Jurisdiction evidence

[stija]

Glad to see you finally admit that, after previously denying it.

1. Show me where.
2. Until then, Stija alleges Dr. Caligari liar.

If an illegal alien drives down the street on the wrong side of the road, he is civilly liable, notwithstanding his illegal status. If an illegal alien works in this country illegally, he owes income tax, not withstanding his illegal status. I could give you 10,000 more examples.

1. You wrong.
2. Ninth circuit disagrees with you.
3. Ninth circuit says it is perfectly lawful for illegals to contract for work in Arizona.
4. You must be confusing work with Arizona public employment or United States public employment.
5. If one drive any side of street and caught by cops, no way to give a ticket if no legal status - ie driver, resident.
6. Civil code applies only to civil status - illegal has no civil status.
7. You may wish to try again.
8. Or accept the legal fallacy you presented.

[AndyK]

...

If you are a foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger, you still have all of your inherent natural/sovereign rights. However, you enjoy no legal rights. You can't work publicly for the state, you can't get a driver license, etc. If you go to higher education school (basic schools have been monopolized/institutionalized by gov't indoctrination agendas) you will pay nonresident fees, etc. You get the point.

Amazing how many errors can be packed into a single paragraph.

Foreigners (in specific staff of foreign embassies or consulates) do, in fact have drivers licenses issued by the state (or DC) where they reside. In some states (such as Maryland), they are considered state residents and their children do NOT have to pay tuition at the non-resident rate.

Many non-citizens work overtly and legally for the Federal and State governments. Cases in point: green card holders who serve in the US armed forces (some of whom are killed in action and receive significant commendations) and a specific case of a Korean resident here on a green card who is teaching graduate school at a state college.

As to getting the point

You really should check some facts before turning on your word-salad machine.

[stija]

Amazing how many errors can be packed into a single paragraph.

Foreigners (in specific staff of foreign embassies or consulates) do, in fact have drivers licenses issued by the state (or DC) where they reside. In some states (such as Maryland), they are considered state residents and their children do NOT have to pay tuition at the non-resident rate.

Many non-citizens work overtly and legally for the Federal and State governments. Cases in point: green card holders who serve in the US armed forces (some of whom are killed in action and receive significant commendations) and a specific case of a Korean resident here on a green card who is teaching graduate school at a state college.

As to getting the point

You really should check some facts before turning on your word-salad machine.

1. Foreigner can get a driver license without accepting a civil/legal status of some kind within the jurisdiction?
2. Why illegals in Arizona have no license or other public licenses?
3. You should represent them and talk to the DMV on their behalf.
4. It looks like you definitely know something Stija does not.
5. 1-0 for you.
6. Did Stija ever suggest that only citizens can work publicly? If so, where?
7. You should really stop trying to discredit Stija, and focus on what he is saying.
8. Your blinded by your arrogant ego.

[Dr. Caligari]

Glad to see you finally admit that, after previously denying it.

1. Show me where.
2. Until then, Stija alleges Dr. Caligari liar.

You said it on another thread:

wserra said: "Assuming that you are either in the United States (you do, after all, post from the US) or a United States citizen,..."

stija said:
"1. I am neither.
2. I am in Arizona.
3. I am a citizen of Arizona.
4. Just like Mrs. Macomber was a citizen of New York and not a United States citizen.
5. Just like Standard Oil was a citizen of California and not a United STates citizen."

Lurkers can now see stija caught in a lie, again, and projecting his lying onto others.

[stija]

Glad to see you finally admit that, after previously denying it.

1. Show me where.
2. Until then, Stija alleges Dr. Caligari liar.

You said it on another thread:

wserra said: "Assuming that you are either in the United States (you do, after all, post from the US) or a United States citizen,..."

stija said:
"1. I am neither.
2. I am in Arizona.
3. I am a citizen of Arizona.
4. Just like Mrs. Macomber was a citizen of New York and not a United States citizen.
5. Just like Standard Oil was a citizen of California and not a United STates citizen."

Lurkers can now see stija caught in a lie, again, and projecting his lying onto others.

1. Lurker can now see you pretend Stija lied.
2. Stija never said he not a 14th Amend. citizen or constitutional citizen.
3. Stija only said, in re: income tax laws he a citizen of Arizona and a nonresident alien.
4. Prove otherwise for lurkers.
5. You must be confusing Title 26 civil citizenship with constitutional citizenship.
6. If wserra's context was 14th Amendment citizenship, then Stija misspoke, or lied, if you want.
7. Stija pretty sure wserra was referring to United States citizenship in re: income taxation laws.

[The Observer]

1. Lurker can now see you pretend Stija lied.
2. Stija never said he not a 14th Amend. citizen or constitutional citizen.
3. Stija only said, in re: income tax laws he a citizen of Arizona and a nonresident alien.
4. Prove otherwise for lurkers.
5. You must be confusing Title 26 civil citizenship with constitutional citizenship.
6. If wserra's context was 14th Amendment citizenship, then Stija misspoke, or lied, if you want.
7. Stija pretty sure wserra was referring to United States citizenship in re: income taxation laws.

Why is stija writing these responses as if Tarzan was speaking? The trend of him or her dropping key supporting verbs and speaking in the third person has been getting more frequent and strident.

[stija]

It was fun, that's why. I can gladly change to the first person again, but i am not confident that it will affect the delivery of the content any better.

[AndyK]

1. Foreigner can get a driver license without accepting a civil/legal status of some kind within the jurisdiction? Anyone who enters this country (or any other country) accepts an obligation to adhere to the laws of the land. If that's your definition of "civil/legal status" or not -- whatever.
2. Why illegals in Arizona have no license or other public licenses? I didn't mention illegal immigrants. I merely refuted your erroneous post.
3. You should represent them and talk to the DMV on their behalf.
4. It looks like you definitely know something Stija does not. Probably many things.
5. 1-0 for you.
6. Did Stija ever suggest that only citizens can work publicly? If so, where? Yes, you did make that statement. Please reference your post on this thread at 8:04 PM Wednesday, May 15, 2013 (and the deadline for editing posts has passed). To save you the trouble of looking up your own post, you said "If you are a foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger, you still have all of your inherent natural/sovereign rights. However, you enjoy no legal rights. You can't work publicly for the state, you can't get a driver license, etc. If you go to higher education school (basic schools have been monopolized/institutionalized by gov't indoctrination agendas) you will pay nonresident fees, etc. You get the point." [/color] (Which I specifically quoted in my previous post). Note: Liars need very good memories.
7. You should really stop trying to discredit Stija, and focus on what he is saying. There is a significant difference between correcting / refuting and discrediting. The first two are factual. the last occurs in the eye of the reader based on the first two.
8. Your blinded by your arrogant ego. As was stated earlier, taking refuge in ad hominem statements is indicative of a failure of logic.

Final warning. Any future ad hominem remarks or insults will be candidates for cleansing by one of the moderators. Act like an adult or go sit at the children's table.

[stija]

1. Foreigner can get a driver license without accepting a civil/legal status of some kind within the jurisdiction? Anyone who enters this country (or any other country) accepts an obligation to adhere to the laws of the land. If that's your definition of "civil/legal status" or not -- whatever.
2. Why illegals in Arizona have no license or other public licenses? I didn't mention illegal immigrants. I merely refuted your erroneous post.
3. You should represent them and talk to the DMV on their behalf.
4. It looks like you definitely know something Stija does not. Probably many things.
5. 1-0 for you.
6. Did Stija ever suggest that only citizens can work publicly? If so, where? Yes, you did make that statement. Please reference your post on this thread at 8:04 PM Wednesday, May 15, 2013 (and the deadline for editing posts has passed). To save you the trouble of looking up your own post, you said "If you are a foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger, you still have all of your inherent natural/sovereign rights. However, you enjoy no legal rights. You can't work publicly for the state, you can't get a driver license, etc. If you go to higher education school (basic schools have been monopolized/institutionalized by gov't indoctrination agendas) you will pay nonresident fees, etc. You get the point." [/color] (Which I specifically quoted in my previous post). Note: Liars need very good memories.
7. You should really stop trying to discredit Stija, and focus on what he is saying. There is a significant difference between correcting / refuting and discrediting. The first two are factual. the last occurs in the eye of the reader based on the first two.
8. Your blinded by your arrogant ego. As was stated earlier, taking refuge in ad hominem statements is indicative of a failure of logic.

Final warning. Any future ad hominem remarks or insults will be candidates for cleansing by one of the moderators. Act like an adult or go sit at the children's table.

1. You gotta be kidding me.
2. Do you want me to count how many times your own members called me a troll??
3. Take your head out of your ass and stand up for your principles. Or does equal treatment not apply to these forums too?
4. How many times did you warn them?
5. Or do warning only apply to dissenters?
6. Illegals enter this country and do not accept any legal status - hence ILLEGALS.
7. They can still work and have natural rights protected by the United STates Constitution which is the law of the land. As it clearly states, it attaches to the land, and not a civil or legal status. Which is also why the ca9 ruled that illegals have their first amendment right protected by the document even though they are ILLEGALLY here and have NO legal status.
8. That is a fact.
9. What you claim is not a fact but your opinion that is not congruent with American Jurisprudence or at least the ninth circuit court of appeals.
10. I thought one of the rules WAS that only facts have to provided and NOT personal false opinions that have no legal weight or effect.
11. Follow your own rules before you make someone else follow them. Be the change you want to see.

If you are a foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger, you still have all of your inherent natural/sovereign rights. However, you enjoy no legal rights. You can't work publicly for the state, you can't get a driver license, etc. If you go to higher education school (basic schools have been monopolized/institutionalized by gov't indoctrination agendas) you will pay nonresident fees, etc. You get the point."

1. I still stand by that statement.
2. You have no clue what i said.
3. You assumed i said something which i did NOT.
4. You brought up consuls and foreign diplomats that HAVE a legal status here - diplomat and consul.
5. ILLEGALS do NOT have a LEGAL status. Definition of illegal is not legal.

[The Observer]

I can gladly change to the first person again, but i am not confident that it will affect the delivery of the content any better.

I agree that no matter how you style your responses, the effectiveness of it is not going to have much impact. But it has more to do with the content rather than the delivery. The fact that you had to admit that Dr. Caligari won on a couple of the threads is proof of that.

[stija]

I can gladly change to the first person again, but i am not confident that it will affect the delivery of the content any better.

I agree that no matter how you style your responses, the effectiveness of it is not going to have much impact. But it has more to do with the content rather than the delivery. The fact that you had to admit that Dr. Caligari won on a couple of the threads is proof of that.

1. Good for you.
2. stija is a lying troll.
3. stija would rather lie than know the truth.
4. You win again.
5. 3-0 for you.
6. stija pays no income tax because he lives in his Mommy's basement and has no income except for $10/week allowance paid by his mommy. (Edited for accuracy by Dr. C).

ehehe pretty funny actually...

[Dark Optimist]

Speaking as a long time lurker, I have to wonder if stija is actually a TP who has created a program to pass the Turing test - a program that appears to be a human based on interaction solely through text communications.

I am also impressed with all of the activity that stija has generated.

Has the pool started as to when stija will declare victory and move on? I know stija has declared victory several times and appeared to have been ready to move on, but they are still here. If nothing, their endurance is refreshing after so many drive by trolls.

[stija]

Speaking as a long time lurker, I have to wonder if stija is actually a TP who has created a program to pass the Turing test - a program that appears to be a human based on interaction solely through text communications.

I am also impressed with all of the activity that stija has generated.

Has the pool started as to when stija will declare victory and move on? I know stija has declared victory several times and appeared to have been ready to move on, but they are still here. If nothing, their endurance is refreshing after so many drive by trolls.

Whats a TP? If you mean Tax Protester, I take offence to that. Where is AndyK when you need him? Oh ya, he enforces rules selectively.

I have never declared victory. Truth stands on its own and is universal. No need to declare victory.

[AndyK]

Note: My previous quote removed since anyone can scroll up and read it.

1. You gotta be kidding me.
2. Do you want me to count how many times your own members called me a troll??
3. Take your head out of your ass and stand up for your principles. Or does equal treatment not apply to these forums too?
4. How many times did you warn them?
5. Or do warning only apply to dissenters?
6. Illegals enter this country and do not accept any legal status - hence ILLEGALS.
7. They can still work and have natural rights protected by the United STates Constitution which is the law of the land. As it clearly states, it attaches to the land, and not a civil or legal status. Which is also why the ca9 ruled that illegals have their first amendment right protected by the document even though they are ILLEGALLY here and have NO legal status.
8. That is a fact.
9. What you claim is not a fact but your opinion that is not congruent with American Jurisprudence or at least the ninth circuit court of appeals.
10. I thought one of the rules WAS that only facts have to provided and NOT personal false opinions that have no legal weight or effect.
11. Follow your own rules before you make someone else follow them. Be the change you want to see.

There are eleven numbered responses above. My original response addressed eight of sitja's statements / allegations. Absent some identification -- on sitja's part -- as to which of my statements he is addressing, my remarks stand as written. They also stand unrebutted and unrefuted.

If you are a foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger, you still have all of your inherent natural/sovereign rights. However, you enjoy no legal rights. You can't work publicly for the state, you can't get a driver license, etc. If you go to higher education school (basic schools have been monopolized/institutionalized by gov't indoctrination agendas) you will pay nonresident fees, etc. You get the point."

1. I still stand by that statement. And I stand by the refutation which I posted. You are incorect on several points.
2. You have no clue what i said. I believe you said exactly that which I quoted and cited. Perhaps it is you who has no clue about what you wrote.
3. You assumed i said something which i did NOT.
4. You brought up consuls and foreign diplomats that HAVE a legal status here - diplomat and consul. You said "foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger" a group which includes consuls, diplomats, their staff, tourists, green card holders, and many others. I was correct in my response.
5. ILLEGALS do NOT have a LEGAL status. Definition of illegal is not legal. Where, in your post which I quoted, did you restrict your remarks to only illegals? You never did, so my repoly is correct. Had you made such a restriction, instead of shooting from the hip, it would have been a different issue.

Also, before going too far down the trail of the legal status of illegal immigrants, you should do a little research into some recently-enacted laws which address that issue -- and contradict your blanket statement.

[stija]

Also, before going too far down the trail of the legal status of illegal immigrants, you should do a little research into some recently-enacted laws which address that issue -- and contradict your blanket statement.

I am not aware. May you point me in the direction of these 'recently-enacted laws' or at least tell me what they are. Can you be more specific? Or are you teaching me what a 'blanket statement' is using irony?

I did a cursory search on google for "'recently-enacted laws' + legal status" and way too many irrelevant results. Help please.

You said "foreigner, inhabitant, or stranger" a group which includes consuls, diplomats, their staff, tourists, green card holders, and many others. I was correct in my response.

Correct. Are ALL foreigners, strangers, and inhabitants diplomats? I think no. In fact, majority are not, but only the select few that US Dept Of State RECOGNIZES as such. I am very specific in my language, and if wanted to refer to a subgroup of foreigners who are diplomats, i would have used that more specific and accurate appellation. I did not. You assume stuff to prove me wrong.

[Dark Optimist]

It has been a long time since I have taken a philosophy class, but one thing that I do remember is that Truth is anything but universal.

Specific to tax law - if Truth is universal why are there courts that determine facts and rule on law?

And I know I should not feed the troll.

[stija]

Truth does not control people's actions.

If courts ruled sky is green, sky still blue. Courts run by people. People not perfect. People make mistakes. Truth stays same. Truth changes as a matter of perception.

[Burzmali]

\de-lurk

yadda yadda yadda

Go forth my son and enjoy thy moral high ground as thou doth break the law of the immoral thuggist police state. Should and whenst thou doth run afoul of the constables, remember to cover thine cornhole in yonder penitentiary.

Thine has been blessed, in the name of the Rose, the Pete and the E & E, Amen.

Truth does not control people's actions.

If courts ruled sky is green, sky still blue. Courts run by people. People not perfect. People make mistakes. Truth stays same. Truth changes as a matter of perception.

This one's too easy, that's the Watchman's Rorschach!

So far that make:
The Observer: 1
Burzmali: 1

Has anyone been keeping track in other threads?

Webhick really needs to find a plug in to make quote boxes all jagged, it just doesn't feel right to have a plain rectangle on that quote.

[Dark Optimist]

stija,

As others have said before, the person making a statement or claim is responsible for supporting their claim. I do not have to prove or disprove your statements.

In this thread and several others you have made statements without any support or substantiation or even consistency in reasoning. Also you have asked others to respond to or rebut a position without first stating your support for the position.

Please provide substantiation of your claims - such as a copy of the certified mail receipt (redacted to protect non-public information), copies of paychecks or other proof of payment showing income, etc. Even David Merrill would provide copies of documents he claimed to have filed with the courts.

[stija]

@Dark,

1. I have made allegations of earning income which is not taxable under the IRC.
2. I have made allegations that i am a nonresident with the IRS and have been for years.
3. Here is factual legal evidence STRAIGHT FROM THE CODE ITSELF:

(31) Foreign estate or trust
(A) Foreign estate
The term “foreign estate” means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

4. Now you guys have made allegations that everything a common man earns in a paycheck is includible in gross income.
5. Where is factual evidence to support that statement?
6. Where is the legal evidence to support that statement?
7. Obviously evidence EXISTS within the IRC that PROVES that there is income which is NOT TAXABLE.
8. If there is income which is not taxable then not ALL income is taxable.
9. If not all income is taxable, then this is prima facie evidence that what Stija alleged in 1. may be true. Just maybe...
10. Prima facie evidence being presented, it is up to you to rebut it.
11. Showing you my paycheck IN NO WAY factually proves that my allegations of nonresidency with IRS are true and correct.
12. How about a redacted IRS transcript account from back in the day (2007-08) when i was actually scared and kept records of everything showing a refund of 3-4000$ or FICA, and FUTA? You get these only after you prove your claims or rebut mine which is that there is income that a man can earn which is not taxable ACCORDING TO THE CLEAR LANGUAGE IN THE CODE.
13. Sad part is I HAVE GIVEN you what you need to understand. You're just blinded by your ego.

As others have said before, the person making a statement or claim is responsible for supporting their claim. I do not have to prove or disprove your statements.

1. Prove yours.
2. Obviously not EVERY income is taxable, and not EVERY individual is you.