The problem arises in how the SS INTERPRETS or fails to DISCLOSE the CONTEXT of geographical terms on the form, not in what it actually says or defines.  This turns a “society of law” into a “society of men” as the U.S. Supreme Court alluded to in Marbury v. Madison and therefore CANNOT be permitted.  Even the DS-11 says you are a non-citizen national in the perjury statement and they don’t balk at that, so obviously it can only mean the political context.  Why can or should the SSA use a different context, other than to STEAL from people, of course, by connecting them with an incorrect STATUTORY status.  THAT presumption is what needs to be challenged.  Furthermore, even the non-citizen national status is an ALIEN under Title 8 AND Title 26, just like a state citizen, while ALSO NOT being a political or constitutional alien.

 

Yes. Agreed.

But only foreign (other countries) aliens need legal authorization to work in the U.S. Domestic aliens do not need such authorization, at least not state domiciliaries and citizens. But SSA cannot offer those people welfare services if they declare to be state domiciliaries or domestic aliens, thus it does not allow for such an election, unless one elects other of course.

Congress ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over a State Citizen who wants to work for the Federal government. So the question is, what is the proper status for such a state-domiciled officer?

Other – state domiciliary. Congress has jurisdiction over the office and not the officer. Officer only agreed/consented to discharge the duties (rights/powers of us) of such office.

I’m afraid admin’s right about standing. I don’t recall that this issue was addressed and they may toss it based on that only. Unless of course one presented enough evidence to support a duty towards one in accordance with one’s wishes.

I think admins right, the Congress never has jurisdiction over a human but either over the office or the object/subject being legislated for through I:8 powers over the union. Whoever partakes of these objects/subjects consented to Congress’ authority by trespassing onto their rights/jurisdiction.

My point is this.  One should never reach for the I-9 form at all unless in relation to U.S. employment. Therefore, in the private sector when one is asked to fill out the I-9 that should raise eyebrows right there.  The best course of action would be to never fill one out.  But we know that is not going to happen right?  All entities are convinced that they must verify one’s U.S. employment eligibility before they can contract with them.  We know that not to be true.

The information block 1 on the I-9 says “Employee information and attestation.”  Therefore, one who fills out this form is applying for a job with Uncle Sam.  And Sam wants to make sure that this individual can be hired.  So completing this form alone creates evidence that we are playing into the matrix. Then when the company subpoena’s the E-Verify information for court’s purposes, does it matter really whether i am a taxpayer B or taxpayer A or C??  If it comes to that point, an astute company would have:

1. One’s filled out and attested to I-9

2. One’s records from SSA confirming a taxpayer status (A, B, or C)

So then having said the above, the ONLY course of action that will not create any evidence at all is to bring in a passport for this legal endeavour, and explain that one is a citizen of a kind not allowing for a proper election on that form I-9.  Then give them a choice, forfeit using the form (good luck with that) or fill out the form manually without a SSN and striking and changing anything on it that you don’t feel comfortable attesting too.  In other words, modifying a federal form, which for all i know may be a crime.

Doing ANYTHING ELSE will create legal evidence that CANNOT help you in any way.  What is electing LAATW on an I-9 going to do except:

1. Attest that you are the U.S. employee who filled out the I-9; and

2. Attest that you are a LAATW taxpayer with the U.S. and SSA.

I really do not see a benefit at all with playing by THEIR rules with THEIR forms to then claim that we are not the one to whom these forms apply.  It’s actually ridiculous now that i say it and put it in black and white.  I can see why it never worked, because we are idiots.  LAATW, and U.S. citizen are BOTH THEIR statuses.  I don’t want any. If we can somehow run the form online where it bounces back non-eligible for U.S. employment BUT we have a passport, that would be something to do to entice these HR personnel into starting to believe us.

When you are given a medical, dental, and 401k form at commencement of your relationship with your new payer, along with federal and state withholding forms, do you fill out the medical, dental and 401k forms if you don’t want any services provided by those forms??

I sure don’t.  And that’s the same logic we must apply when filling out W-4s, W-8s*, I-9s, and all other forms.  

One’s walk has got to match their talk.

But that’s PRECISELY my point.  Your nontaxpayer and nonresident talk is not going to match your SSA walk of LAATW which is THEIR status and a TAXPAYER with a public office in D.C.  An election that is non-eligible for employment with Uncle Sam would match your talk….but we both know that Sam doesn’t (can’t) offer such an option.  

*i submit a substitute for a w-8 which i call a declaration of foreign status of nonresident alien for federal tax withholding.  I am going to change that to “election of foreign sovereign individual status under the 10th Amendment” from now on, or possibly “nonresident Alabama citizen and domiciliary.”  That way there is no confusing it.

Let’s not forget that there are three sovereigns in American Jurisprudence:  the United States, the state and then a person generally from whose association into a political community under the U.S. Constitution all the sovereign powers flow.

Now this person generally may do anything he/she wants.  

But as a state citizen (constituent as well as civil citizen) such person cannot exist in federal law at all, except maybe as foreign sovereign.  This is true only in relation to this same subject or context.  But for example one can be a driver license resident in the context of driving which is a different subject. So same person may be a resident driver in Alabama, legally married in California and a resident taxpayer in D.C.  But this is only in relation to his private capacity (sovereignty) when NOT an Oregon constituent.  I dont believe on can be an Oregon constituent driver resident in North Carolina.  In my opinion that is a gross violation of constitutional law.  This is easily seen and verifiable through these corporate citizens that are foreign qualified in states other than the one of their incorporation.  In other words, they are foreign “resident” corporations, if that even makes sense.  They are not truly resident, but qualified through law to act and acquire property and contracts within the qualifying jurisdiction just like any other resident corporation could.

The same person from above, when acting in his political capacity has chosen his protector as the state in that context, and that being the case, such state constituent is a foreign entity and a foreign sovereign vis-a-vis the United States and other states.  But this is IN RELATION TO HIS POLITICAL CONSTITUENCY ONLY.  In matters relating to marriage, such individual is legally married in California, driver resident in Alabama and resident taxpayer in D.C.  Now all the states and feds have comity agreements for all this to be legal in other states as long as its legal in one state–and this is required pursuant to the U.S. Constitution alike privileges and immunities clause.

Now just like the U.S. who is not always acting in its federal capacity, the Oregonian does not have to act as a constituent all the time.  And this is where mistakes start being made by persons privately because they think they can just avail themselves of all these benefits if they claim residency somewhere else, or accept these legal privileges.  When in fact they would fare much better if they ALWAYS claimed their Oregonian constituency when requested to claim a status by another sovereign government.  Their Oregonian constituency is the LEAVE ME ALONE card.

That’s my 2c. And again, if i am wrong on something please let me know and why you believe so.

I am not questioning the merits of your claims. I am arguing about its application. That’s where all the confusion is anyway. You’re talking about changing a taxpayer (their) status using their rules and we were arguing that it is irrelevant when applied in the private sector because you would still be claiming to be a taxpayer just of type B.

So if one is going to contract with a private party within a state and wishes to remain private then such party would really provide just a passport. Which would require a manual check through the I-9.

But let’s assume one provides a number and says that he is the LAATW. The HR lady (they’re usually ladies) processes the E-verify and what does she get? Just a pass? What is e-verify verifying?? Legal status or employment eligibility?? I am led to believe employment eligibility based on identity provided. Then she gets a message that this person may be legally employed within u.s.

But in this exercise we are trying to explain to this lady that we do not want to be legally employed in u.s. and that we are not in u.s. but Alabama. You see, if she believes that she is an employer and you are being legally employed by them, then a NRA status will lead to 30% withholding at the source and you will never see that property again.

The whole name of the game in the private sector is to stay private and not elect a federal public status with a duty to perform. If we use their system and their forms to prove that we can legally be employed to then claim that we are not employed, we will only contradict ourselves. Why is she checking you through the e-verify?? To see if you are employable right? Employable by who? Whose definition of employment.

Wouldn’t it be more powerful to tell her everything and then say ok….here’s my passport and ssn assigned to me, go check it and see that I am not employable. So she runs the everify and it tells her that this individual cannot be legally employed within u.s.

Then maybe she can start understanding that something is not as she thought it was. How can a U.S.A. passport holder, which I9 says if one provides it does both identify and proves work eligibility (no ssn required per instructions), not be legally allowed to be employed?? Then you explain the difference between being federally employed and privately contracted for employment.

In other words the LAATW only works for those who want to be a specific taxpayer located outside geographical U.S. Once one wants to remain free and a nontaxpayer, the only proper election in relation to the SSA is something which their laws do not define–foreign person, foreign citizen, whatever you wwant that’s not defined and will not verify you.

But you have a passport and you provide it. Now that would be powerful. Otherwise the lady may say, well that’s nice, now that we know you are a NRA employee (NRA taxpayer) we will just act accordingly–30% flat withholdings. You’re forgetting that they are convinced they are the employer taxpayers.

If you say the taxpayer is the office, and thus a “U.S. person” — then why is half of the IRS’ taxpayer products for a “nonresident alien”?

Anything created by that body of law is a potential taxpayer. IRC is a body of law dealing with assessment and collection of U.S. property from taxpayers–nonresident, resident, and all other U.S. persons and individuals–a welcome office in D.C just as you explained.

Under it you would be a nonresident alien (individual is irrelevant because if you are ANYTHING under it you are an individual IT) as a state citizen working for uncle Sam.  So i get it, you want to change a status under it with the SSA to a LAATW taxpayer.  I argue it doesn’t matter which it is because it is a taxpayer.  You say its irrelevant to this discussion, and it is–its not pertinent at all.

Lol. Sorry man really.  And you also said this is your political election.  Just as if you are claiming i am black and i am proud.  So i get it.  From that perspective it is the correct status.  And what i want under Other – Alabama domiciliary may be a nonplayer card.  And it should be really, according to my logic and if i follow what you are saying.  Unless they allow for both, depending on the election.  But i finally see what you are saying.  

Admin, all you and me are doing is arguing it from a perspective of a nontaxpayer.  This issue is addressed through the taxpayer status, as a LAATW taxpayer.  Just as he spelled out in all CAPS–many times.

He is saying I am big black and a taxpayer called LAATW.  AND I GET TO ELECT it just as one can elect to be a nonresident or resident alien taxpayer under the Code–and one gets that 1st amendment choice.  

Hey i get it.

Neo is trying to effectuate a change within THEIR databases using THEIR rules.  I get that.

What you have to understand too though is that in relation to the United States federal government, the only thing you can be as a constituent of Alabama is an Alabama citizen or a foreign person.  They have reserved the LAATW for special persons of foreign nationality.  Now there is no way that the Judge will understand the depth of this, as we do here, but if its THEIR rules and THEIR databases and THEIR statuses, then THEY decide.  Or no?

A political constituent of Alabama cannot exist as a legal office/vehicle in federal law.  That is a Constitutional impossibility.  We have separation of powers, dual sovereignty, etc., because of the Tenth Amendment, and all these things are there so that the two would NOT mix or legislate for each other.  For Congress to extend a federal legal office to a foreign individual in Italy is one thing. They can do that per I:8.  For Congress to extend a federal legal office to a state constituent is Constitutionally IMPERMISSIBLE!!!  Such state constituent is and can ONLY be foreign, distinct, separate, etc.

So a political constituent of one is a foreigner to the other in matters of private international laws.