Falsehood deleted AK(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
stija wrote:Here:
From 8USC 1101Where does it involve citizenship which involves a component of first amendment protected political affiliation with a state - the people as a political constituents?(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
You guys are clueless in YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
You show me where Stija became a citizen of the United States upon his naturalization?
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment.
If you can't then please stop posting propaganda that is not factual or supported by legal evidence.
Because you specifically applied for it?stija wrote:@pottapaugh retarded kid who can't understand what i write....
I AM A 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE I LIVE IN AND THE UNITED STATES.
Now can you show me where in federal statutes does it say that i am a citizen of the United States as a result of being naturalized in America.
Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, I will repeat: the first sentence of the 14th Amendment: 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."stija wrote:@pottapaugh retarded kid who can't understand what i write....
I AM A 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE I LIVE IN AND THE UNITED STATES.
Now can you show me where in federal statutes does it say that i am a citizen of the United States as a result of being naturalized in America.
There you go again -- making a false distinction between a "citizen of the United States" and what you become when you are naturalized in the United States of America. If you disagree, show me a case which proves otherwise.stija wrote:@obadiah,
No. Because the Constitution says so.
Which federal statute says that i am a citizen of the United States by becoming naturalized in the United States of America obadiah?
There is no conflict between any law and the U.S. Constitution. There's no saving you pottapaug....
Hmmm...There you go again -- making a false distinction between a "citizen of the United States" and what you become when you are naturalized in the United States of America. If you disagree, show me a case which proves otherwise.
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Will you shut up now, or alternatively, show me where i become a United States citizen by being naturalized?
Yes. The gov does not randomly pick people and say "You're naturalized". YOU have to fill out forms and swear to it. You didn't do that? Hmmmmm. What do you think naturalization does?stija wrote:@obadiah,
No. Because the Constitution says so.
Which federal statute says that i am a citizen of the United States by becoming naturalized in the United States of America obadiah?
There is no conflict between any law and the U.S. Constitution. There's no saving you pottapaug....
8USC 1101Yes. The gov does not randomly pick people and say "You're naturalized". YOU have to fill out forms and swear to it. You didn't do that? Hmmmmm. What do you think naturalization does?
I know what it does. Do you?(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Yes -- 14th Amendment, first sentence.stija wrote:8USC 1101Yes. The gov does not randomly pick people and say "You're naturalized". YOU have to fill out forms and swear to it. You didn't do that? Hmmmmm. What do you think naturalization does?I know what it does. Do you?(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
WILL ANYONE SHOW ME WHERE ONE BECOMES A CITIZEN OF UNITED STATES UPON NATURALIZATION?
If you can't then STOP POSTING PROPAGANDA AND LIES THAT ARE NOT FACTUAL OR SUPPORTED BY LEGAL EVIDENCE FROM FEDERAL LAWS.
I AM A 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN OF ARIZONA AND THE UNITED STATES?Yes -- 14th Amendment, first sentence.
14th Amendment, first sentence. The Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land (Article VI, Section 2), and the judges in every state are bound by that law, no matter what any state law may say.stija wrote:I AM A 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZEN OF ARIZONA AND THE UNITED STATES?Yes -- 14th Amendment, first sentence.
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN FEDERAL LAW????
My whole argument is Falsehood deleted AK.14th Amendment, first sentence. The Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land (Article VI, Section 2), and the judges in every state are bound by that law, no matter what any state law may say.
Then your argument is gibberish. You can't choose which citizenship to act under when you enter a court. You are what you are.stija wrote:My whole argument you idiot is that you enter court under a federal statute as a United States citizen, instead of Utah citizen, thus you elected your domicile as 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 and FRCP 17(b) made you a federal resident subject to your legislature which is Congress.14th Amendment, first sentence. The Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land (Article VI, Section 2), and the judges in every state are bound by that law, no matter what any state law may say.
You can also choose to flap your wings and fly like a bird, but that doesn't mean you're going to leave the ground.stija wrote:I choose not to do that.
You're right, I don't understand gibberish.stija wrote:I enter as a citizen of Arizona either in div of citizenship in equity or federal question to challenge a law. I don't accept a federal statutory privileged status whose domicile is not Arizona according to court rules that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
This gibberish is the bottom line?stija wrote:...
Bottom line is that i would NEVER enter a franchise federal court to argue my rights. ...
enter a court. You are what you are.
Mrs. Macomber, a citizen and resident of New York, was, in the year 1916
i am just repeating what men smarter than me are telling me....and im getting away with it.....but you cannot even come close to understanding the full simplicity of it because you are presumptuous and dont even listen.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
stija didnt write any of this....AndyK wrote:Stija has continued his baseless claims that he is aware of an interpretation if the US tax code which exempts him from liability.
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.
Sitja claims (without any form of proof or substantiation) to not pay any income taxes.
If his income is above the legal threshhold for filing, the IRS computerized matching progrm will eventually catch up with him. At that point assessment and collection procedures will begin.
Sitja will have to pay all the back taxes plus interest and penalties and could possibly end up in prison.
He will, of course, claim that all of the above is not true. He will not be able to actually refute a single word of it based on any legal argument.
Stija is not a good role model.