Richard Calls Upon You!

[Demosthenes]

A week ago I was forewarned by another member in here to be ***very careful*** regarding what I printed. That individual portrayed you folks as 'lions in a lions den'.

Well, duh.

[Famspear]

A week ago I was forewarned by another member in here to be ***very careful*** regarding what I printed. That individual portrayed you folks as 'lions in a lions den'.

Well, duh.

Grrrrrraaaaaarrrrrrrrrrr!!!!

NIce kitty, nice kitty.......

[GoldandSilverEagles]

The term "United States" has more than one legal definition. Is your answer referring to the federal "United States" (aka Federal territories) or are you referring to the fifty union (united) States?

In all my years of research, I've never seen any definition of "United States" that included the territories of the United States while excluding the states of the United States. If you have an example of such a definition, I'd like to see it.

A friend sent this to me.

Source: Definitions from IRC and CFR (http://www.findlaw.com)


"26 USC Section 3121. Definitions:
(e) State, United States, and citizen - For purposes of this chapter -
(1) State - The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States - The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa." End of quote.

Source: A friend sent Definitions from IRC and CFR (http://www.findlaw.com)

Hmmmm....I dont see the 50 union states listed.

[Red Cedar PM]

Hmmmm....I dont see the 50 union states listed anywhere.

I would hope you don't see them being excluded from the definition, either.

[Judge Roy Bean]

"26 USC Section 3121. Definitions:
(e) State, United States, and citizen - For purposes of this chapter -
(1) State - The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States - The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa."

Source: A friend sent Definitions from IRC and CFR (http://www.findlaw.com)

Hmmmm....I dont see the 50 union states listed.

Yet another example of not understanding the use of the word "includes."

Sheesh.

[Imalawman]

There are many Tax Protestors in the US, they include Weston White and Gold and Silver Beagles.

Does that mean that you and Weston are the only tax protestors in the US? Or could it be that the laws of this country are written in a manner that requires above a 3rd grade education in order to understand them and you're just getting confused because of that? Come on, think about what you're suggesting - isn't it the height of stupidity? I mean, really?

[The Operative]

A friend sent this to me.

Source: Definitions from IRC and CFR (http://www.findlaw.com)


"26 USC Section 3121. Definitions:
(e) State, United States, and citizen - For purposes of this chapter -
(1) State - The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States - The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa." End of quote.

Source: A friend sent Definitions from IRC and CFR (http://www.findlaw.com)

Hmmmm....I dont see the 50 union states listed.

The term "includes" does not exclude items from the common definition of the word being used. If I say, "My key chain includes my car keys." Does that mean my house keys are not on my key chain? No, it does not. However, the common understanding of "my key chain" will exclude any other person's keys. The common meaning of the term, "United States" and how it is used within the federal tax laws automatically includes the 50 states within the understood common use of the term.

Again, this point was covered in one of the links that I provided earlier. Here it is again... http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#federalareas

Here are a couple of additional links from the Tax Protester FAQ on this point.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#USdef

[Joey Smith]

The "I may be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States" argument has never been successful, or even close to successful, or even not been snickered at by the courts for being just a stupid argument.

[Prof]

The "I may be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States" argument has never been successful, or even close to successful, or even not been snickered at by the courts for being just a stupid argument.

However, the non-resident alien, sovereign man on the land, citizen of the Michigan Reputlic bull crap is now the fantasy de jour among the redemptionist set. See, e.g., SOOEY II.

[Thule]

Hmmmm....I dont see the 50 union states listed.

Since you don´t seem to read the FAQ when provided with links, allow me to demonstrate how the courts have used to describe your position:

- absurd
- stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts
- twisted conclusion
- specifically rejected in United States v. Condo
- absurd (again)

Now, you might argue that every single court has gotten this wrong, in every single case. Fine by me, knock yourself out. But since an important part of law is precedent, and precedent says you are playing silly word-games, it would be rather pointless to keep on blathering here.

Take your case to court, set a new precedent, then come back.

[Kimokeo]

Weston wrote on page 1: "The information provided would be based upon the W-2 the IRS receives or it could be based upon a shared system with the SSA itself and forget about the W-2 (actually, when you think about it is rather silly to have a W-2 and W-3. Wonder this has to do with the SSA/IRS scam that was being discussed on LH last week?)."

Isn't many of the sites contesting the W-2's issued by employers to SSA?

Why would the system be simplified by considering the W-2?
Isn't part of the argument "I'm not an employee" so the W-2 must be wrong?

WW, is the W-2 arguments bogus?

[mutter]

I still haven't received a reply from Mr. Eagles on how he would expect the federal government to raise the revenue it needs to function if his proposed "zero" flat tax were enacted.

they do a good job whoreing themselves out to the corps already.
And it needs is a highly debatable statement. does the Fed gov need to give away BIllions to corps and foriegn nations
Doesnt zero mean there actually wouldnt be a tax

[mutter]

I'm formulating my next information release and judging from the responses so far, ya all need some serious therapy. I'm mean I'd hate to see you campers in your real life, your attitudes remind me of closet serial killers. This is serious sh*t, ya'all get bent out of joint over someone *with the brains, and sense* not to bow down to your crap. I don't agree with ya'all, but unlike many of you, I cling to Eastern philosophies and so I don't get all whipped out over it.

Outside of Operative and the dude who commented on my Asperger's, I feel sorry for the intimate people in your lives who don't agree with you folks. You all got to be a real bitch to be around in a face-to-face disagreement. Judging from how nasty some of the above posts have been, some of you folks just ***CAN'T BE WRONG**** and hate being questioned. I'd wager that many of you have had past relationships end because of that very weakness.

A week ago I was forewarned by another member in here to be ***very careful*** regarding what I printed. That individual portrayed you folks as 'lions in a lions den'. I disagree. You folks are more like a swarm of mosquitoes.

Operative, I'll have a rebuttal to your claims 2day or 2morrow. Namaskar!

I love the claiming of victory and the trash talking after his ass has already been handed to him on a silver platter multiple times by now. Apparently providing evidence and citations to prove someone wrong, and ridiculing them for making outlandish claims illustrates a mentality akin to a serial killer. Mr. Eagles must have gotten his psychology degree from the same place he learned about tax law.

and you just helped prove his point about the attitudes on here

[Prof]

Here at work, the Systems Admins have blocked a large number of sites for promoting hate, violence, drugs, alcohol, pornography and gambling.

http://www.suijuris2.com is on that list.

Just an observation......

Try http://www.suijurisclub.net -- you have to join, by the way.

[iplawyer]

mutter wrote:

and you just helped prove his point about the attitudes on here

Really - how is that?

[Duke2Earl]

His point is that we here are so very sure we are right about the law that we are just like the people on Sui or the CTC people in that they are sure they are right and we are sure we are right. This is a logical fallacy. All points of view are NOT equal. Suppose we were saying that people can't fly and someone on Sui was saying that people can fly but they just aren't doing it right. To the weakminded both points of view are "equal." Unfortunately for the equality of argument folks the immutable laws of physics prove that one of those positions is right and the other is wrong. The same is true about taxes. The courts have ruled that people have to pay income taxes on their wages. That fact makes one side 100% right and the other "argument" 100% wrong.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Under the Constitution and the federal tax laws, a U.S. citizen is a person who was born in one of the 50 states or territories.

Nice try but NO!
Even the feds are smart enough to realize the ambiguity of the 14th Amendment. As I've previously mentioned to the meatheads in here, the term "United States" has more than one legal definition (Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th edition).

It's not the US Constitution that secured citizenry, it's contract law, and contract law **can** supersede the Constitution when properly used. I feel the following is a MAJOR reason anti-taxing zealots consistently fail.

The sheople are taught they NEED a SSN, that it's required by law (which is total BS!) On the application for a social security card, Line 3 says "CITIZENSHIP" (check one) the first option is "U.S. Citizen". Now because all of the sheople within this matrix have been ***taught*** that we're "US Citizens" because we are born in the usA, everyone automatically marks that spot, regardless of whether you were born within a federal territory/ or upon the jurisdiction of any one of the 50 united states.

And that is how Americans born on American soil (within the 50 states, and legally outside of a federal territory) legally become "US Citizens".

Years ago, in confidence, a multi-millionaire said to me.."The Federal Government is the most corrupt government in the world." so I can totally understand this type of legal perversion being perpetrated upon the American sheople.

I realize this may be far too simple for many of the 'Hitler youth' in here to comprehend, but I cannot open a closed mind.

[Lambkin]

The closed mind you need to open is the mind of the judge hearing your case. The minds on Quatloos are going to approximately follow what the judge will rule. You are trying to win (or lose) an academic discussion when the question is mostly a practical one. If you try this in court, you will lose. You can't win or lose the point here, all you can do is make your point, and hear that professionals predict you will lose if you do it "for real". Now if you want to see what losing feels like, go for it. Sue for a refund, or make sure you get sued to recover a bogus refund, or win a criminal indictment. When you're done, let us know the case number and we can discuss what happened. Good luck!

[agent86x]

I realize this may be far too simple for many of the 'Hitler youth' in here to comprehend, but I cannot open a closed mind.

And yours is the most tightly closed mind around, isn't it?

[jg]

Under the Constitution and the federal tax laws, a U.S. citizen is a person who was born in one of the 50 states or territories.

Nice try but NO!
<snip legally meritless theories>.

See US court rulings on dual citizenship at http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html for a good sampling of what the law has been determined to be in regard to how citizenship originates and how the 14th amendment does, in fact, apply.

Please discard everyone else's concept of what was said and read the cases for yourself to see what is the law that is in force in regard to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States (and why) with an open mind.