Stija's declaration of fact in re: Quatloos

[Pottapaug1938]

This is getting boring.

Stija registered here six days ago and already has 207 argumentative self-aggrandizing posts, most of which say the same thing. That's an average of one post every 30 minutes for the past six days, assuming he sleeps 6 hours a day.

Stija has sunk far below normal argument, however irrational, and into the depths where only cave trolls dwell. Even Lawdog and David Merrill were more interesting, and Harvey was more coherent.

Quatloos is about scams and frauds. I suggest that stijas posts have ceased to make a useful contribution. Everything he had to say has already been refuted, repeatedly.

I would go further and say that his posts are an active impairment to the purposes of this site. Any newcomer to Quatloos, in the past week, will see stija's unhinged rants on every thread where he can manage to place them, attempting to hijack them if necessary. I think that, at the very least, moderated status is necessary to ensure that stija does not drive everyone else away. Honestly, if I had to make a choice, I'd rather have David Merrill back.

[stija]

@pottapaug1938,

1. Why don't you explain what the 14th Amendment has to do with the IRC?
2. Or are you suggesting that the 5th, 6th, 7th-22nd Amendments and all others are the source of federal statutes in the IRC.
3. Silly Stija thought IRC was legislated through Art. I:8:1 and the 16th Amendment.
4. Thanks for correcting me, it is the 14th and not the 16th, you're right.
5. LOL.
6. Commie.

[AndyK]

It is long past time to stop handing out troll food.

Also, long past time to start moderating lying, abusive posters.

[stija]

It is long past time to stop handing out troll food.

Also, long past time to start moderating lying, abusive posters.

1. Good for you, standing up for something you believe in.
2. Would you mind explaining what relevance the 14th Amendment has to the Internal Revenue Code and statutes promulgated therein?
3. Thanks.
4. American citizen - a nonresident and non citizen under the Internal Revenue Code and recognized as such by the IRS.
5. Will gladly upload IRS transcripts showing you recognition of my nonresident alien status while living and working for a living in Arizona and earning non taxable income.

[Duke2Earl]

Two things...
1. It appears that we are communists because we don't agree with Mr.Third Person. Obviously, he hasn't any more a clue what a communist is than does about tax law.

2. He keeps saying that the IRS agrees with him. Now any of us who have worked at or with the IRS know that is clearly untrue. Yes, he may have misinterpreted something they said in answer to a question that they did not understand or he consciously wrote in a deceptive fashion. But the concept that the IRS agrees that he is some sort of citizen that doesn't owe tax on his income is clearly wrong. It is possible that having been presented faulty information the IRS could have said that he is nonresident alien... because he didn't tell them he is a naturalized citizen. However, the part he seems to have missed is that non resident aliens are fully subject to the income tax. In fact, this bull about what kind of citizen he is just reinforces the depth of his ignorance. Even if he was not a citizen at all, if he resides in the United States and makes income in the United States he owes income tax on his income. It is somewhat difficult to refute his craziness because one doesn't know where to even start. First, there are no different classes of citizen. Second, even if there were it would make no difference. And, third, even if he wasn't a citizen at all he would still owe income tax. Until he furnishes proof that the IRS agrees with him that he owes no income tax, I don't think he ought to be able to claim that. And the chances of the IRS agreeing that he owes no tax on his income earned in Arizona is zero.

[stija]

And the chances of the IRS agreeing that he owes no tax on his income earned in Arizona is zero.

1. I have NO taxable income earned ANYWHERE.
2. I have private non taxable income earned in Arizona.
3. Gladly upload transcripts from as far as 2007-2011 so you can see nonresident alien status and 0 taxable income with a big refund, each and every year. You f..... commie shill.
4. Why don't u explain what bearing the 14th Amendment has with the Income Tax laws, professional.
5. It is also POSSIBLE that you have NO CLUE, right?

However, the part he seems to have missed is that non resident aliens are fully subject to the income tax. In fact, this bull about what kind of citizen he is just reinforces the depth of his ignorance. Even if he was not a citizen at all, if he resides in the United States and makes income in the United States he owes income tax on his income.

1. ALMOST ALL CORRECT AND HAS NO RELEVANCE TO ME.
2. Mr., are you suggesting that i can't earn taxable income outside the United States?
3. If so, that part is wrong 100%.
4. One can earn taxable income in Tibet and be a citizen of Tibet.
5. He has no clue what he is talking about.
6. Much like the rest of Communist Shills here.
7. Bottom line: IF ONE EARNS TAXABLE INCOME, ONE HAS TO PAY A TAX ON IT WHEREVER LOCATED AND WHATEVER HIS CITIZENSHIP.

[stija]

1. These guys have no idea what the law says.
2. If you earn taxable income, wherever located, whatever your citizenship or civil status, you have an obligation under the IRC to return a portion of that income, or a tax, to its rightful owner, the United States government.
3. STOP LISTENING to these idiots who have no clue what they say and just quote case law that doesn't even agree with what they suggest.
4. These idiots are arguing with me about citizenship and civil status and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with incurring income.
5. ANYONE ANYWHERE CAN HAVE TAXABLE INCOME.
6. DON'T EARN TAXABLE INCOME AND DON'T PAY INCOME TAXES!

[wserra]

5. Will gladly upload IRS transcripts showing you recognition of my nonresident alien status while living and working for a living in Arizona and earning non taxable income.

Go right ahead. Be aware, though, as I've written before, we don't permit redacted documents. After all, if I could use redacted documents as proof, I could easily "prove" that I make $12,000,000,000 and pay no taxes.

Redacted documents will be deleted.

[stija]

5. Will gladly upload IRS transcripts showing you recognition of my nonresident alien status while living and working for a living in Arizona and earning non taxable income.

Go right ahead. Be aware, though, as I've written before, we don't permit redacted documents. After all, if I could use redacted documents as proof, I could easily "prove" that I make $12,000,000,000 and pay no taxes.


Redacted documents will be deleted.

1. You'll get my real name if i file a complaint, you commie shill.
2. That's a promise.
3. I hope you are connected to something United States public.
4. Why don't you explain to people what the 14th Amendment has to do with IRC????
5. Bueller?

Because all income is taxable right?

(31) Foreign estate or trust
(A) Foreign estate
The term “foreign estate” means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE DISAGREES. There is income which is not taxable. The Code says so. These Communist shills do not recognize private property or private income. To them it is all PUBLICLY connected income to a United States public office or from the United STates government. That AINT SO. Just read the above section. If it isn't connected with public property, it is PRIVATE.

[wserra]

You'll get my real name if i file a complaint, you commie shill.

A "complaint"? About what? "They made me look bad"?

And with whom? The House UnQuatloos Activities Committee?

[LPC]

Because all income is taxable right?

(31) Foreign estate or trust
(A) Foreign estate
The term “foreign estate” means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE DISAGREES. There is income which is not taxable. The Code says so. These Communist shills do not recognize private property or private income. To them it is all PUBLICLY connected income to a United States public office or from the United STates government. That AINT SO. Just read the above section. If it isn't connected with public property, it is PRIVATE.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[LPC]

2. Quatloos members do NOT recognize that the IRC was legislated from Art. 1, Sec 8 and NOT the 14th Amendment.
[...]
5. For example, Quatloos members interpret the IRC as IF it had been legislated through the 14th Amendment when it suits their Communistic Agenda.

That's just silly.

I (and others) keep trying to point out that the obligation of residents of the United States to pay federal income tax has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship.

You are the one who keeps trying to link income taxes to citizenship.

YOU are the communist, not us.

[stija]

I (and others) keep trying to point out that the obligation of residents of the United States to pay federal income tax has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship.

You are the one who keeps trying to link income taxes to citizenship.

1. Are you perhaps suggesting that if one is not a resident of the United States he cannot earn taxable income?
2. I am not suggesting that citizenship has ANYTHING to do with earning taxable income.
3. I am stating that one domiciled in a state of the union and citizen of that state is a civil nonresident alien under IRC and can still earn TAXABLE income.
4. SCOTUS recognizes such citizens as state citizens and Taxpayers, and here's just one example:

Mrs. Macomber, a citizen and resident of New York, was, in the year 1916,

from Eisner v. Macomber, where Mrs. Macomber was a citizen and resident of New York under income tax laws and ALSO a taxpayer. The two have no relevance to each other. You just don't get it.

What does civil citizenship under the IRC (promulgated under Art. I:8:1 and 16th Amend.) have to do with taxation of taxable income?

Show me where i suggested or hinted that NOT being a citizen or resident ABSOLVES one or EXEMPTS one or DOES NOT SUBJECT one to taxes on taxable income? Please do....

Wait, isn't income that is being taxed here? So what does citizenship, residency, being green white or brown have to do with TAXABLE INCOME???

[LPC]

4. SCOTUS recognizes such citizens as state citizens and Taxpayers, and here's just one example:

Mrs. Macomber, a citizen and resident of New York, was, in the year 1916,

from Eisner v. Macomber, where Mrs. Macomber was a citizen and resident of New York under income tax laws and ALSO a taxpayer. The two have no relevance to each other. You just don't get it.

You're quoting from the DISSENTING OPINION, you freaking moron.

I mean, you really have s**t for brains if you can't tell the difference between the majority opinion (the opinion that declares what the law is) and the dissenting opinion (the opinion of the guys who lost, and who don't get to declare what the law is).

And this has been pointed out to you before, which means that you really have trouble keeping what we call "facts" in your head for more than a day or two at a time.

I'm starting to feel sorry for you, because it is becoming increasingly clear that you are really pretty delusional and dysfunctional.

[Duke2Earl]

Life seems to be so much clearly when you make up your own rules. Hey guy... there is no class of private income. You seem to think (well, to the extent you actually do think at all) that there is private income as opposed to public income. Tell you something else... absolutely nothing in the law supports that fantasy.

[stija]

1. Lol.
2. Because a SCOTUS justice that is dissenting is an idiot right?
3. Was Powe appellate decision a dissenting opinion too?
4. Why does not that federal law include citizens of a state or persons generally?
5. I thought ALL federal laws apply to me?
6. LOL.
7. Why are you suggesting i have to be a resident of United States to incur taxable income under the IRC?
8. No, there is no private income, i guess its all Title 26 public income, if you're a commie.

U.S Constitution.
1. Because the U.S. Constitution is a grant of powers from the People to the People right?
2. Because when Congress legislates pursuant to such document it is legislating for the grants to the People and for the People.
3. Because Congressional policy is referred to as private policy right, and not public policy.
4. Because people protected themselves from themselves by saying in the 2nd Amendment "We shall make no laws against our rights to have guns right?"
5. You have no sense of the natural order of things.
6. Who created who? The United States created the People right, so it is giving us rights and legislating for us to function right?
7. Because we could not contract for work or property without Title 26 existing?
8. What are you on you Commies?

[stija]

The remedial and preventive nature of Congress' enforcement power, and the limitation inherent in the power, were confirmed in our earliest cases on the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), the Court invalidated sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which prescribed criminal penalties for denying to any person "the full enjoyment of" public accommodations and conveyances, on the grounds that it exceeded Congress' power by seeking to regulate private conduct. The Enforcement Clause, the Court said, did not authorize Congress to pass "general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation; that is, such as may be necessary and proper for counteracting such laws as the States may adopt or enforce, and which, by the amendment, they are prohibited from making or enforcing . . . ." Id., at 13-14. The power to "legislate generally upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action, was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), their treatment of Congress' §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.

City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)

1. I dont know where you guys think you live, but in the good ol' USA, Congress does not legislate for private citizens.
2. Congress legislates ON AUTHORITY from private citizens to provide modes of redress should their rights be impaired by any PUBLIC entity, ie gov't.
3. Morons.

How could it no be repugnant when the document WAS CREATED FOR THE GOVERNMENT and not for the people. My gov't legislates for itself through public policy, not for me. You commie shills. I don't need public rights to function privately.

The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions

.
and...

As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment).

1. Do YOU know what a SELF-EXECUTING prohibition is?
2. Do YOU know what a SUBSTANTIVE right against the States is?
3. YOU DON'T, because there are no constitutional courts and you only have public statutory rights.
4. If Stija has a problem, he invokes one of those SELF-EXECUTING prohibitions on gov't against HIS PRIVATE RIGHT that was violated and he needs NO STINKING FEDERAL STATUTE because he isn't a public officer, official, or a communist - he is a private individual and exists separate from the gov't or any of its statutes. Stija CHARTERED HIMSELF A BILL OF RIGHTS, to keep gov't thugs off his private back. You just don't get that....
5. But hey, there are no constitutional rights or courts right, the Supreme's must be talking gibberish.
6. It's almost as if you 'professionals' are retarded and look for these federal PUBLIC statutes to use as many as you can as if you think that the more you avail yourself of them the better you are off. It's sad...

The power to “legislate generally upon” life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the “power to provide modes of redress” against offensive state action, was “repugnant” to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), their treatment of Congress’ §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.

Repugnant because the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to protect the private rights by keeping them separate from public rights you morons.

1. Legislation is not definitional? It does not define me?? What do they mean LPC??? How do I function without existing in federal statutes?? HELP!!
2. Stija not defined by ANY federal statute and he functions in this world, wow!
3. Supreme's say that, he just listens.
4. You no listen, because you 'pro' communists and no believe in private rights - only public.
5. IRS listens.
6. IRS KNOW Stija exists as private and separate because Stija made it WELL known by sending them gibberish!
7. Stija knows you no believe him, but Stija no care.
8. The world still go round whether you believe or not....





Definitions: For purposes of this post gibberish includes a statement of who and what Stija is and, more importantly, who and what Stija is NOT!

Stija keeps his gov't thugs in check, just as the Supremes advised him for free:

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. See American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442. (1950)

Stija (the People) granted them a right to exist, not the other way around. Principal keep in check the agent, not the other way around.


Bottom line is this, what you see as illegal conduct is actually private conduct. When you think Stija does something illegaly, Stija really just doing on his private own without public policy WHICH IS FOR GOV'T and its agencies, corporations, associations, licensing boards, and other PUBLIC entities!!!!!

[stija]

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbor to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906) - case deals with the V Amendment, but there are many more 1-10 and they are SELF-EXECUTING. All you have to do is invoke them...

1. Individuals had rights and existed before gov't STATUTES????
2. How?
3. I wish i knew how...
4. Stija can carry his PRIVATE business in his own way and earn PRIVATE income???
5. Stija wishes he knew how....

[Pottapaug1938]

@pottapaug1938,

1. Why don't you explain what the 14th Amendment has to do with the IRC?
2. Or are you suggesting that the 5th, 6th, 7th-22nd Amendments and all others are the source of federal statutes in the IRC.
3. Silly Stija thought IRC was legislated through Art. I:8:1 and the 16th Amendment.
4. Thanks for correcting me, it is the 14th and not the 16th, you're right.
5. LOL.
6. Commie.

7. If you ever have anything worthwhile to say, I'll be happy to respond to it.

[wserra]

stija needs to stop editing his posts after people reply to them. Otherwise stija will lose the ability to edit his posts.

The third person sounds really silly, right?