject being regulated.
1.10. STATEMENT: 7.1.4. United States is NOT defined as federal territory within 26 USC. It is defined as the 50 States and D.C. in 7701. That’s the jist of our disagreement really.
RESPONSE: See earlier reference to rules of statutory construction.
Yes, you should to the same friend. Maybe you should also read ANY SCOTUS opinion dealing with this subject to see how wrong you are.1.11. STATEMENT: 7.1.5.1-3. There are federal regulations wrt specific sections that impose a duty on non federal personnel. United States includes the whole geography of the union-nation plus D.C.
REBUTTAL: No there are NOT. Show me a regulation from part 1 of 26 CFR that applies 26 U.S.C. 1 to OTHER than a public officer. This is covered ad nauseum within: 1. Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032; 2. IRS Due Process Meeting Handout, Form #03.008.
26 CFR 1.1-1 imposes a tax on income of every individual resident and citizen of the United States. Residents and citizens of the United States are not public officers–I am one of them–and it imposes no duties on them directly but rather on their taxable income. If they have no taxable income, there is no duty to be imposed.
But in your mind a resident or citizen of the United States is a federal entity or personnel. You should re-read Alfonso Larrain court opinion and see if Bettison was federal personnel even though the court appelled him a U.S. citizen without state domicile.1.12. STATEMENT: 7.1.7. They ignored Hansen’s request. The court is under no duty to explain the law or address baseless requests.
REBUTTAL: The rules of statutory construction are NOT frivolous or baseless. A whole book documents them and you agree with them as mentioned earlier by your failure to DISAGREE.
Meaning of the words “includes” and “including”
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/FalseRhetoric/Includess.pdf
I agree with the meaning of the words include and including. We disagree that territorial possessions and D.C. are in the same geographical class as the states of the union are with respect to the geography of United States nation-union. I DID NOT state that rules of statutory construction are frivolous.
RATHER, I stated that Hansen’s CLAIM and ALLEGATION were insufficient.2. Post 127:
2.1 STATEMENT: “How is one domiciled upon this theoretical “union-nation” land mass? There is no such thing as a national “union-nation” land mass that one can be domiciled upon. There is no legal basis for this anywhere. I understand how and why you have concluded this. I just don’t agree with it.”
RESPONSE: Agreed. I already made that point but Stija CONVENIENTLY ignored it and therefore admitted BOTH of us are correct on it.
We agreed that 50 states are a geographical part of the United States nation-union. If that is so, and unless you guys would like to change your mind now, then anyone domiciled within one of these 50 states is also domiciled on what you guys call the ‘theoretical mass’ of the United States. 26 USC 7701 calls it United Stats geography, which is what we agreed.
But it amazes me how you guys change your mind when it doesn’t fit your beliefs anymore.
REPHRASE OF PREVIOUS QUESTIONS:Let me rephrase my questions about citizenship, because D.C. is obviously a special case as a territory protected by the constitution.
1. What would you call those in Puerto Rico who are ONLY TERRITORIAL “U.S. citizen” but not state citizens within Title 8 of the U.S. Code?
U.S. citizens if the law in Title 8 allows for that. Does it? But they are not state citizens, as in the 5th Amendment does not apply unless Congress applied it EX PROPRIO VIGORE.2. Does an 8 USC 1401 citizen also include Puerto Rico or American Samoa citizens?
If the legal evidence allows for that then yes it does. But again, they are not state domiciliaries or citizens thus Bill of Rights does not apply to the land where they are domiciled unless Congress extended it to them.3. Does 8 USC 1401 include citizens domiciled in a CONSTITUTIONAL state?
It most certainly does, only if they are born or naturalized properly per 14th Amendment.4. If 8 USC 1401 DOES include state citizens, by what authority can one acquire a civil status under national statutory law without a domicile within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government?
I am not sure I understand this question. If you are asking how one acquires a federal civil status without domicile within the ‘theoretical mass’ of the United States, then the obvious answer is that he does NOT acquire it. One has to be domiciled either in a state, D.C. or territorial possessions.5. If it does, how do you distinguish a STATE citizen from a Territorial or Possession citizen in Title 8?
You don’t for purposes of Title 8. What kind of a discriminatory question is that? How do you distinguish between a California domiciliary and a Texas domiciliary who are both U.S. citizens under Title 8?? I seriously do not understand what you are trying to prove with this question, but there is no difference. If one is granted national citizenship, then he is a citizen. The constitutional rights and protections apply to the land one is domiciled on, thus a citizen in Puerto rico does not enjoy the same constitutional protections as does a citizen in California, and a citizen in France has none.6. Even if I live in a constitutional state, what would you call me if I DO NOT consent to a civil domicile there?
Transient foreigner, inhabitant or stateless person. Foreign sovereign is also a good one, but you have to claim protection of some other foreign sovereign, even if it’s God. And then hope that U.S. respects God because it sure does not respect many other sovereigns such as Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Pakistan, India, China, Afghanistan, etc. So pick one that is well respected because you may need to invoke its protections against the U.S. sovereign while domiciled here. Or just invoke constitutional protections because they apply to anyone domiciled in D.C. or the states.SCOTUS said people in territories live under the equivalent of a crown colony. I DON’T want a statutory citizenship status that could be confused with such people.
Civil status DOES NOT COMMUTE a dictatorship or rights. RATHER domicile does, THUS do not live there.“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to ‘guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government’ (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, ‘a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,’ Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
I allege that since there is no SEPARATE “union-nation” mentioned in Title 8 of the USC, I can’t have a civil DOMICILE or STATUS anywhere within federal jurisdiction, and 40 USC 3111 and 3112 agree with me. I can’t and won’t have simultaneous allegiance to two competing governments and I would have a conflict of interest and violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act if I did.
3112 agrees with you but Title 8 does not operate only within federal land. You are conflating the exclusive territorial jurisdiction within D.C. and other lands purchased under that clause with SMJ within the whole nation, or the ‘theoretical mass’ as you guys like to call it. Per Title 8 you are a u.s citizen if born or naturalized in United States. The United States is the same one from the constitution, which I know you know includes the 50 states, D.C. and territorial possessions.“The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time this court has adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power which springs from the bankruptcy clause. United States v. Butler, supra.”
[Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, 298 U.S. 513; 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936)]
________________________________________________________________________
“It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.“
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
Congress most certainly does not possess regulatory powers wrt to internal affairs of a state. IRC deals with assessment and collection of income taxes and has nothing to do with internal affairs of the state. Do not receive taxable income and theres nothing to regulate, whether you are citizen or resident or nra.
I will be filing a lawsuit against my state pretty soon wrt to the first quote, because IRC most certainly has no rights over political affairs of my state government because my state government cannot by the separation of powers and dual sovereign doctrines trespass into the regulatory sphere of Congress under Art. I:8:1. Remember, what is reserved was not surrendered, thus if my government reserved the rights to run itself, then it cannot partake of United States delegated rights by running on rights reserved and never ceded to the U.S. gov’t.
CONCLUSIONS:The only one drinking Koolaid is Stija.
1. He adds things or classes of things to the definition of geographical terms that don’t expressly appear. Its called legislating from the bench and its unconstitutional and a violation of due process of law. Such acts are also an act of state religion.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf2. He calls the rules of statutory construction and interpretation that are the foundation of our arguments FRIVOLOUS.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Includes.pdf3. He PRESUMES jurisdiction that doesn’t EXPRESSLY exist in statutes in violation of due process of law. That PRESUMPTION is the equivalent of faith toward a state-sponsored man-worshipping religion.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Presumption.pdf4. He says sovereigns can’t impose duties on others, and yet indirectly he advances the OPPOSITE by:
4.1 Imposing a status they do not expressly consent to against which PUBLIC rights and obligations attach.
4.2 Defining terms in such a way that people have to make themselves into public officers WITHOUT their consent.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Consent.pdf5. He agrees that courts can’t operate in a political mode, and yet he invokes a POLITICAL rather than CIVIL/STATUTORY status as the source of their jurisdiction. NONSENSE.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf6. He agrees that governments have no jurisdiction over private rights, and yet he imposes PUBLIC rights, statuses, and obligations against PRIVATE people without their consent. Then he implies that this is NOT slavery and that it does NOT violate the Thirteenth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment takings clause.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Consent.pdf7. He agrees that governments are instituted to protect PRIVATE rights, and yet sanctions and condones and protects the ABUSE of every type of GOVERNMENT property, including franchises, as a means to DESTROY and CONVERT PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights WITHOUT the EXPRESS and CONTINUING consent of the owner, when it is lent out to people. This includes SSNs, TINS, driver licenses, license plates, ID cards, and even sovereignty delegated by Article 1, Section 8. Nonsense.
8. He PRESUMES that POLITICAL and STATUTORY terms or statuses are equivalent. They ARE NOT.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf9. He vainly IMAGINES a “nation-union” jurisdiction that nowhere expressly appears in any statute or court ruling. That’s curve fitting. TAKE NOTE: We agree that such a union exists POLITICALLY. That is not the question. The issue is WHERE does it exists LEGISLATIVELY. CONSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL are not equivalent to STATUTORY/CIVIL. Different contexts.
10. When we try to apply his CONSTITUTIONAL arguments to STATUTORY context, they completely fall apart because of the definitions. The reason is because these two contexts are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE and NON-OVERLAPPING. This must be so because the ONLY thing Congress can regulate are PUBLIC rights of those who VOLUNTEERED to be public officers by CONSENSUALLY acquiring the CIVIL STATUTORY STATUS of “citizen” or “resident” and who were not punished or deprived in any way for NOT doing it. In other words, people who join the CLUB and thereby become subject to the CIVIL SOCIAL COMPACT.
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf11. He agrees that governments can only pass civil laws to regulate their OWN public offices and property, and yet he refuses to explain how one can be a PUBLIC officer engaged in a PUBLIC right without their consent and without slavery that violates the Thirteenth Amendment. Recall that the Thirteenth Amendment applies EVERYWHERE including federal territory.
12. He PRESUMES that “United States District Courts” are article III or even CONSTITUTIONAL courts when they don’t even have the same NAME as constitutional courts. 26 USC 7441 says “Tax Court” is an Article I court, not an Article III court, therefore even when district courts hear tax matters, they are still acting in an Article I capacity.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm13. When you present him with evidence admissible under the rules of evidence and originating from the GOVERNMENT, such as statutes and court rulings (see SEDM materials), then he says they are religious and political speech that he won’t pay attention to. This protects his vain little fantasy. Then he says WE have our head up our ass. Ha, ha, ha, haaaaaa!
14. He asks for court cases against people (those with a legislatively foreign domicile or who are nonresidents) the courts have no jurisdiction over! And when no court cases are produced, he says they don’t exist. Nonsense. Do you think the SCOTUS is EVER going to clue people into any group of people or any status that they have no jurisdiction over? They won’t even grant such a case a cert. So it ain’t gonna happen, dude. That would let the cat out of the bag. No judge is stupid enough to instruct the public how to make his own services IRRELEVANT. The Certiorari Act passed by Taft ensured that this technique would become institutionalized in protecting the VERY tax he instituted with the Federal Reserve AND the Sixteenth Amendment. That’s why Congress appointed him later as the SCOTUS chief justice and approved his plans to make the SCOTUS building into a marble temple: Because HE CREATED a worldwide religion that everyone on the planet eventually would have to worship. See Great IRS Hoax, section 6.4.1: http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
15. He agrees that the United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a constitutional state, and yet he says that corporation is domestic and that the people on land protected by that corporation are domestic in relation to that SAME constitutional state. NONSENSE!
You can’t have it both ways Stija. Your conflicting and dissonant views are what Orwell calls “double think”. They can’t be true because they conflict with themselves, with the written law, or with the rules of statutory construction. See:
Foundations of Freedom, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvnTL_Z5asc
Earth calling stija. You missed your calling. You should have been a federal judge because you sure are good at swallowing the propaganda Koolaid of the Supreme Court of Political Propaganda.
“Doublethink means the power of [hypocritically] holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
[George Orwell]
The reason the federal courts were silent on Hansen’s appeal is the VERY same reason you HAVE to be silent on the above issues: Because the minute you open your mouth on all of them and reconcile them all together as a whole is the minute you can’t avoid declaring yourself a liar.
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
[U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021 (5th Cir. 1970)]
__________________________________________________________________________________
“Silence can be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities.”
[U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977)]
We don’t hate you. We hate LIES and DECEPTION and IGNORANCE. And they are lies because they conflict with either themselves or some part of the law as described above. The purpose of the rules of statutory construction, in fact, is to PREVENT such conflicts, which is why you insist on throwing them out or calling them “frivolous”.
It is, of course, true that statutory construction “is a holistic endeavor” and that the meaning of a provision is “clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme … [when] only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”
[United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d. 740 (1988)]
Remember, however, that the term “frivolous” is defined in the disclaimer applying to this site and EVERYTHING you have posted herein as “truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law”. Thank you, therefore, for agreeing with everything we said that you called “frivolous”. Checkmate.
http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htmIf you won’t even believe the U.S. Supreme Court justice who agreed with our approach in front of neo, and which I personally have witness of, then:’
1. You won’t believe ANYONE.
2. The problem is not FACTS, but your presumptions and foolishness.
3. Further discussion of this subject is absolutely pointless.
I disagree with EVERY SINGLE one of your conclusions about me. Each one has been perverted into something other than what I have claimed to suit your own agenda.9. He vainly IMAGINES a “nation-union” jurisdiction that nowhere expressly appears in any statute or court ruling. That’s curve fitting. TAKE NOTE: We agree that such a union exists POLITICALLY. That is not the question. The issue is WHERE does it exists LEGISLATIVELY. CONSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL are not equivalent to STATUTORY/CIVIL. Different contexts.
Words straight from SCOTUS opinion in Gregory v. Ashcroft:
” `[T]he people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,’ . . . `[W]ithout the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.’ Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”
[Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), quoting Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869)]
Indestructible Union, 1st sovereign capacity–see 14th Amend., and indestructible states, 2nd sovereign capacity–see 14th Amend. And you allege that I imagine this union?
Wow man, you are out there. I am hopeful that anyone reading this can and will see how much you twist the truth. You are DENYING the existence of a union-nation we know exists as the United States. One just needs read the constitution and he will see.
PREAMBLE:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
@Neo,
I agreed on some things with you, I hope you are not going to flip flop or go coo-coo on me like Admin did. Among other things, we agreed that the United States geographical mass is comprised of:
1. the 50 states,
2. D.C. and
3. territorial possessions.
If all three of these geographical lands comprise and form the union-nation we know as the United States THEN they are all within the same general class–the class being a constituent part of the ‘theoretical mass.’ They all form the nation, just like similarly different counties form a state. Neither county is the same, but they are all within the same general class of being constituents of the state.
Now, before I get into federal legislation, two questions:
1. do you agree that neither D.C. nor territorial possessions are states as that term is used in the U.S. constitution?
2. do you agree that United States does not exercise same sovereignty or powers within D.C., territorial possessions and the 50 states?
Do answer my questions please. Or ask for clarification if you’re not understanding them.
Dude where did I say that the united states nation is only the 50 states?? I explicitly included D.C. and territorial possessions…don’t make me quote it to prove it.
Now….these are three distinct geographical locations comprising the geography of United States:
1. the 50 states; and
2. D.C.; and
3. territorial possessions.
WE AGREED ON THIS SO QUIT CHANGING YOUR MIND OR ALLEGING THAT I SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Now…which sovereignty does the United States exercise over which geography? You are contending that United States is ONLY sovereign over D.C. and territorial possessions and exercises no sovereignty over the geography of 50 states. BUT you also contend that IRC is operative within the 50 states. The facts are not congruent….because if IRC is operative ONLY within geography over which U.S. exercises sovereignty, which is according to you only federal land, how can IRC be operative within states too then?
