stija on "activity" v. "income"

[Quixote]

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

1. I am neither.
2. I am in Arizona.
3. I am a citizen of Arizona.

1. Stija is a 14th Amendment citizen, or constitutional citizen.

Stija is a troll who can't keep his story straight.

[stija]

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

1. I am neither.
2. I am in Arizona.
3. I am a citizen of Arizona.

1. Stija is a 14th Amendment citizen, or constitutional citizen.

Stija is a troll who can't keep his story straight.

1. Mmmmkay.
2. You win.
3. But keep in mind, you guys don't even recognize the difference between 14th amend. citizenship and Title 26 citizenship, so how could i expect to know what you are talking about.
4. Most of the time the topic is income taxation under Title 26, and I am NOT a U.S. Citizen, resident, or anything else under that title except for nonresident alien, or a foreigner.
5. By no means am i inferring in 4. that i cannot incur a tax liability under Title 26 as a nonresident alien.
6. Is the point of these forums to discredit me or to understand the tax laws you purport to be acting under?
7. If it's the latter, then I misspoke (lied) about Brushaber, and also about my 14th Amendment citizenship, i guess.
8. 2-0 for you guys.
9. LPC has got 1 of those 2 points. Good job LPC. If you only paid that much attention when reading the Code...

[Pottapaug1938]

stija, I will say this as nicely as I can. There is no such thing as "Title 26 Citizenship"; and even if there was, and even if that citizenship were of a different nature from US citizenship as defined by the 14th Amendment, any provisions of Title 26 which conflicted with the 14th Amendment would be void and unenforceable, since they would be unconstitutional.

[stija]

stija, I will say this as nicely as I can. There is no such thing as "Title 26 Citizenship"; and even if there was, and even if that citizenship were of a different nature from US citizenship as defined by the 14th Amendment, any provisions of Title 26 which conflicted with the 14th Amendment would be void and unenforceable, since they would be unconstitutional.

1. There is no conflict.
2. Title 26 citizen is a subclass of 14th Amendment citizens.
3. A citizen of Arizona is a 14th Amendment citizen.
4. A citizen of United States (title 26) may also be a 14th Amendment citizen.
5. You think there is a conflict because you do not understand what i am saying or American Jurisprudence and 52 different jurisdictions within American private international affairs.
6. There is a Title 26 citizen. Go read section 7701 for its definition.
7. If we were ALL United States citizens, there would be no need for 4:3 diversity citizenship, and Mrs. Macomber would have been called a United States citizen and not a citizen of New York.
8. You just don't get it because you are not even trying.
9. You focus all your energy to prove me wrong.
10. Are you an IRS shill or do you have any other vested interest in remaining ignorant of the facts.
11. Write a personal letter to William "Bill" Wilkins and ask him if a citizen and domicilary of Alabama is also a United States citizen under Title 26. Go ahead.

[Pottapaug1938]

The 14th Amendment also provides that anyone born within the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States "and of the state wherein they reside." Thus, if I was a native Vermonter and then moved to Utah, I would cease to be a citizen of Vermont once I became domiciled in Utah, but I would not cease to be a citizen of the United States. Issues of diversity of citizenship arise out of state citizenship, not US citizenship, because there is only one definition of US citizenship. Anything in Title 26 regarding US citizenship flows from that; and any inconsistencies are resolved in favor of the Constitutional definition.

In other words. Mrs. Macomber was identified as a citizen of New York because her state citizenship was an issue in the case -- and only for that reason.

[stija]

The 14th Amendment also provides that anyone born within the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States "and of the state wherein they reside." Thus, if I was a native Vermonter and then moved to Utah, I would cease to be a citizen of Vermont once I became domiciled in Utah, but I would not cease to be a citizen of the United States.

Yes. 100% correct, if you mean constitutional United States citizen through the 14th.

Issues of diversity of citizenship arise out of state citizenship, not US citizenship, because there is only one definition of US citizenship. Anything in Title 26 regarding US citizenship flows from that; and any inconsistencies are resolved in favor of the Constitutional definition.

Wrong. There are no inconsistencies. You are making them in your head. Did i ever suggest or explicitly say that Title 26 is incongruent with US Constitution or otherwise not legal?

In other words. Mrs. Macomber was identified as a citizen of New York because her state citizenship was an issue in the case -- and only for that reason.

Her state citizenship was never an issue. The court just recognized her proper legal/political status in relation to federal revenue laws in questions. She was still a taxpayer, wasn't she?

You are jumping the gun. I am not suggesting that a state citizen cannot incur a liability under Title 26. I am just suggesting to all of you, that if you are a state citizen (registered to vote and domiciled therein) then your proper Title 26 legal status is nonresident alien. There are provisions within the code that allow you to be treated as a resident or citizen if you wish. I do not.

A state citizen is a nonresident alien in re: title 26 because he is domiciled within geography of his state and without geography embraced by Title 26 or 1:8:17 and 4:3:2. I do not know how simpler to put it. No human can be domiciled within two mutually exclusive territorial jurisdictions. Title 26 has a territorial component in respect to domicile/residency and it also imposes a liability through subject matter of taxation in 1:8:1.

[AndyK]

6. There is a Title 26 citizen. Go read section 7701 for its definition.

26USC7701 does not contain such a definition.

Please (1) provide an exact quotation of the definition to which you refer, (2) admit you werre mistaken, or (3) admit that the statement was a flat-out lie in the hopes that no one woukd catch you.

[stija]

6. There is a Title 26 citizen. Go read section 7701 for its definition.

26USC7701 does not contain such a definition.

Please (1) provide an exact quotation of the definition to which you refer, (2) admit you werre mistaken, or (3) admit that the statement was a flat-out lie in the hopes that no one woukd catch you.

I admit i was mistaken. I did the same thing in another topic and corrected it right away.

See 26 USC 1.1-1(c). Sorry, I lied to you.

Truth be told AndyK, I outright lied completely, because no gov't can define what a citizen is, citizen being a free choice of political affiliation. In other words, they can say who can be a citizen, and you have to appel it to yourself. Consent is needed. Therefore, there actually isn't a 'definition' of US citizen or any other citizen anywehre in any law. It will only say which individuals are allowed to accept such citizenship by consenting to the term.

Does that make sense? In other, words I WAS COMPLETELY wrong to say that any law defines a citizen. Such is a legal impossibility in American Jurisprudence. It is also completely incongruent with my explanation of 'jurisdiction' to travis.

So yes, I lied or misspoke. Your choice. Thanks for correcting me.

[Paul]

Does that make sense? In other, words I WAS COMPLETELY wrong to say that any law defines a citizen. Such is a legal impossibility in American Jurisprudence.

And after you had just had the 14th amendment quoted to you. I guess the Constitution isn't law?

[LPC]

6. There is a Title 26 citizen. Go read section 7701 for its definition.

26USC7701 does not contain such a definition.

Please (1) provide an exact quotation of the definition to which you refer, (2) admit you werre mistaken, or (3) admit that the statement was a flat-out lie in the hopes that no one woukd catch you.

I admit i was mistaken. I did the same thing in another topic and corrected it right away.

See 26 USC 1.1-1(c).

There is no such thing as "26 USC 1.1-1(c)," although there is 26 CFR 1.1-1(c).

Truth be told AndyK, I outright lied completely, because no gov't can define what a citizen is, citizen being a free choice of political affiliation.

Well, that's wrong, because every government has the power to decide who is or is not a citizen.

In the case of the United States, a person who is born in a state of the United States is born a citizen of the United States because of the 14th Amendment, but that person can renounce that citizenship by following the statutory procedure, so citizenship by birth is not a choice in the sense that anyone can choose where they are born but a choice in the sense that citizenship can be refused.

A person who is not born in the United States can apply for citizenship, and that is a choice, but the United States is not obligated to accept that person as a citizen, so the "choice" is rather one-sided.

In other words, citizenship is not a unilateral decision by individuals. The law or consent of the state (in the sense of nation-state) is also required.

In other words, they can say who can be a citizen, and you have to appel it to yourself. Consent is needed.

Vague and meaningless gibberish.

Therefore, there actually isn't a 'definition' of US citizen or any other citizen anywehre in any law.

Except maybe the 14th Amendment. And the provisions of the United States Code dealing with citizenship and naturalization.

For example, 26 CFR 1.1-1(c) says that:

For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

I know you're not familiar with 26 CFR 1.1-1(c), but you might find the statutes and cases that are cited there to be of some interest.

[stija]

Well, that's wrong, because every government has the power to decide who is or is not a citizen.

Explain to me then how i could have become a citizen without applying for it?
Or similarly, how can i be a driver under the transportation title without applying for a driver's license?
Or a taxpayer without involving myself (consent) into a subject that is reachable by the act in question?

Can't wait to hear it.

I allege that the gov't can proscribe rules for who may obtain citizenship, or said another way, who qualifies for it. No one can make someone else a citizen without his consent on an application for the privileged political status. It would violate many of his constitutionally protected rights.

But let me see what you come up with. By your token, U.S. can define me a dissenter tomorrow and execute me according to the rules for treason right?
Who's the principal and who's the agent in your imaginary world?

[LPC]

Well, that's wrong, because every government has the power to decide who is or is not a citizen.

Explain to me then how i could have become a citizen without applying for it?

Already answered by my preceding post, from which you quoted.

Or a taxpayer without involving myself (consent) into a subject that is reachable by the act in question?

The question is nonsensical, because it suggests that taxes could apply to people or things that are not subject to the tax. (What's the opposite of a tautology?)

As I explained in the first posting to this thread, the subject of the federal income tax is income, so if you earn income, you have involved yourself in the subject of the tax.

[stija]

And you must be hard of hearing. I don't earn taxable income.

What i earn at work is my private property and recognized by the thugs at IRS as a foreign estate.

Deal with it.

Also, i HAD TO apply for my citizenship. So you did not explain anything. You don't even know your correct place and the order of things.

It must be swell and nice in your imaginary world having United State gov't make all the decisions for you.

In my world, responsabilities are real and I deal with them, and not the US or Arizona.

As I explained in the first posting to this thread, the subject of the federal income tax is income, so if you earn income, you have involved yourself in the subject of the tax.

One of the few factual allegations that you correctly state. I do NOT earn from within United States nor in connection with a trade or business, thus i do NOT involve myself in the subject of the tax. You do, and that's your prerogative.

So you do finally admit then that if people do not involve themselves in the subject of the tax they do not earn taxable income? You just kind of rephrased 7701(a)(31)(A) to be right and have it your way.

Good for you. +1 more for LPC.

[ArthurWankspittle]

And you must be hard of hearing. I don't earn taxable income.

What i earn at work is my private property and recognized by the thugs at IRS as a foreign estate.

Yeah right, any proof of that or are you doing a George Tran and claiming if they haven't replied to your rubbish in 30 days it must be correct?
This also reminds me of Hamster who claimed he never paid taxes; a claim which seems to have gone quiet.

[Dr. Caligari]

Explain to me then how i could have become a citizen without applying for it?

By being born in one of the 50 states.

Or similarly, how can i be a driver under the transportation title without applying for a driver's license?

By driving. People without drivers licenses are often subjected to the traffic codes-- they can be ticketed for speeding or any other violation of the code. Not being licensed just means that the driver gets another charge-- driving without a license.

Or a taxpayer without involving myself (consent) into a subject that is reachable by the act in question?

You may be right there, but there are a lot more "subjects reachable" by the Internal Revenue Code than you realize.

[stija]

By driving. People without drivers licenses are often subjected to the traffic codes-- they can be ticketed for speeding or any other violation of the code. Not being licensed just means that the driver gets another charge-- driving without a license.

Hold on now. How is the cop going to ticket someone who is not licensed under the act?
Driving without a license you say huh? Well, lets say it is an illegal, who has no legal status, how does he get a ticket for no license? You do know that driving without a license applies only to citizens and residents there of right? In other words a legal status of some sort.

Under what statute would DPS charge civilly someone who has no civil status?
And more importantly, how do you penalize them monetarily? Usually we pay because we don't want to lose a license based on which we get a ticket right. Think about what is going on....

Are you inferring that the Nurse Practice Act for example can fine or penalize someone who is not licensed by them?? I disagree.

As far as citizenship, i asked about naturalization and application for one. If one is born here, he is implicitly a citizen until he does something to dispute or renunciate it. But that wasn't the question. I was NOT born here. I was naturalized. It involved my consent. I obtained my passport by adding an attachment certifying and declaring that i am a citizen of Arizona and not the U.S. citizen on the DS 11 form where i signed my name (because i can't modify United States property). All other questions were answered private. The USPS officer would not accept it. It took me 3 months to find one that would. And I also won a 200$ bet i made with another nonbeliever from work. I probably made another federal watch list though.

I have a first amendment right to say WHO AND WHAT I AM. Not you and not Congress or Barack can change that. No one can.

[Dr. Caligari]

Hold on now. How is the cop going to ticket someone who is not licensed under the act?
Driving without a license you say huh? Well, lets say it is an illegal, who has no legal status, how does he get a ticket for no license?

Happens every day.

You do know that driving without a license applies only to citizens and residents there of right? In other words a legal status of some sort.

Utter bullshit.

Under what statute would DPS charge civilly someone who has no civil status?

The Traffic Code. Same as anyone else.

And more importantly, how do you penalize them monetarily? Usually we pay because we don't want to lose a license based on which we get a ticket right. Think about what is going on....

The same way the court enforces any other fine: if the defendant doesn't pay voluntarily, men with guns come and take away stuff that they own.

[Arthur Rubin]

(edit conflict)

By driving. People without drivers licenses are often subjected to the traffic codes-- they can be ticketed for speeding or any other violation of the code. Not being licensed just means that the driver gets another charge-- driving without a license.

Hold on now. How is the cop going to ticket someone who is not licensed under the act?
Driving without a license you say huh? Well, lets say it is an illegal, who has no legal status, how does he get a ticket for no license? You do know that driving without a license applies only to citizens and residents there of right? In other words a legal status of some sort.

Nope. "Driving without a license" applies to persons within the physical jurisdiction of the state (probably Arizona). "Murder" also applies (at least) to persons within the physical jurisdiction of state. No difference in phrasing. Now, if you were not a person, someone could kill you without legal consequence....

I have a first amendment right to say WHO AND WHAT I AM. Not you and not Congress or Barack can change that. No one can.

Well, if you would take the opportunity to read the first amendment, you will find that no statute (and, by incorporation, no government) can restrict your speech. There is no legal restriction there on private entities restricting your speech.

[stija]

Well, if you would take the opportunity to read the first amendment, you will find that no statute (and, by incorporation, no government) can restrict your speech. There is no legal restriction there on private entities restricting your speech.

True.

As far as driver's license, illegals have no legal status thus are non existent under civil laws.
Criminal laws apply. I never advanced or suggested that they do not. If you go back to my explanation to travis of jurisdiction you will see that i explicitly included: do no harm, not put anyone in danger, and don't impede on anyone else's rights. That's a succinct definition of criminal code.

[obadiah]

I have a first amendment right to say WHO AND WHAT I AM. Not you and not Congress or Barack can change that. No one can.

Yes you do have a right to say that. You do NOT have a right or the power to decide which laws apply to you. If you are so certain about laws and taxes, post or PM me your actual name and employer. No possible harm could come from letting the IRS know what you think, could it? You're right and everyone here is wrong, right?