Stija on Stija

[stija]

Yes. In re:7701 someone already corrected me in another thread. My bad, i misspoke. I corrected it here before your post but did not catch the mistake in the other post. Good catch

Did i ever suggest that it is incongruent with anything in the US Constitution?

[AndyK]

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.'

Another remark illustrating sitja's law-education-via-Internet. In general, the IRS doesn't sue anyone. They DEFEND law suits in Tax Court. The privilege of suing someone is reserved for the Department of Justice.

And, if a meaningless document is sent to the IRS, it is often discarded -- especially if the sender has no administrative file open.

[stija]

@AndyK,

you are very observant. Are we splitting hairs to discredit me? Your own post infers that you understood what i was talking about yet you FELT the need to show how WRONGLY i said what i meant.

Good one. +1 for AndyK. Tap on the shoulder. Go through all my posts and let me know if i made any other mistakes. I'd gladly accept responsability and correct my statements. Do let me know. Thank you.

[Arthur Rubin]

@AndyK,

you are very observant. Are we splitting hairs to discredit me? Your own post infers that you understood what i was talking about yet you FELT the need to show how WRONGLY i said what i meant.

Actually, that's more absurd than usual. AndyK was demonstrating that you don't know what you were talking about, rather than implying that he knew what you were talking about.

[stija]

Why is he talking about me being sued in court if he did not understand what i was saying. Why not talk about the weather or SEC regulatory conduct in re: to the banking industry.

The FACT that he did not ask me what i means is EVIDENCE that he knew what i was saying. He just wanted to say it in a different more correct and specific way to show that he knows something too.

Bravo for AndyK. You are correct again on matters that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread: "Stija on 'United States.' But you did show you know how the justice system works.

I stand corrected. +1 more for AndyK.

You guys need your egos stroked. Is that why you come here?

[stija]

I shall keep score here and edit the the thread accordingly. AndyK may edit as well. But all edits will be in accordance with the rules set forth.

Stija: 0
AndyK: 3


RULES OF GAME:
Rules of score: Consent of opponent required for score to be added to the player requesting such addition of score.
Rules of game: Consent required to RULES OF GAME by both players.
Change of rules: Consent required from both players before rules change.

Stija hereby consents to RULES OF GAME.
Does AndyK consent?

[Dr. Caligari]

Mods:
Is it time to start deleting idiotic threads like this one?

[stija]

Don't. It really matters to AndyK to know how many times he was right and beat me.

Ask him first.

[AndyK]

@AndyK,

you are very observant. Are we splitting hairs to discredit me? No hairs to be split nor any discrediting to be done. Merely pointing out a significant error on your part for the benefit of those to whom you refer in your signature. After all, you have been pointing out (albeit sans support or citation) all of our errors. Your own post infers that you understood what i was talking about yet you FELT the need to show how WRONGLY i said what i meant. No. My post infers nothing, Neither does it imply anything. If you choose to infer something, fine. Please remember that inverence is done by the listner or reader. Impliocation is done by the author or speaker. English, especially English used in a legal context is a very precise language.

Good one. +1 for AndyK. Tap on the shoulder. Go through all my posts and let me know if i made any other mistakes. Life is too short. I'd gladly accept responsability and correct my statements. Do let me know. Thank you.

Is this a major change of heart from you? You have been clearly told, many times, where you have made mistakes yet you have refused to correct them. Are those days gone? Are you now going to accept factual information as properly cited by subject matter experts even when it contradicts your opinions and allegations?

[stija]

No. My post infers nothing, Neither does it imply anything. If you choose to infer something, fine. Please remember that inverence is done by the listner or reader. Impliocation is done by the author or speaker. English, especially English used in a legal context is a very precise language.

You read my post, you were the reader. You inferred that i was talking about being sued in United States court and you spoke correctly that DOJ sues, and not IRS. When you spoke, you became the speaker or author. Therefore your words implied you KNEW what i was talking about.

What is confusing you bro?

I did not write 'life is too short'. That was added by someone. I just said that it was irrelevant to the topic which was 'United States.' You clearly CHOSE to infer what i was saying, then when you spoke your implication was explicit enough and right on the money. Conclusion is you KNEW exactly what i was talking about. And you corrected me. Is that not true? Are you saying that you had no clue what i was talking about? Yet you correctly corrected me without even asking if your 'assumption' was correct?

Who do you think you're playing with man? I ain't your regular clown that comes here. I can read English just as well as other 4 languages. Don't play dumb. Try to be an adult.

Do you want another +1?

I ate 'pros' like you for breakfast 5 yrs ago. Wilkins had nothing to say, i don't expect you to. The rules (IRC) are in my favor. You know why? Cuz i wrote the law through my representatives in Congress who can only act through Constitutional grants of power that came from ME! Therefore everytime they try playing MY game i WIN. I made the rules - see U.S. Constitution.

You don't know the rules. It's almost as if you think THEY write the rules for you. Pathetic.

[Pottapaug1938]

Mods:
Is it time to start deleting idiotic threads like this one?

Yes. Not even David Merrill gummed up the works with posts and threads this inane.

[AndyK]

No.

[stija]

Go for it. Redact everything. See if i care.

These forums ARE your rules. I have NO say. At least you seem to understand that much. If only you applied the same logic in your dealings with the IRS.

You know you can just banish me from your forum right?

[wserra]

I didn't redact a thing. But you don't get to take over the board.

You know you can just banish me from your forum right?

We seriously try to avoid that. You sound as though you would like it.

[stija]

I didn't redact a thing. But you don't get to take over the board.

You know you can just banish me from your forum right?

We seriously try to avoid that. You sound as though you would like it.

I was merely stating the obvious. Are you sure you would not like that?

[stija]

You know, at one time i had professionals, like some you probably, do my interpretation of the law for me and computation of my tax 1040 statements. That was a long time ago, probably from 2003-05.

The one day someone I worked with, an older lady, said something that hit home and hurt and i let my ego get the better of me so i went home and tried my hardest to prove her wrong, and most importantly show her that i was right!

I found a lot of 'nonsense' online which was similar to what she alleged and, being a skeptic that i am i tried disproving it for two reasons: a) i didn't believe in it, and b) i wanted to prove her wrong. If i could prove her wrong, I would be right, and I loved being right. Who was she to tell me how things 'really' are, pfft!

The more i dug to more i discovered incongruencies that could not be reasoned away, unless i was willing to abandon logic and reason and just accept it as an unfounded belief.

Then one day I wrote a letter to the commissioner of SSA, Michael J. Astrue and asked for help. I asked three questions, if a United States citizen or resident is required to have a SSN in order to live and work in United States, and if so, where was the requirement codified in. I also asked if there are penalties if one works without a number. I challenge any of you to do the same.

To my surprise, i received an honest answer to a simple question from one Michelle Ziporkin, who informed me that: a) there was no law codified that required a United States citizen to apply for a number or obtain one, b) that one can live and work within United States without such number, and c) that if one does b) then such person cannot participate in the SS benefit program as the work performed cannot be credit to the SS account #.

Most interesting of all, Ziporkin informed me that Title 26 mandates the use of such number for United States employment purposes and that compliance with such and such section was necessary, and also mandated by law.

So i can live and work without a number but i cannot be employed? What is going on here? Bottom line is the old lady was right all along, and i had to accept that i was wrong. For the first time in my life jk

The 'nonsense' i was reading online, wasn't nonsense at all. Ninth circuit re-affirmed on March 4, 2013 that even illegals can live and work in Arizona without a legal status.

So what is the difference between employment and work? Well that took some years to understand, and the nonsense i found online did not add up and make sense until i understood the fundamental principles of American Jurisprudence.

First and most important one needs to understand is that the U.S. Constitution is a charter of rights by the People to their servant governments, creating the United States government, one of limited enumerated powers. That took a while to sink in. And when i say a while, i mean years. Until one understands the correct flow of power, or who the principal and who the agent is, there is no coming around and understanding anything else.

You guys erased my little game which was supposed to illustrate who created who and for what reasons. Bottom line is that the U.S. Constitution is a charter of rights for the United States government, with some explicit reservations, and a Bill of Rights obligating it to protect what the founders thought were indispensible requirements for people to remain free and not abused by their servant.

Most of you will read the above and say "Uhh whatta bunch of gibberish!" And that's ok. You are free to believe what you want, your servant still lets you do that. Not for long, the way things are going. The system has been perverted because of apathy and public school indoctrination where one is taught to ask for permission and not question authority for 10+ from the age of 7! Of course, this is not just an American problem, it happens everywhere. Some people would argue that it violates the separation of powers doctrine, and i would agree with them.

You guys can believe what you want, and do as you please, but that does not change the fact that there are individuals out there who believe, act and live differently than you do. They don't play by the same rules, in fact, some of them don't even play government games. Government games are for government, and if one is smart he will stay away and say 'no thanks.' Recourse can be had in federal courts through the U.S. Constitution under the federal question in re: to the gov't or diversity of citizenship in re: to other individuals. IF you have a problem with your state gov't, recourse can be had through the state constitutions or common law of your state in re: to individual non-gov't entities.

However, and this is the big cajuna, recourse can be had through statutory courts too, under Title 26 in federal court available to legal entities under that Title. Similarly one can obtain statutory recourse in state courts in re: state public right violations or public policy violations.

The writer of this post is a private citizen and since that early 2005 he has done his best at remaining private and playing his game, by the rules men alot smarter then him chartered in the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of his state to safeguard their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

These brave men would be turning in their graves right now if they only knew what happened to the union and how perverted the system has become. Therefore, as i've said before, may the chains around your neck lay lightly on you, and may your master be gentle upon on you. I say this, because it is apparent to me that you guys are convinced that no man in this union can earn a living without incurring income, which said another way means that you believe you are slaves.

Stija on the other hand is no slave no more, and what stija earns rightfully through the exercise of his natural rights, one of them being the right to contract, and the other being the right of labor, or the most sacred right of all, is exclusively Stija's. Title 26 recognizes it in 7701(a)(31) even if you professionals don't.

Surely the matters in which the public has the most interest are the supplies of food and clothing; yet can it be that by reason of this interest the state may fix the price at which the butcher must sell his meat, or the vendor of boots and shoes his goods? Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must [can be compelled to] use it for his neighbor's benefit [e.g. Social Security, Medicare, etc]; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Freedom also requires personal responsability which requires knowledge of the proper order of things:

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -- James Madison (Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822)

It has been said by someone smarter than Stija that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Nothing could be truer and the 9 black robed priests agreed but rephrased it:

It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442. (1950)

Stija is doing his part, and will be doing his part. Stija's first and most important occupation is 'American citizen.' Stija also tried reaching you guys, to no avail. Therefore Stija failed miserably on these quatloos forums, and also lost to AndyK 3-0. Well maybe 3-1, if AndyK is willing to concede the IID.

American citizen out. Good luck to you 'brave' fools.

[Duke2Earl]

The problem here is that no matter your motives you could not "teach" us anything for several reasons. The first is that your "question' approach cannot and will not teach anything... all it does is make you seem arrogant. However, the much more important reason is that absolutely nothing you stated is new here. All of it has been said before multiple times. Good luck to you at staying under the radar because if you are seen none of what you said will avail you even for a minute. It is simply untrue. I know you won't believe that. That's why I truly hope you are successful in staying out of the sight of the authorities because if you ever do end up in court you will be in a world of hurt. So sorry, but that is the simple truth. Yes, you have a lot of quotations from law and court cases but you have been totally unsuccessful in putting it all together. You truly do not understand the law. You cannot be blamed for this. It takes years of training. But your collections of tidbits from cases and various laws simply do not add up to the conclusions you seemingly have come to.

The simple truth, like it or not, is there is no conspiracy. The law does require you to pay income tax on your income. Your income is basically what you make either as wages or business income. And if you fail to pay based on your "conclusions" and are caught you will lose... 100% of the time and all your conclusions and determination and quotations will not help one bit. There isn't any difference whatsoever between "classes" of US Citizens. There is no difference whatsoever to what you think are Title 26 citizens. That is all simply nonsense. There is no such thing as "federally" connected income. Whether or not you are registered with the Social Security Administration has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether you owe income tax. Your whole painfully constructed belief system is simply nonsense. Again, I know you won't believe it. You are far to emotionally invested in your beliefs to see the truth now. And honestly I hope you aren't caught because it will be devastation especially to any others who rely on you.

[Paul]

To my surprise, i received an honest answer to a simple question from one Michelle Ziporkin, who informed me that: a) there was no law codified that required a United States citizen to apply for a number or obtain one, b) that one can live and work within United States without such number, and c) that if one does b) then such person cannot participate in the SS benefit program as the work performed cannot be credit to the SS account #.

Most interesting of all, Ziporkin informed me that Title 26 mandates the use of such number for United States employment purposes and that compliance with such and such section was necessary, and also mandated by law.

If you were 1/10 of the student of history and law you claim to be, you would know that the income tax is much older than Social Security. So why is it surprising that you might be subject to income tax but not Social Security?

If you asked Ms. Ziporkin, she might also tell you that many people in the US -- citizens, here absolutely legally -- do not participate in Social Security, but are subject to income tax. Amish and Mennonites, for example. Plus public school employees, public university employees, and state employees in many state. And guess what? They all have Social Security numbers, even though the numbers are used for income tax identification purposes, and not for Social Security.

The only reason you were surprised is because you were ignorant. Ignorance can be cured, but you can't fix stupid.

[LPC]

I asked three questions, if a United States citizen or resident is required to have a SSN in order to live and work in United States, and if so, where was the requirement codified in.

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

The Social Security Act may not require people to apply for Social Security numbers, but the Internal Revenue Code does.

The claim that there is no requirement to apply for, or have, a Social Security number seems to be based on various statements by the Social Security Administration that Social Security is not “mandatory” or that you are not required to provide a social security number except for purposes of Social Security benefits. But both federal law and the Social Security Administration recognize that both federal and state governments can require a Social Security number to comply with laws having nothing to do with the Social security systems.

The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2(C)(i), includes the following:

“It is the policy of the United States that any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction, utilize the social security account numbers issued by the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals affected by such law, and may require any individual who is or appears to be so affected to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or numbers, if he has more than one such number) issued to him by the Commissioner of Social Security.”

The “Answers to Your Questions” section of the web pages of the Social Security Administration (http://www.ssa.gov) includes the following:

Specific laws require a person to provide his/her SSN for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where an SSN might be required or requested, an SSN is required/requested by:

* Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans
* Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes
* States for the school lunch program
* Banks for monetary transactions
* Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number
* Department of Labor for workers’ compensation
* Department of Education for Student Loans
* States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction
* States for child support enforcement
* States for commercial driver’s licenses
* States for Food Stamps
* States for Medicaid
* States for Unemployment Compensation
* States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
* U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds

The Privacy Act regulates the use of SSNs by government agencies. When a Federal, State, or local government agency asks an individual to disclose his or her Social Security number, the Privacy Act requires the agency to inform the person of the following: the statutory or other authority for requesting the information; whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; what uses will be made of the information; and the consequences, if any, of failure to provide the information.

(Category: Social Security Numbers and Cards; Answer ID: 78; Last Updated: 12/23/2003 at 6:49 a.m.)

And a Social Security number is clearly required to comply with the filing requirements for the federal income tax.

Section 6109(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code states that, when required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary:

“Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document shall include in such return, statement, or other document such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.”

Section 6109(d) states:

“The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.”

Treas. Reg. section 6109-1(a)(1)(ii)(A) states that

“(A) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(B) and (D) of this section, an individual required to furnish a taxpayer identifying number must use a social security number.”

And Treas. Reg. Section 301.6109-1(b)(1) states:

“Every U.S. person who makes under this title a return, statement, or other document must furnish its own taxpayer identifying number as required by the forms and the accompanying instructions. A U.S. person whose number must be included on a document filed by another person must give the taxpayer identifying number so required to the other person on request. For penalties for failure to supply taxpayer identifying numbers, see sections 6721 through 6724.”

I.R.C. section 6723 is titled “Failure to Comply with Other Information Reporting Requirements,” and it provides as follows:

“In the case of a failure by any person to comply with a specified information reporting requirement on or before the time prescribed therefor, such person shall pay a penalty of $50 for each such failure, but the total amount imposed on such person for all such failures during any calendar year shall not exceed $100,000.”

I.R.C. section 6724(d)(3) defines “specified information reporting requirement” as including “(B) any requirement contained in the regulations prescribed under section 6109 that person (i) include his TIN on any return, statement, or other document (other than an information return or payee statement....”

It is therefore clear that a Social Security is required for Forms 1040, W-4, and other forms and documents required by the Internal Revenue Code and regulations and that the failure to provide a Social Security number can result in a civil penalty.

Although failing to provide a Social Security number on a tax return might not be a crime in itself, an intentional failure to provide a Social Security number could be construed to be evidence of a willful attempt to evade taxes, and so support a criminal conviction for tax evasion. Although no court decision has been found that addresses that exact issue, there are at least two court decisions upholding the convictions of persons who stopped using their Social Security numbers on tax returns. See United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 2005 TNT 167-10 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, No. 05-948 (5/1/2006) (defendant’s convictions for knowingly presenting false refund claims and willfully failing to file tax returns upheld; evidence included testimony “that he did not want his name to appear on documents requiring his social security number”); United States v. Neujahr, 173 F.3d 853, KTC 1999-135 (4th Cir. 1999) (evidence in support of convictions on four counts of tax evasion including the filing of Forms 1040-NR without Social Security numbers and the defendant’s own testimony that he had “stopped using his Social Security number altogether”).

A possible economic (not legal) consequence of failing to provide a Social Security number to an employer is termination of employment, because an employer has the right to fire an employee who fails to provide a Form W-4 with the employee’s Social Security number. And this is true even if the employee refuses to apply for or provide a Social Security number for religious reasons, as numerous courts have confirmed.

“It is uncontested that (1) Plaintiff sincerely believes that his religion prevents him from providing a social security number, (2) Plaintiff informed Defendant of his belief, and (3) Defendant refused to hire Plaintiff because he did not provide Defendant with a social security number. Nevertheless, Defendant argues, and the district court held, that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case, because Defendant is required by law to obtain Plaintiff’s social security number. Specifically, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(a) & (b)(1)(i), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.10(b)(2); Immigration Form I-9; and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 6109(a)(3) & (d), require employers to provide the social security numbers of their employees.

“Although they have disagreed on the rationale, courts agree that an employer is not liable under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] when accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs would require the employer to violate federal or state law.”

Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1999) (also rejecting claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act).

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has also upheld the dismissal of a suit alleging a violation of civil rights when the plaintiff was fired by her employer, State Stores, after refusing to provide a signed Form W-4 with her Social Security number.

“Moreover, State Stores is not only authorized, but also legally bound to withhold and pay federal income taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. See United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982) (upholding the constitutionality and uniform application of the Social Security Act, which requires employers to withhold social security taxes from employees’ wages, even when such withholding conflicts with an employer’s or employee’s religious or other beliefs); Payne v. Dixie Elec. Co., 330 S.E.2d 749, 750 (Ga. App. 1985) (“an employer is not only authorized but required to withhold federal income taxes from his employees’ pay”); Wilhelm v. United States, 84-1 USTC 1700, *3 (E.D. Tex. 1983) (same). Thus, State Stores’ compliance with its legal obligation to withhold taxes from its employees is not a violation of Edwards’ civil rights.”

Edwards v. Stringer, 2004 TNT 34-10, No. 03-2207 (10th Cir. 2/12/2004), (unpublished).

See also, Weber v. Leaseway Dedicated Logistics, Inc., 1999 WL 5111, at *1, No. 98-3172 (10th Cir.1999) (unpublished); Ron Seaworth v. Bob Pearson, et al., 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-459, 2001 TNT 23-9, No. 99-3014MN (8th Cir. (employer not required to accommodate employee’s refusal to use Social Security number as “mark of the beast”; employer not required to apply for waiver of penalties under I.R.C. section 6724), E.E.O.C. v. Allendale Nursing Ctr., 996 F.Supp. 712, 717 (W.D. Mich. 1998) (requirement that employee obtain SSN is requirement imposed by law and is not employment requirement; provision for waiver of penalties under I.R.C. section 6724 does not exist to benefit employee who caused penalties to be imposed, and employer is not required to take steps to accommodate employee who caused penalty); Shelly L. Baltgalvis v. Newport News Shipbuilding Inc., et al., 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-609, 2001 TNT 48-59, No. 4:00cv55 (U.S.D.C. E.D. Va. 2/22/2001).

A federal district court has also rejected a challenge to a tax of 31% that was withheld from the redemption of a U.S. savings bond when the bond owner refused to provide a Social Security number, despite the sincere religious (“mark of the Beast”) beliefs of the bond owner. Donald Louis Steckler v. United States, 81 AFTR2d Par. 98-495, 98 TNT 54-11, No. 96-1054 (U.S.D.C. E.D. La. 1/26/1998).

[wserra]

it is apparent to me that you guys are convinced that no man in this union can earn a living without incurring income, which said another way means that you believe you are slaves.

My high school and college years were VietNam war days. I was pretty smart in some ways, not so smart in others. An example of the latter: I was part of many anti-war activities, including the Moratorium march on Washington. A chant from those days, which I admit I chanted too: "Two, four, six, eight, fight to end the fascist state". Now, I have no love for Richard Nixon, but to call him "fascist" is not only pretty dumb, it dishonors the memory of those who died at the hands of the real fascists. I obviously didn't see that then.

You're wrong about the law. But even if you weren't, to call those who pay taxes "slaves" is not only pretty dumb, it dishonors the memory of those who died at the hands of the real slavers. If you don't see that, you (like me, 43 years ago) need to grow up.