Stija on Stija

[stija]

stija claim simple...
stija no taxable income and stija no liability....



these fools are changing my words to fit whatever they quote as though i promote 101 arguments....at the SAME TIME hahahahah

just look at their quotes and their allegations.

[wserra]

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

i am just repeating what men smarter than me are telling me

This is likely to be ineffective. You appear to have far too much invested in your own idiosyncratic interpretation of this stuff to listen to anyone else. Still, I'll try, and without being snarky.

The quote in which you place so much stock is from Powe v. United States, 109 F. 2d 147 (5th Cir. 1940). In that case, the Fifth Circuit was interpreting a specific statute, not ruminating on any general meaning of the word "citizen". The statute in question was 18 U.S.C. § 51, and its language was: "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . ." The language which you quote over and over is interpreting the meaning of "citizen" for this statute and this statute only. The court that wrote it clearly never intended more. The paragraph following the one that contains your quote begins, "Pursuing further the application of the statute now before us"; that statute is all the Court is discussing.

You make similar errors in virtually every point of law you take a stab at.

[stija]

fuck you shill and fucking traitor of American Jurisprudence,.....

[obadiah]

Nice.

[stija]

you too .....youre fucking morons and theres no saving you

either delete my posts or leave them alone
stop sanitizing what i say and changing to fit your shill propaganda....

irc subtitle c is not statutes right
employment is codified through shit and not statutes right
transportation act is not statutes
nurse practice acgt is not statutes
what laws are not statutes
the man is telling you how to interpret and you shills promote propaganda that NOT EVEN IRS SELLS

[Judge Roy Bean]

Enough, already.

Arguing with intellectually-challenged people accomplishes nothing.

[AndyK]

Guests and casual readers:

Please note the above posts by Sitja. They are typical responses from someone who has lost every logical and legal argument and who has been caught in every lie he posted.

Clearly he is not a role model for potendial tax deniers.

[stija]

when one asks IRS right questions at least they stay quiet....
otherwise they get sued for fraud,......
their out is we dont give advice to taxpayers.....
if you ask the right questions....
if you ask the right questions here......
you get sold SHIT that is LIES AND PROPAGANDA THAT IS NOT TRUE.
TALK TO IRS.

they are responses that one gets when someone is a cheat modifying posts to fit your story and agenda
stijas argument is simple, no income no tax, no play no pay.
stija has no other argument
they are SHILLS worse than IRS


in the above decision a federal judge tells you who most of the federal statute apply by deconstructing a federal statute, listen to the man or look at the evidence yourself.
do not believe these shills and 'professionals' when a federal judge is telling you how to interpret it in that instance, and many others.