Stija on Stija

[Famspear]

2. 1st Amendment political speech prohibited here, said the admin who locked the other topic.

The First Amendment is not applicable to this or any other privately-owned internet forum.

If you violate the forum rules, you could be banned or subject to some other form of oversight.

1. You guys
2. Can't even read simple English properly.
3. ESL English says that not applicable = prohibited here.

No, "not applicable" in this context means that if you are banned from posting here by an administrator at Quatloos, your First Amendment right to freedom of speech has not been violated. This is because Quatloos is a not a government entity.

[stija]

The First Amendment is not applicable to this or any other privately-owned internet forum.

If you violate the forum rules, you could be banned or subject to some other form of oversight.

1. You guys
2. Can't even read simple English properly.
3. ESL English says that not applicable = prohibited here.

No, "not applicable" in this context means that if you are banned from posting here by an administrator at Quatloos, your First Amendment right to freedom of speech has not been violated. This is because Quatloos is a not a government entity.

1. What did AndyK eat for breakfast this morning Famspear?
2. What is he thinkig now?
3. How about now??

[Pottapaug1938]

Q1: Why is United States defined many times throughout Title 26? Or, alternatively, why not define United States once to include everything and be done with it?
Q2: Why is United States defined in 7701 different than in 4612?
Q3: Why was there a need to redefine it in 4612 if the definition from 7701 was all inclusive?
Q4: What does the U.S. Constitution say about territory/geography given or possessed by the United States government?

Please do not post if you are Famspear, or Pottapaugh1938 because your posts will simply be ignored. If you are one of the aforementioned individuals, you are wasting your breath.

Thanks.

I guess that you are afraid of me calling you out again. Don't worry -- your questions are such gibberish that I'm not going to waste my time on them.

[Judge Roy Bean]

My "don't care light" is flashing.

What Stija needs cannot be provided by rational argument.

[AndyK]

Famspear is 100% correct in his explanation of my comment.

You are again becoming petty and childish.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Q1: Why is United States defined many times throughout Title 26? Or, alternatively, why not define United States once to include everything and be done with it? ...

Because there is no need to.

[LPC]

2. The opinion elaborately explains that if the burden was directly on the agent (agency, instrumentality) of the gov't, IID would have covered him as well.

No, it doesn't.

You're making stuff up again.

[LPC]

Q1: Why is United States defined many times throughout Title 26?

Why not?

Or, alternatively, why not define United States once to include everything and be done with it?

What would be the purpose or advantage of that? Or, putting it differently, why do you care?

Q2: Why is United States defined in 7701 different than in 4612?

Why not? Or, putting it differently, is there any reason not to define it differently?

Q3: Why was there a need to redefine it in 4612 if the definition from 7701 was all inclusive?

Does there need to be a need?

Q4: What does the U.S. Constitution say about territory/geography given or possessed by the United States government?

What do you think it says?

Please do not post if you are Famspear, or Pottapaugh1938 because your posts will simply be ignored. If you are one of the aforementioned individuals, you are wasting your breath.

And, if you are NOT one of the aforementioned individuals, you are also wasting your breath.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Now, I'll ask you a question:

Does "United States," when used in a geographical sense, include the land area of the 50 states?

[stija]

Does "United States," when used in a geographical sense, include the land area of the 50 states?

1. Stija does not know.
2. Stija does not read LPC's mind.
3. Stija wishes he had LPC's mind reading skills.
4. Why doesn't LPC tell us, it's his definition.
5. Stija cannot even guess the context, much less what LPC is thinking.
6. Stija will answer LPC question only if:
a) LPC clarifies the context
b) LPC answers Stija's questions.
7. By answering Stija's questions, he will have answered his.

Macomber v. Eisner:

The facts, in outline, are as follows:

On January 1, 1916, the Standard Oil Company of California, a corporation of that State...
....
Being concerned only with the true character and effect of such a dividend when lawfully made, we lay aside the question whether in a particular case a stock dividend may be authorized by the local law governing the corporation,

...and...

Mrs. Macomber, a citizen and resident of New York, was, in the year 1916, a stockholder in the Standard Oil Company (of California), a corporation organized under the laws of California and having its principal place of business in that State.

Q1: Was Macomber case a federal income taxation case?
Q2: Why was Standard Oil not a United States corporation under federal laws in question?
Q3: Why was Mrs. Macomber a citizen and resident of New York under federal laws in question?
Q4: Why does local (California law) govern the corporation under federal laws in question?
Q5: What the hell is going on LPC?
Q6: Will you explain it to me so i can laugh?
Q7: Shouldn't they both be United States citizens and residents under federal laws in question?

Stija alleges that none are more hopelessly confused than those that 'know' they know.

[stija]

My "don't care light" is flashing.

What Stija needs cannot be provided by rational argument.

1. Go 'don't care' somewhere else.

[stija]

Famspear is 100% correct in his explanation of my comment.

You are again becoming petty and childish.

1. Where did i say that my right was violated.
2. I said that 1st amendment political gibberish of the poster is prohibited here, as advised by an admin.

We are asked to decide whether the imposition by the State of New York of an income tax on the salary of an employee of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation places an unconstitutional burden upon the federal government.

1. Use logic.
2. If court decided in affirmative, IID would have applied.
3. More elaborate answer too complicated for LPC to follow.
4. This one pretty simple, hope LPC follows.

[Dr. Caligari]

@stija,

1. Congress cannot create a trade or business within a state in order to tax it. It matters not whether we call it a trade or business or a business, it cannot be created within the state to be taxed. Dr. answered it properly when he said that Congress can create a corp, bank, business, trade or business, or whatever and operate it within the states on one of their enumerated powers, but Congress cannot created any such public rights WITHIN the state. Such rights are EXCLUSIVELY of the states domain.

Not what I said, and wrong. Congress can indeed create a business within a State. They just have to be exercising one of their enumerated powers to do it. If I am not mistaken, Amtrak, although created by Act of Congress (pursuant to the Commerce Clause), is a Pennsylvania corporation.

2. Information returns are triggered by payments of more than 600$ within a taxable period made in connection with a trade or business, pursuant to 26USC 6041.

Who here received payments in connection with United States trade or business within their state? I know i did not. In fact, Stija needs nothing from United States except obedience to the U.S. Constitution which is the law of the land he inhabits.

You quoted the rule correctly from IRC 6041. Where does that rule say it has to be a "United States trade or business within a state"? It just says a "trade or business."

[stija]

Not what I said, and wrong. Congress can indeed create a business within a State. They just have to be exercising one of their enumerated powers to do it. If I am not mistaken, Amtrak, although created by Act of Congress (pursuant to the Commerce Clause), is a Pennsylvania corporation.

1. Act of Congress creates corporation.
2. Original character United States; District of Columbia headquarters.
3. Corporation incorporates in Pennsylvania by filing with its Corporate Commission. (probably other states as well)
4. Corp can do that because allowed by Act of Congress.
5. Same thing happened with Union Pacific RR and Brushaber mistakenly thought it was just a Utah corporation.
6. Dr. making same erroneous assumption as Brushaber did.
7. Act of Congress cannot incorporate in Pennsylvania directly.
8. Prove 7. wrong.
9. Why you assume 'trade or business' same as a corporation.
10. Trade or business equivalent to a public right.

Add'l info:
1. It was incorporated in DC as National Railroad Passenger Corporation on 03/30/1971.
2. If you can prove that it was incorporated in Pennsylvania before that, you win.
3. I cannot access Pennsylvania corp commission, and I allege that there is no way it was incorporated there first because it was created by an Act of Congress.
4. I love being right based solely on fundamental principles of federalism and constitutional jurisprudence.
5. I also allege that if you believe Act of Congress can incorporate a business like Amtrak in a state you do not understand American Jurisprudence or fundamental principles of sovereignty, federalism, etc.
6. Strike down my happiness and prove me wrong.
7. I know you want to

You quoted the rule correctly from IRC 6041. Where does that rule say it has to be a "United States trade or business within a state"? It just says a "trade or business."

1. Thank you, i can read and looks like you can too.
2. What is the definition of "trade or business" in Title 26?
3. It is defined in United States Code, whose else "trade or business" are you implying it would be? Asian? Arizona? Nevada?
4. 100$ you never cared to look because forms you fill out come with instructions, right.
5. When you find out what it means check 4 USC 72.
6. Then check U.S. Constitution 1:8:17.
7. Then come here troll some more for further instructions.

[Gregg]

On an off topic side note, there is little on this earth as annoying to me as a person who referes to himself in the third person.

MacArthur could pull it off, but you can't.

[Gregg]

Is anyone else tired of the new village idiot yet?

[wserra]

Yes. Which is why I don't respond to him, other than to point out once that he continues to babble about things even he considers irrelevant. Think he would do that if no one answered?

Actually, perhaps this guy would. In that case - if he clearly viewed Q as his own sandbox, in which he could continue to throw stuff around even if alone - I for one would consider him a clear candidate for moderation. So long as people continue to answer him, I don't.

[stija]

On an off topic side note, there is little on this earth as annoying to me as a person who referes to himself in the third person.

MacArthur could pull it off, but you can't.

1. Maybe so.
2. But Stija can interpret the IRC properly.

[webhick]

2. I said that 1st amendment political gibberish of the poster is prohibited here, as advised by an admin.

For public record, I never advised you that "1st amendment political speech" or "1st amendment political gibberish" is prohibited here. I said, "No political discussions." Given what you've said here publicly about how you considered his post to be a violation and what you told me privately, I will give you one warning on this:

The rule is "No political discussions." You are not allowed to bend the definition of political discussions to "beliefs ... in relation to the Gov't only" (full quote below for those who want to see it unabridged) and use your new version of the rule to allege violations against said rule.

If you post again that any admin advised you that the rule on politics is anything but "No political discussions" there will be consequences.

1. You are right, no true politics, but his gibberish is just his beliefs and 1st amendment protected speech in relation to the Gov't only.

viewtopic.php?p=156820#p156820

[stija]

If you post again that any admin advised you that the rule on politics is anything but "No political discussions" there will be consequences.

1. Warning noticed.
2. Consequences secret and dependent on the poster or can they be publicly known?

[webhick]

If you post again that any admin advised you that the rule on politics is anything but "No political discussions" there will be consequences.

1. Warning noticed.
2. Consequences secret and dependent on the poster or can they be publicly known?

Consequences are discussed amongst the moderators and admins privately and are based on a variety of factors. Whether the consequences are released publicly prior is also based on a variety of factors.