Jurisdiction evidence

[Duke2Earl]

Yes, there are amounts received that are exempt from taxable income. There are lots of examples.. interest on tax exempt bonds, amounts received on account of personal injuries, inherited amounts, gifts, etc... etc. However, amounts earned by a US Citizen (or even a non-citizen for that matter) inside the US (and Arizona is inside the US) for business activities are not exempt from income taxation. And no, you cannot designate yourself to be a "foreign estate." Again this is not debatable. It is simply the truth.

[Burzmali]

7. Obviously evidence EXISTS within the IRC that PROVES that there is income which is NOT TAXABLE.

William Shatner

The Observer: 1
Burzmali: 2

[stija]

Yes, there are amounts received that are exempt from taxable income. There are lots of examples

1. Who is talking about exempt???
2. Read 7701(a)(31)(A) again.
3. My income is not exempt per 7701(a)(31)(A).
4. My income is not includible into taxable income and thus NOT SUBJECT to the tax per 7701(a)(31)(A).
5. Exempt is what your masters at IRS allow you fools to claim.
6. I don't play with my servants or ask them for permissions.
7. Do you not see how you are constantly assuming things that are never said or promoted by anyone but your own tricky mind.

Don't delete my posts because you don't like what i say LPC. The fact that you pay income taxes is not verifiable by me either, yet i accept your statements. A declaration or statement of fact stands as true unless rebutted. You can't just delete my pleading in court because you have nothing relevant to say.

(and Arizona is inside the US)

1. Unsubstantiated claim and wrong.
2. IRS disagrees.
3. Courts do too.
4. DOJ does too: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_ ... m00664.htm
5. Legal evidence can be found in 40 USC 3112.
6. Arizona Constitution Article 1 Section 1 is legal evidence of Arizona land, no United States land.
7. You are confusing the name of the nation as in the family of nations with United States territorial jurisdicition and its geography under 4:3:2 and 1:8:17.
8. United States has three different meanings, see Hooven & Allison v. Evatt.

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1]It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2]It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, Page 324 U. S. 672 or [3]it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. [Footnote 6]

9. Go find the case and read footnote 6.
10. No man can be domiciled on two mutually exclusive geographical locations.

Mrs. Macomber, a citizen and resident of New York, was, in the year 1916

See Macomber v. Eisner; a case dealing with income taxation yet she wasn't referred to United States citizen and resident BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE SAME!
11. Neither can be a corporation unless allowed by the laws of the sovereign who chartered it. Which does not exist in American Jurisprudence.
12. Therefore, it is the members of this forum that post BOGUS and UNSUBSTANTIATED claims based on their PERSONAL beliefs and situations which do NOT necessarily translate into being either true or relevant to every other individual.


Many of you have claimed that i can be a citizen and resident of ARizona and a citizen and resident of United States under federal law. Can ONE of you SUBSTANTIATE that claim with case law?

Otherwise, keep your political and personal beliefs to yourself and write to your constituents that care.

[Burzmali]

Many of you have claimed that i can be a citizen and resident of ARizona and a citizen and resident of United States under federal law. Can ONE of you SUBSTANTIATE that claim with case law?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Also:


Gene Ray

The Observer: 1
Burzmali: 2.5

(Only claiming a half point, most "question" askers here seem to be channeling him.)

[Pottapaug1938]

"A declaration or statement of fact stands as true unless rebutted."

So -- does that mean that if I claim that Mila Kunis is my secret wife, and you are unable to prove that she isn't, then she truly IS Mrs. Pottapaug?

[stija]

No.
Thats a 12(b)(6) dismissal.
But if you claim i owe you 10,000$ and i dont deny, you win 10,000.
You know that. Dont play dumb.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Yes, I am a 14th Amendment citizen. I never alleged not to be.
I am saying i am not a United States citizen by any federal law because the law of my domicile is Arizona law.
Congress has jurisdiction over subject matter over me in things enumerated for example in 1:8:16.

[Pottapaug1938]

No.
Thats a 12(b)(6) dismissal.
But if you claim i owe you 10,000$ and i dont deny, you win 10,000.

You know that. Dont play dumb.

Wrong, Sparky. If you claim that you owe me $10,000 and file suit to recover it, and you fail to respond to the pleadings, I still have to convince a court that I have a valid right to your $10,000 before I can get a judgment in my favor.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Yes, I am a 14th Amendment citizen. I never alleged not to be.
I am saying i am not a United States citizen by any federal law because the law of my domicile is Arizona law.
Congress has jurisdiction over subject matter over me in things enumerated for example in 1:8:16.

There is no legal distinction, anywhere in the law, between a "14th Amendment citizen" and a "United States citizen". You cannot show me ONE court case where the HOLDING said anything different. Among other things, the 14th Amendment invalidated all existing citizenship laws; so howver you want to refer to your citizenship, or however you want to claim its origin, the fact remains that there is only one kind of American/United Stes citizenship; and it is as described in the 14th Amendment.

If you wish to prove otherwise, then let's see that holding in the appellate court case -- and it can't be one which has since been reversed.

[stija]

1. You confused sparky.
2. I would not enter court to claim i owe you 10,000$.
3. 14th Amendment put all citizens on EQUAL footing. It was passed for disenfrenchised individuals living within United States jurisdiction and having no way of becoming citizens.

In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that ‘citizen‘ means ‘citizen of the United States‘, and not person generally, nor citizen of a State; and that the ‘rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States‘ means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651,4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274; United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76, 5 S.Ct. 35, 28 L.Ed. 673;Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 12 S.Ct. 617,36 L.Ed. 429; United States v. Moseley, supra. In the Yarbrough case the right involved was that to vote in a Congressional election, as it was in the Moseley case; in the Waddell case it was the right to make a federal homestead entry; and in the Logan case it was the right to be secure from lawless violence while a prisoner in the hands of a United States Marshal. These matters, all within the federal power, Congress could protect under the general authority to pass ‘all necessary and proper laws‘, under U.S.C.A. Constitution, Art. 1, Sect. 8,Par. 18. But Section 5519 of the Revised Statutes, which undertook similarly to punish conspiracies against any person to deprive him of the equal protection of the laws, or *150 to prevent State authorities from affording such protection, was held unconstitutional, because neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other part of the Constitution put the matter of conspiracies by individuals touching such matters within the power of Congress, but only gave power to correct wrong action by the State or its officers. It was so held in United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S.Ct. 601,27 L.Ed. 290, where the person mobbed was in the custody of a State Sheriff; and in Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763, 30 L.Ed.766, where the rights of a Chinese under a treaty of the United States were involved. It was again held that the power of Congress was not extended to protect against violations by individuals of the general rights of persons and citizens by the mention of such rights in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C.A., in the Civil Rights Cases,109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835. The reasoning of these cases, though opposed by some dissents, is full and convincing, and the conclusion reached as to the effect upon federal power of the Fourteenth Amendment has stood for more than two generations.

Pursuing further the application of the statute now before us, in Baldwin v. Franks, supra, it was held the word ‘citizen‘ means citizen of the United States in a political sense, and did not include a resident Chinese. Again in Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, 27 S.Ct. 6, 51 L.Ed. 65, the section was invoked against conspirators who were charged with interfering with citizens in their right or liberty of contracting to work in a lawful occupation, but the court held that this was a common right of all persons, and the Fourteenth Amendment did not put it under federal protection except against State action; and the fact that the persons there involved were negroes did not bring the matter within the special ambit of the Thirteenth Amendment. Similarly in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 41 S.Ct. 133, 65 L.Ed. 270,the right invaded by the conspirators was the citizen's right to remain in the State of his choice, and to remove only at his own will. The Court conceded the right to be fundamental and to belong to the citizens of each State, and to be guarded in part against State interference by Art. 4, Sect. 2 of the Constitution, but held that no federal offense was involved in an abduction done by individual conspirators.
[Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (1940)]

Most importantly, the court tells you that when Congress legislates on the 14th Amendment (as is the case with all others) it legislates for the States (gov't) and not for private individuals.

You fools think that Congress legislates for private behavior. This court tells you that it legislates for public behavior by state officers, agents or agencies and instrumentalities thereof.

I am a private individual.

[Pottapaug1938]

1. You confused sparky.
2. I would not enter court to claim i owe you 10,000$.
3. 14th Amendment put all citizens on EQUAL footing. It was passed for disenfrenchised individuals living within United States jurisdiction and having no way of becoming citizens.

Again, you are wilfully ignoring what I meant regarding #2. As for #3, that may arguably have been the motivation for the 14th Amendment; but the clear language of the Amendment makes no such distinction. If ANYONE is born within the United States and is not the child of foreign diplomats, he or she is a United Staes citizen/citizen of the United States/American citizen from birth.

If you would like to see more evidence of that, simply go to the search box in the upper right corner of the page, and type int he words "14th Amendment citizen". You will see 11 pages of examples, going back to 2007, in which that phrase was relevant to the post made. Spend some time reading them, paying special attention to the HOLDINGS in the case law; and you will see that there is only one kind of federal citizenship -- yours and mine.

[stija]

1. You confused sparky.
2. I would not enter court to claim i owe you 10,000$.
3. 14th Amendment put all citizens on EQUAL footing. It was passed for disenfrenchised individuals living within United States jurisdiction and having no way of becoming citizens.

Again, you are wilfully ignoring what I meant regarding #2. As for #3, that may arguably have been the motivation for the 14th Amendment; but the clear language of the Amendment makes no such distinction. If ANYONE is born within the United States and is not the child of foreign diplomats, he or she is a United Staes citizen/citizen of the United States/American citizen from birth.

If you would like to see more evidence of that, simply go to the search box in the upper right corner of the page, and type int he words "14th Amendment citizen". You will see 11 pages of examples, going back to 2007, in which that phrase was relevant to the post made. Spend some time reading them, paying special attention to the HOLDINGS in the case law; and you will see that there is only one kind of federal citizenship -- yours and mine.

I AM A FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CITIZEN. Get it already! I don't have to read about it.

You don't know what you are.
Read the above quote.
Congress legislates for public behaviors restricting injury to YOUR private rights.
If i am injured by an individual such as you, i sue you in equity under 3:2 div of citizenship, I DONT NEED NO STINKING STATUTE to recognize my right to reach you and sue you.
If i am injured by an individual in my state, i sue him under the Arizona Constitution.
In any event, I DONT NEED NO STINKING STATUTE to authorize me to do ANYTHING that does not involve a PUBLIC RIGHT.

[webhick]

I AM A DONUT!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Pottapaug1938]

Again, you are wilfully ignoring what I meant regarding #2. As for #3, that may arguably have been the motivation for the 14th Amendment; but the clear language of the Amendment makes no such distinction. If ANYONE is born within the United States and is not the child of foreign diplomats, he or she is a United Staes citizen/citizen of the United States/American citizen from birth.

If you would like to see more evidence of that, simply go to the search box in the upper right corner of the page, and type int he words "14th Amendment citizen". You will see 11 pages of examples, going back to 2007, in which that phrase was relevant to the post made. Spend some time reading them, paying special attention to the HOLDINGS in the case law; and you will see that there is only one kind of federal citizenship -- yours and mine.

I AM A FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CITIZEN. Get it already! I don't have to read about it.

You don't know what you are.
Read the above quote.
Congress legislates for public behaviors restricting injury to YOUR private rights.
If i am injured by an individual such as you, i sue you in equity under 3:2 div of citizenship, I DONT NEED NO STINKING STATUTE to recognize my right to reach you and sue you.
If i am injured by an individual in my state, i sue him under the Arizona Constitution.
In any event, I DONT NEED NO STINKING STATUTE to authorize me to do ANYTHING that does not involve a PUBLIC RIGHT.

You are NOT a "Fourteenth Amendment Citizen". You are a United States Citizen; and a citizen of the state in which you reside. So am I.

If you bothered to read the posts I mentioned, you would see references to the fact that, before the 14th Amendment, there was no federal definition of United States citizenship. You became a US citizen by becoming a citizen of one of its component states; so if the state where you resided excluded you from citizenship, then you were not a US citizen. the 14th Amendment, for the first time, explicitly defined what a US citizen was; and it swept away all contrary laws which existed prior to the Amendment's ratification.

So yes, you DO "have to read about it -- unless, of course, you don't care what the facts are.

[stija]

If you bothered to read the posts I mentioned, you would see references to the fact that, before the 14th Amendment, there was no federal definition of United States citizenship. You became a US citizen by becoming a citizen of one of its component states; so if the state where you resided excluded you from citizenship, then you were not a US citizen. the 14th Amendment, for the first time, explicitly defined what a US citizen was; and it swept away all contrary laws which existed prior to the Amendment's ratification.

1. Let us use your logic - follow what you said.
2. Before 14th Am. there was no federal definiton of United States citizenship.
3. Therefore, people living on United State lands and domiciled therein, had no way of obtaining citizenship.
4. States existed and so did state citizens.
5. People from 3. domiciled within United States could not be naturalized unless they moved to a state.
6. We passed the 14th Am. giving Congress right to legislate federal citizens in federal law.
7. 14th Am. puts these new United States citizens on EQUAL footing with the rest of citizens.
8. Thus, i am a citizen of Arizona or citizen of United States under the 14th Am. - EQUAL footing so it is irrelevant which i am.
9. State citizens existed before, and exist so today.
10. You're just too dumb to realize what is going on.
11. Read the 5th circuit court of appeals quote above because IT EXPLICITLY DISCRIMINATES between state citizens and United States citizen for which federal law is binding BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THEIR DOMICILE.
12. Therefore, i am a 14th Am. citizen and a state citizen.
13. I am not domiciled within United States like the individuals for whom the 14th Amendment was passed. It wasn't passed for people living in the states because they were already citizens.

You just don't get it.

In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that ‘citizen‘ means ‘citizen of the United States‘, AND NOT person generally, NOR citizen of a State; and that the ‘rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States‘ means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651,4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274; United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76, 5 S.Ct. 35, 28 L.Ed. 673;Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 12 S.Ct. 617,36 L.Ed. 429; United States v. Moseley, supra. In the Yarbrough case the right involved was that to vote in a Congressional election, as it was in the Moseley case; in the Waddell case it was the right to make a federal homestead entry; and in the Logan case it was the right to be secure from lawless violence while a prisoner in the hands of a United States Marshal. These matters, all within the federal power, Congress could protect under the general authority to pass ‘all necessary and proper laws‘, under U.S.C.A. Constitution, Art. 1, Sect. 8,Par. 18. But Section 5519 of the Revised Statutes, which undertook similarly to punish conspiracies against any person to deprive him of the equal protection of the laws, or *150 to prevent State authorities from affording such protection, was held unconstitutional, because neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other part of the Constitution put the matter of conspiracies by individuals touching such matters within the power of Congress, but only gave power to correct wrong action by the State or its officers. It was so held in United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S.Ct. 601,27 L.Ed. 290, where the person mobbed was in the custody of a State Sheriff; and in Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763, 30 L.Ed.766, where the rights of a Chinese under a treaty of the United States were involved. It was again held that the power of Congress was not extended to protect against violations by individuals of the general rights of persons and citizens by the mention of such rights in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C.A., in the Civil Rights Cases,109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835. The reasoning of these cases, though opposed by some dissents, is full and convincing, and the conclusion reached as to the effect upon federal power of the Fourteenth Amendment has stood for more than two generations.

Pursuing further the application of the statute now before us, in Baldwin v. Franks, supra, it was held the word ‘citizen‘ means citizen of the United States in a political sense, and did not include a resident Chinese. Again in Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1, 27 S.Ct. 6, 51 L.Ed. 65, the section was invoked against conspirators who were charged with interfering with citizens in their right or liberty of contracting to work in a lawful occupation, but the court held that this was a common right of all persons, and the Fourteenth Amendment did not put it under federal protection except against State action; and the fact that the persons there involved were negroes did not bring the matter within the special ambit of the Thirteenth Amendment. Similarly in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 41 S.Ct. 133, 65 L.Ed. 270,the right invaded by the conspirators was the citizen's right to remain in the State of his choice, and to remove only at his own will. The Court conceded the right to be fundamental and to belong to the citizens of each State, and to be guarded in part against State interference by Art. 4, Sect. 2 of the Constitution, but held that no federal offense was involved in an abduction done by individual conspirators.
[Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (1940)]

WHY DO YOU GUYS PURPOSELY DISREGARD THE EVIDENCE AND WHAT THE COURT IS TELLING YOU??

My state of Arizona has in personam jurisdiction of my political citizenship and NOT the United States under federal law. I do however have a political association through the U.S. Constitution, as a citizen of Arizona, to all the other citizens of this great union. But that is ONLY in the constitutional context and not in federal statutory.

[Pottapaug1938]

"8. Thus, i am a citizen of Arizona or citizen of United States under the 14th Am. - EQUAL footing so it is irrelevant which i am."

Not "or", but "and".

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your last post because it is gibberish, and because the quote you offer us is out of context and thus cannot be properly evaluated. But hey -- I'll make things easy for you.

Simply offer us ONE holding in ONE court opinion, issued on or after July 8, 1868, in which an appellate court holds that there is a current and legally valid distinction betwen "14th Amendment citizenship" and any other kind of United States citizenship (not, in other words, citizenship of a particular state). Show us that there is more than one class of United States citizenship (not state citizenship) which exists today. Show us that, today, you can be born, within any of the 50 states, without being the child of a foreign diplomat, and NOT be United States citizen.

We're all waiting.

[LPC]

Of course, anyone who resides within any of the states of the United States is required to pay federal income tax regardless of what kind of citizen he or she might be, so the whole question of citizenship is irrelevant.

For that reason, and because stija hijacked this old thread for no apparent reason, I will probably lock it down after stija's next barrage of legalistic gibberish.

[stija]

Simply offer us ONE holding in ONE court opinion, issued on or after July 8, 1868, in which an appellate court holds that there is a current and legally valid distinction betwen "14th Amendment citizenship" and any other kind of United States citizenship (not, in other words, citizenship of a particular state). Show us that there is more than one class of United States citizenship (not state citizenship) which exists today. Show us that, today, you can be born, within any of the 50 states, without being the child of a foreign diplomat, and NOT be United States citizen.

1. There isn't.
2. You're missing the point.
3. United States federal citizen is a 14th Amendment citizen.
4. Stija is an Arizonan and is a 14th Amendment citizen.
5. Arizonan and federal Untied States citizen are not equal.
6. But both ARE 14th Amendment citizens.
7. There is no more than one class of United States federal citizen - there is just one.
8. I posted an opinion twice which made an EXPLICIT DISTINCTION between a federal United States citizen, a person generally, and a citizen of a state. You just don't want to accept it.
9. Or you're plain dumb.
10. STija never suggested that citizenship or civil status has ANYTHING to do with liability under IRC.