Stija on Stija

[stija]

@webhick,

Thanks.

[Cathulhu]

What Wes said. I'm coping with an injury from being hit and run last week, and do not have the patience to bother with this troll.

[Duke2Earl]

Is anyone else tired of the new village idiot yet?

Absolutely.... but what I object to is that we allow him to set the rules of discussion. Exactly whose forum is this? Somehow, it has become Stija's forum. He gets to ask the questions. He gets to say who gets to respond. He gets to be as crypic as he wants but we have to be specific. He gets to speak in the 3rd person about himself.

If we are not going to ban or moderate him (and I think moderation is ridiculous and forces one of us to have to play his games with him)... then I think we have to set the rules. And in Stija style:

1. No more stupid questions. If he has a point or position he is welcome to state it, in detail with his support and we can comment or not as we chose. But he is not in charge here. Stupid unexplained questions should not be acknowledged in any respect.

2. No more "I am god and you are ignorant" stuff. Seemingly no post of his is complete without comments on how we are stupid, and he is the only one who understands anything. This stuff should simply be deleted on sight.

3. No more comments about how he doesn't pay taxes or is not a US citizen or how the IRS agrees with him without written proof. Again, the cure is deletion on sight.

This is not his forum. He has taken our general position of accommodating everyone as much as possible and beat us over the head with it. In my opinion... no more.

[stija]

If we are not going to ban or moderate him (and I think moderation is ridiculous and forces one of us to have to play his games with him)... then I think we have to set the rules. And in Stija style:

1. No more stupid questions. If he has a point or position he is welcome to state it, in detail with his support and we can comment or not as we chose. But he is not in charge here. Stupid unexplained questions should not be acknowledged in any respect.

2. No more "I am god and you are ignorant" stuff. Seemingly no post of his is complete without comments on how we are stupid, and he is the only one who understands anything. This stuff should simply be deleted on sight.

3. No more comments about how he doesn't pay taxes or is not a US citizen or how the IRS agrees with him without written proof. Again, the cure is deletion on sight.

This is not his forum. He has taken our general position of accommodating everyone as much as possible and beat us over the head with it. In my opinion... no more.

1. Someone grew some cajones.
2. Someone should stand up to IRS with same vicious intent.
3. Stija asked for rules long ago.
4. Thank you for providing them.
5. Stija will gladly play by your rules in your "house."
6. No question stupid question.
7. Especially the one that cost you money if you answer wrong.
8. Stija pays taxes all the time.
9. Stija pays income taxes every time he is required to do so.
10. STija does not, and never will break any income tax laws.
11. People who break laws end up in jail.

Question for Dr. Caligari: Why was Mrs. Macomber not a United States citizen and resident in her case involving federal income taxation?

[Dr. Caligari]

Question for Dr. Caligari: Why was Mrs. Macomber not a United States citizen and resident in her case involving federal income taxation?

She was. The Court mentioned her state citizenship because that was relevant to an issue in the case. But if she was a state citizen, she was also ipso facto a U.S. citizen.

[stija]

Code: Select all

Question for Dr. Caligari: Why was Mrs. Macomber not a United States citizen and resident in her case involving federal income taxation?

She was. The Court mentioned her state citizenship because that was relevant to an issue in the case. But if she was a state citizen, she was also ipso facto a U.S. citizen.

1. Which U.S. Citizen? 14th Amendment or Title 26?

[Dr. Caligari]

1. Thank you, i can read and looks like you can too.

Translation: stija got caught lying about what the IRC says.

2. What is the definition of "trade or business" in Title 26?

Its ordinary dictionary meaning, plus the performance of a public office.

3. It is defined in United States Code, whose else "trade or business" are you implying it would be? Asian? Arizona? Nevada?

If you're a U.S. citizen, any or all of the above.

4. 100$ you never cared to look because forms you fill out come with instructions, right.

You owe me $100. I practice tax law.

5. When you find out what it means check 4 USC 72.
6. Then check U.S. Constitution 1:8:17.

Both irrelevant to a tax issue.

7. Then come here troll some more for further instructions.

You don't make the rules here. I've responded to you a few times so any lurkers can see what a pathetic liar you are, but that's over.

[LPC]

Question for Dr. Caligari: Why was Mrs. Macomber not a United States citizen and resident in her case involving federal income taxation?

She was. The Court mentioned her state citizenship because that was relevant to an issue in the case.

I was curious to what issue citizenship (or residence) would be relevant. It was two of the dissenters who thought it relevant that Macomber was a resident of NY and the corporation was a California corporation, because stock dividends were considered income under the laws of both NY and CA.

But if she was a state citizen, she was also ipso facto a U.S. citizen.

I think it would be better to say that US citizenship was not relevant to either the majority or dissenting opinions.

stija is wrong when he asks "Why was Mrs. Macomber not a United States citizen and resident" because none of the justices ever said any such thing. And it's not "implied" or "inferred" either.

His question is therefore disingenuous, because he's asking why something is true when it isn't true. It's not as bad as "when did you stop beating your wife," but close.

[Dr. Caligari]

stija is wrong about virtually everything he posts, and his questions are all disingenuous.

[stija]

stija is wrong when he asks "Why was Mrs. Macomber not a United States citizen and resident" because none of the justices ever said any such thing. And it's not "implied" or "inferred" either.

1. So implying and inferring acceptable here, but not in IID?
2. Where did they infer it?
3. Stija alleges you are inferring it.
4. Stija poses very simple questions so that you can follow the crumbs.
5. You not hungry for truth.
6. You hungry for being right.

[stija]

stija wrote:
1. Thank you, i can read and looks like you can too.

Translation: stija got caught lying about what the IRC says.

1. He agreed with me.
2. I thanked him.
3. Where is the lie?
4. We can manufacture one so you win.
5. You win. There.

[Quixote]

Q1: Was Macomber case a federal income taxation case?

You haven't read the case?

Q2: Why was Standard Oil not a United States corporation under federal laws in question?

What makes you think it wasn't? Nothing in the case even remotely suggests that Standard Oil was not a domestic corporation.

Q3: Why was Mrs. Macomber a citizen and resident of New York under federal laws in question?

I don't know that her statuses were determined by federal law. Could you cite your reference for that assertion?

Q4: Why does local (California law) govern the corporation under federal laws in question?

It didn't.

Q7: Shouldn't they both be United States citizens and residents under federal laws in question?

None of the federal law discussed by the Court related to citizenship or residency. Had either been relevant, the Court would have discussed them. The majority's opinion mentioned only in passing that Standard Oil of California was a California company and did not mention Macomber's citizenship or residency at all.

[stija]

Does something in the case suggest that it was a domestic corporation? Was the word domestic used somewhere? OR did you infer it in your mind? By your token, i could argue as well, that the decision inferred Standard Oil was a foreign corporation. The evidence is not there of them saying foreign, but you are using the same NONEXISTENT evidence to support your contention. Why can't I do the same?

Equal protection of the laws/rules. I am using your same reasoning to provide an equal alternative.

A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only.
[19 Corpus Juris Secundum, Corporations, §886]

Does Macomber case at least mention under which state law was the corporation created? Do they refer to the corporation as a California corporation or United States corporation? Maybe it is you who hasn't read the case.

The facts, in outline, are as follows:

On January 1, 1916, the Standard Oil Company of California, a corporation of that State,

That's a fact.

we lay aside the question whether in a particular case a stock dividend may be authorized by the local law governing the corporation

That's another fact.

Why are you resisting. I am not trying to show you how to participate in income tax games. I am trying to show you, by providing you the crumbs to follow, how to stop participating, if that is even possible, depending on your individual situation.

As you can see from the current events, IRS selectively enforces or harasses weaker individuals, or individuals it does not agree with. Do you think IRS would try and prosecute someone who may expose how the system works, and provide a holding for you ALL to read?? Think again. And as AndyK said, if something has not been litigated, there is no case law to provide.

For example, if no one litigated (and i am not saying they didn't) about their 7th Amendment protections, does that mean that 7th Amendment does not apply or exist because no case law interpreting it?? What are you guys on? Seriously.

[stija]

I have, in the past and last time in 2010, sent to Wilkins chief counsel of IRS affidavits, explaining the tax code to him, according to my interpretation, and also instigated the chief counsel of terrorism to prove me wrong in a court of law by calling him a 'commie' by United States declaration in 50 USC 841:

Unlike political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities,

What did i get in response? Nada. But i did create an administrative record to be used if i ever were to be challenged by his communistic agency. Sadly it will never happen. I wish it did, that way i can provide you with PROPER case law. And i am not the only one. Do you think i figured this all out on my own??? lol

[Arthur Rubin]

Now, I believe that is a new <redacted> concept by stija. We've had people incorrectly using the term "State citizen", "14th Amendment citizen", and "natural citizen", but never "Title 26 citizen".

Not that I believe stija has anything appropriate to say, but it seems a new term.

[stija]

Does Title 26 define 'U.S. citizen?' Yes it does, go see 26 CFR 1.1-1(c). If i just said that i am not a United States citizen, which i did, you would assume that i meant in re: 14th Amendment.

Thus to avoid confusing YOU guys, I pre-qualify the U.S. citizen with the proper context which is Title 26. What is confusing you?

Is there a 14th Amendment citizen? Yes, see 14th Amendment.
Is there a Title 26 citizen? Yes, see Title 26.
No confusion, no way to call me a liar when YOU have no clue what i say.

Did that answer your question?

[AndyK]

I have, in the past and last time in 2010, sent to Wilkins chief counsel of IRS affidavits, explaining the tax code to him, according to my interpretation, and also instigated the chief counsel of terrorism to prove me wrong in a court of law by calling him a 'commie' by United States declaration in 50 USC 841:

Unlike political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities,

What did i get in response? Nada. But i did create an administrative record to be used if i ever were to be challenged by his communistic agency. Sadly it will never happen. I wish it did, that way i can provide you with PROPER case law. And i am not the only one. Do you think i figured this all out on my own??? lol

Oh, so they were from YOU

I retired from the Office of Chief Counsel.

We regularly received copies of the more humorous and inane letters which came into the executive offices. They were all redacted to remove any possible identification of the sender, but they were still exceptionally funny -- except for those which were pathetic because the writer was clearly digging a bigger hole for himself.

But, the ultimate disposition of ALL of those letters (except those which appeared to pose a specific, serious threat OR were related to an ongoing civil or criminal investigation -- and few of those ever could be adequately redacted) was a cardboard box in Iron Mountain labeled with nothing more than a destroy date.

But, I'm sure that sending the letter(s) made you feel exceptionally good.

[stija]

But, I'm sure that sending the letter(s) made you feel exceptionally good.

Yes. Very good. You should try it.

I don't care what they did with it. I have certified proof i sent it and it should be in my administrative record as i requested and their rules require that all returns and affidavits by made part of record. Other than that, i don't care if he burned it. His actions, his choice.

Administrative record has to be used against me when i get sued by the IRS. Can't wait. I've been practicing defenses on the 'internet.'

[Quixote]

Does Title 26 define 'U.S. citizen?' Yes it does, go see 7701. If i just said that i am not a United States citizen, which i did, you would assume that i meant in re: 14th Amendment.

Thus to avoid confusing YOU guys, I pre-qualify the U.S. citizen with the proper context which is Title 26. What is confusing you?

Is there a 14th Amendment citizen? Yes, see 14th Amendment.
Is there a Title 26 citizen? Yes, see Title 26.
No confusion, no way to call me a liar when YOU have no clue what i say.

Did that answer your question?

There is no definition of US citizen in Section 7701. This is the point at which stija will either admit he was wrong and pretend the point is of no importance or say he really meant something else.

[Quixote]

Does Title 26 define 'U.S. citizen?' Yes it does, go see 26 CFR 1.1-1(c). If i just said that i am not a United States citizen, which i did, you would assume that i meant in re: 14th Amendment.

Thus to avoid confusing YOU guys, I pre-qualify the U.S. citizen with the proper context which is Title 26. What is confusing you?

Is there a 14th Amendment citizen? Yes, see 14th Amendment.
Is there a Title 26 citizen? Yes, see Title 26.
No confusion, no way to call me a liar when YOU have no clue what i say.

Did that answer your question?

Or edit his post to remove that error and replace it with another. The replacement error is the implication that the meaning of citizen in 26 CFR 1.1-1(c) is different from that in the 14th Amendment. In fact it is an almost verbatim recitation of the definition from the 14th, as of course it must be.