Stija on Stija

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by Famspear »

stija wrote:
AndyK wrote:
stija wrote: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 :haha:
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.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
stija

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by stija »

Famspear wrote:
stija wrote:
AndyK wrote: 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 :haha:
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??
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Stija on 'United States'

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

stija wrote: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.
Last edited by Pottapaug1938 on Thu May 16, 2013 3:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Trade or Business & Reporting requirements

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

My "don't care light" is flashing.

What Stija needs cannot be provided by rational argument.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by AndyK »

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

You are again becoming petty and childish.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: Stija on 'United States'

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

stija wrote: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.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by LPC »

stija wrote: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.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Stija on 'United States'

Post by LPC »

stija wrote:Q1: Why is United States defined many times throughout Title 26?
Why not?
stija wrote: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?
stija wrote: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?
stija wrote: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?
stija wrote: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?
stija wrote: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.
stija wrote: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?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
stija

Re: Stija on 'United States'

Post by 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

Re: Trade or Business & Reporting requirements

Post by stija »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:My "don't care light" is flashing.

What Stija needs cannot be provided by rational argument.
1. Go 'don't care' somewhere else.
stija

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by stija »

AndyK wrote: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
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Trade or Business & Reporting requirements

Post by Dr. Caligari »

stija wrote:@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.
stija wrote: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."
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
stija

Re: Trade or Business & Reporting requirements

Post by 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 :roll:
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.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Stija on 'United States'

Post by 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.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by Gregg »

Is anyone else tired of the new village idiot yet?
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7580
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by 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.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
stija

Re: Stija on 'United States'

Post by stija »

Gregg wrote: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.
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by webhick »

stija wrote: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.
stija wrote: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
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
stija

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by 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?
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: Can Quatloos answer a simple question

Post by webhick »

stija wrote:
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.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie