Time: Fri Feb 07 04:57:34 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA10171;
Sat, 8 Feb 1997 04:43:22 -0700 (MST)
id GAA09917; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:33:36 -0500 (EST)
id GAA09913; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:33:34 -0500 (EST)
id AA12489; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:33:34 -0500
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA10152;
Sat, 8 Feb 1997 04:33:32 -0700 (MST)
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA09059;
Sat, 8 Feb 1997 04:33:21 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 04:42:35 -0800
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: SNET: 1040s and IRS
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
My main concern with this post is
the well established (and large) body of law
which proves that we have two (2)
classes of citizenship in America:
state Citizenship and federal citizenship,
in parallel with state and federal governments.
Everything I have seen thus far equates
"federal citizen" (defined in Black's)
with "citizen of the United States" and
with "U.S. citizen" [sic]. If "U.S. citizen"
is NOT the same as "federal citizen",
I have seen nothing, and doubt very VERY
much, that "U.S. citizen" is even remotely
related to "state Citizen", except by error.
I say this primarily because citizenship is
a term of municipal law, and the federal
government has a distinctly different municipal
jurisdiction from that of the several states,
just as France has a distinctly different
municipal jurisdiction from that of Spain.
So, if the following post is citing a
Supreme Court decision which equates
"U.S. citizen" with "state Citizen",
then it is obvious to me that the Supreme Court
has erred (once again). This happened in
O'Malley v. Woodrough, so it can surely happen
again. The Alabama Supreme Court put it best
in Gardina v. Board of Registrars:
"There are, then, under our republican form
of government, two classes of citizens, one
of the United States and one of the state.
One class of citizenship may exist in a
person, without the other ...."
That language is perfectly clear to me.
I rather suspect that the case cited below
has been misunderstood: "U.S. citizens"
are given the same rights as white citizens;
this alone identifies two distinct groups,
but does so on racial grounds. For the full
story on this distinction in law, you must
read Dred Scott v. Sandford. The distinction
which will endure, as far as the Constitution
is concerned, is territory. If a territory is
not within the confines of a Union state, then
its "citizens" are "federal citizens" because
there can be no state Citizenship where there
is no state!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 11:09 PM 2/7/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>>
>> Dear Friends,
>> (snip)
>> ... Citizens of the several states of the Union
>> are in a jurisdiction which is "foreign" to
>> the IRC. However, U.S. citizens are not.
>
>True.
>
>> I would be very careful about Form 2555,
>> because it creates a presumption that you
>> are a "citizen of the United States," and
>> that is something which may come back to
>> haunt you in the years to come (e.g.
>> having to accept a biochip, for example).
>>
>> (The terms "federal citizen", "U.S. citizen",
>> and "citizen of the United States" are all
>> synomymous in law.)
>
>I don't agree. The first presumption is created when
>you get that social security number and check the
>"U.S. citizen" box; now there's presumption for you.
>I believe that the SS number, and having stocks, bank
>accounts, credit cards and the like all applied for as
>"U.S. citizens" makes a very strong presumption that we
>are that. If you want to break that presumption, get
>rid of all those ties. (I'm in the process of this.)
>
>I can't agree that "citizen of the United States" and
>U.S. citizen" mean the same - I don't know about "federal
>citizen". If you look in the index for the U.S. Code,
>for these, you'll find they lead in different directions
>and don't overlap, i.e. they're different. It's pretty
>hard to know for sure what they are, but it appears to
>me that a U.S. citizen is one licensed to do business with
>and in the U.S., while a citizen of the United States is
>a non-white whose citizenship comes from the 14th amendment.
>
>For those offended by that last statement, go look up:
> SULLIVAN v LITTLE HUNTING PARK, 396 US 229 (1969) and
> 42 USC 1982 (where it gives citizens of the U.S.
> the sames rights as white state citizens,
> ... and, don't shoot the messenger...)
>
>(snip)
>> ... you simply declare that you are
>> not a "citizen of the United States", nor
>> are you a "resident of the United States",
>> as those terms are defined in the pertinent
>> statutes and regulations. Then, 2555 does
>> not even apply to you in any way, shape,
>> or form.
>> Nice, huh?
>
>It's great if you don't have any other ties that bind,
>like the SS number. I believe if you have that attached
>to you, your approach will lead to trouble. (With that
>number, they'll come looking to put that chip in for sure.)
>
>I'm taking the approach that I'm a commercial citizen (U.S.
>citizen) by virtue of my ignorantly making commercial ties
>to the U.S. Fine. I'm there. Now, I want out, but I need
>and am willing to play by their rules. So, after I knew the
>2555 yielded fruit, I was willing to play it that way. I'd
>much rather get back my own money on my way out of their
>system than leave it behind - I can use it. I don't see that
>I'm compromising my standing (more than I've already done) by
>using that form, especially after all the 1040's I've filed
>already. No, I intend to play by the rules and get my money
>back, since they're really so nice about it anyway ($95,000!).
>
>Then, I intend (as we all _need_ to do) to get rid of that SS
>number! Once that's gone, then I believe I'm safe from that
>not-so-nice little bio-chip.
>
>(snip)
>
>> Objection. See my comments above.
>> The perjury jurat on IRS forms
>> is for verifications "within" the
>> United States. For proof, compare
>> 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) and 1746(2).
>> That will surprise you, if you
>> have not already seen this statute.
>
>I've seen it and understand it. But, they don't
>allow you to alter that clause, so what I did is
>to walk into the post office main door, then through
>the second door into where the clerks are, and found
>a table and signed it there. I'm going to hold the
>position that that area is an enclave of the U.S.,
>(don't they have U.S. flags in there?) so I did sign
>it in the U.S. And honestly, I sometimes think all
>this legal reasoning is only spinning one's wheels;
>the IRS wanted a return, they got a return. If they
>want to take me into a court and tell me I signed the
>wrong perjury clause on a form they demanded from me
>and the instructions for which don't allow me to alter,
>their time is shorter than I thought.
>
>Walter
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: Walter Kenaston <kenaston@digital.net>
>
>
====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
Web site for the Supreme Law Firm is URL: http://www.supremelaw.com
Ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail