Debate of “Authorities on Rights as Property” Page
The debate featured in this article is a debate relating to the following article on this site:
Authorities on Rights as Property, SEDM Blog
The featured debate is between SEDM Admin and one of our more informed members. It is provided for edification to see how the content of the above page will likely be challenged in court by a government opponent.
In case you are curious, the case research tool they used for the debate was:
Casemine AI Case Research
https://www.casemine.com/caseiq
They swear up and down by this tool and use it daily. Check it out!
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 10:26 AM]
QUESTION?:
Based on the following cites, EXACTLY WHAT property GEOGRAPHICALLY within the “United States” ONLY is it that the federal courts act upon in the case of a nonresident alien domiciled OUTSIDE the “geographical United States” and all of whose PHYSICAL property is also outside that SAME geographical “United States”?
“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]
[EDITORIAL: All privileges and franchises are based on GRANTS/LOANS of PUBLIC property with CIVIL LEGAL STRINGS attached. Those strings are the statutory civil law, and that law ONLY applies to those with a CONSENSUAL domicile within the jurisdiction of the granting power, as described in Form #05.030]
“Thus the State, through its tribunals, may compel persons domiciled within its limits to execute, in pursuance of their contracts respecting property elsewhere situated, instruments in such form and with such solemnities as to transfer the title, so far as such formalities can be complied with; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no manner interferes with the supreme control over the property by the State within which it is situated. Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. 444; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25; Corbett v. Nutt, 10 Wall. 464.”
So the State, through its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits owned by non-residents to the payment of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are domiciled. Every State owes protection to its own citizens; and, when non-residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens. It is in virtue of the State’s jurisdiction over the property of the non-resident situated within its limits that its tribunals can inquire into that non-resident’s obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of the property. If the non-resident 724*724 have no property in the State, there is nothing upon which the tribunals can adjudicate.“
[Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)]
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 10:27 AM]
“In the case of the federal government where the individual is either a United States citizen or an alien residing in the taxing jurisdiction, the tax under section 1 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the person; where the individual is an alien [LEGISLATIVELY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY “foreign”, INCLUDING states of the Union] not residing in the taxing jurisdiction [the “geographical United States”, meaning the District of Columbia per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), the tax under section 871 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the [PUBLIC] property or income of the nonresident individual [GEOGRAPHICALLY and PHYSICALLY] located or earned in the taxing jurisdiction”
[Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d 301, 307 (3d Cir. 1974)]
More cites like the above at:
Sources of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, SEDM Blog, Section 4.3
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 10:33 AM]
It isn’t your PRIVATE earnings, and it has to be PUBLIC property based on the above, because the cites admit they can’t tax PRIVATE property and the company you work for is also outside the statutory geographical United States.
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 10:43 AM]
I know the answer, but I want to see if you do too, Mr. Smarty.
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 10:44 AM]
If you answer this question accurately, THE WHOLE DAMN TAX SYSTEM COMES TUMBLING DOWN.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 11:41 AM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Federal courts do not necessarily “act upon property”.
Your question seems to be over broad and vague
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 11:44 AM]
If you want to make a point, make your point coherently and support it with applicable authorities
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 11:44 AM]
A judge isn’t going to play 20 questions with you or strain himself to comprehend what you’re trying to say
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 11:49 AM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
I doubt that my answering your question is capable of making the whole tax system “come tumbling down”
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:04 PM]
If you don’t want to even attempt an answer, then you don’t deserve mine either.
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:04 PM]
It was a simple question.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:09 PM]
Lol
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:10 PM]
Your reliance on authorities with respect to state tax powers is highly questionable
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:13 PM]
Not sure why you are assuming that an alien for federal income tax purposes means only one outside of a certain geographical area
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:13 PM]
If state and federal liabilities coincide, then why would it be questionable?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:14 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Related to each other does not = identical to each other
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:17 PM]
But why don’t you defend your thesis instead of attacking my argument that you are merely assuming the limits of a state’s tax power are necessarily applicable to federal government.
Cook v Tait addressed the difference, but you seem to be conveniently ignoring that
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:18 PM]
1. I’m just asking questions. Not attacking anything.
2. Cook v. Tait addressed taxation outside the COUNTRY, not taxation WITHIN a state of the Union. INAPPOSITE
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:21 PM]
Federal taxation is nearly always not related to location
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:22 PM]
While it may be tied to receiving income related to use of federal property, the federal property is typically property with no physical location, as with the “United States person” status
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:23 PM]
Or the “trade or business in the United States” franchise, for which location is irrelevant
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:24 PM]
There may be cases where a nonresident alien has income that’s taxable because it’s derived from real property located in the geographical United States.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:25 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
You clearly have a thesis behind your “question” and a “correct” answer in mind
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:26 PM]
I’m not interested in showing off my ability to solve your riddles
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:28 PM]
Property isn’t taxable without a situs, right?
Situs. Lat. Situation; location; e.g. location or place of crime or business. Site; position; the place where a thing is considered, for example, with reference to jurisdiction over it, or the right or power to tax it. It imports fixedness of location. Situs of property, for tax purposes, is determined by whether the taxing state has sufficient contact with the personal property sought to be taxed to justify in in fairness the particular tax. Town of Cady v. Alexander Const. Co., 12 Wis.2d 236, 107 N.W.2d 267, 270.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1387]
So does the income tax require a situs in the geographical “united states” or not IN THE SITUATION where the owner consents to NOTHING and NO CIVIL STATUSES and is NOT abroad?
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:31 PM]
Obviously, SITUS is irrelevant where there is consent
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:31 PM]
BTW, that judge on our FTB case totally walked back her decision to consider FTB’s untimely reply evidence in their motion for summary judgment. We called her out for ruling that evidence was excluded, then later changing her mind and considering it for her decision, without giving us any chance to respond. She now says she did NOT consider the FTB reply evidence because it’s not relevant anyway. This is plainly contradictory to what she wrote in her order granting summary judgment.
We are going to file a Complaint against her for ignoring basic rules of evidence and putting her thumb on the scale to help the FTB
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:32 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
The income tax is not a property tax. If it were it would require apportionment. It is an excise on the privilege of using federal property to receive income
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:34 PM]
is an office created by statute property of its government creator?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:35 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Give me an example of an office created by statute
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:37 PM]
“citizen” or “resident”, who are the parties liable for tax in 26 CFR 1.1-1. Those can’t be PRIVATE parties and therefore PRIVATE property, right? If it was private property protected by the Fifth Amendment, you as the owner could deny them the use or the benefit of it.
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:37 PM]
The liability or obligation is PROPERTY of the national government, as is the office that it attaches to, right?
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:38 PM]
They can’t tax PRIVATE property under the Firth Amendment.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:42 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
They have a property right in tax owed to them.
That doesn’t make it a tax on property
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:45 PM]
You persist in the “begging the question” fallacy. You seem to want to rely on private property based arguments, when the fact that an amount of $ is your private property is the very thing you must prove in order to get your $ back
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:45 PM]
Do they have a property right in the OFFICE that the obligation or property right attaches to? Are they the OWNER of the office? They created it, didn’t they?
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:45 PM]
Can they have a right to a tax without an ownership interest in the office that the right attaches to?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:45 PM]
The property right attaches to tax owed on taxable income (the return of income) not to all of the income or even the status itself
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:46 PM]
For an NRA, you are correct, but not for citizens or residents.
“In the case of the federal government where the individual is either a United States citizen or an alien residing in the taxing jurisdiction, the tax under section 1 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the person; where the individual is an alien [LEGISLATIVELY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY “foreign”, INCLUDING states of the Union] not residing in the taxing jurisdiction [the “geographical United States”, meaning the District of Columbia per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), the tax under section 871 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the [PUBLIC] property or income of the nonresident individual [GEOGRAPHICALLY and PHYSICALLY] located or earned in the taxing jurisdiction”
[Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d 301, 307 (3d Cir. 1974)]
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:47 PM]
The obligation for US persons attaches to the offices above, not the property or income directly
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:48 PM]
Jurisdiction over the person is how all income is made “gross income” for such persons. That still does not establish the tax as a tax on property. The feds acquire a property right to the tax owed, ONCE the tax is ASSESSED
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:49 PM]
Is the office property of its creator or not? And if it isn’t, by what authority can they tax or even control the office or those USING IT as a NON-OWNER in the case of citizens or residents?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:52 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
“Citizen or resident” status and the benefits that come with it are creatures of Congress. They have power to tax the taxable income a person receives in relation to acceptance of that status
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:53 PM]
“creature of Congress”=Congress is the creator and owner, right?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:53 PM]
OK
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:54 PM]
How do you think this relates to the authority of CREATORS over their creation/property?
“These general rules are well settled:
(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431-433; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212.
(2) That, where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35. Still, the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374; United States v. Laughlin, 249 U.S. 440.”
[United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328 (1919)]
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:56 PM]
Notice the phrase “creates rights”, where “rights” are property in this case
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:56 PM]
OK
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 12:57 PM]
So are we agreed that:
1. Rights are property.
2. The creator of a right is the owner.
3. Congress legislatively created “citizen” and “resident” and are the OWNER of these to statuses in the IRC.
4. They MUST be the OWNER to place conditions on the use of these two things as property, or they couldn’t tax them and they would REMAIN private property they can’t control.
?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 12:58 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
I don’t agree that rights generally are property. I don’t understand why you fixate on making that argument
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:00 PM]
Then what do you think this means?
“Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. “
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1095]
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:00 PM]
Note: “EVERY SPECIES of valuable right and interest”.
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:00 PM]
It must be “valuable” if they can tax it, right?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:01 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
They are NOT taxing the status but the taxable income generated from the privilege
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:01 PM]
Please answer the question: Is a right property or not?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:02 PM]
Who gives a shit? Get to your point!
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:02 PM]
You are more worried about winning than facts at this point. We will get nowhere until you answer the question.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:03 PM]
You can’t transform income tax into a property tax with mental gymnastics
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:03 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
I’m busy, get to your point or buzz off
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:04 PM]
Logic and evidence are not “mental gymnastics” except possibly for retards
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:04 PM]
You can’t ever get to the point. This is a massive failing for one trying to persuade others
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:05 PM]
The only failing is a refusal to rely on evidence and logic. That’s not me
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:05 PM]
So your point is that the income tax is a property tax?
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:06 PM]
“The word [property] is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal, everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchises, and incorporeal hereditaments, and includes every invasion of one’s property rights by actionable wrong. Labberton v. General Cas. Co. of America, 53 Wash.2d. 180, 332 P.2d. 250, 252, 254.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1095]
Note the word “franchises”.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:06 PM]
Yes or no
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:06 PM]
I won’t make any points until we agree on all the facts.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:07 PM]
That’s not how it works in court, pal
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:07 PM]
1. Are rights property or not?
2. Is citizen and resident property of its creator, uncle?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:08 PM]
For sake of argument let’s say yes to both. So what
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:08 PM]
Well, I’ve just proven with evidence that rights are property, and a jury would believe me based on that.
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:08 PM]
So are we agreed that:
1. Rights are property.
2. The creator of a right is the owner.
3. Congress legislatively created “citizen” and “resident” and are the OWNER of these to statuses in the IRC.
4. They MUST be the OWNER to place conditions on the use of these two things as property, or they couldn’t tax them and they would REMAIN private property they can’t control.
?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:08 PM]
You don’t get to argue the law to a jury!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:09 PM]
Assuming I agree so what
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:13 PM]
Then:
1. Income tax is a property tax.
2. Its NOT a property tax on PRIVATE property protected by the constitution, as you already eloquently proved with the cites provided earlier.
3. Uncle doesn’t want you to know WHAT kind of property that its a tax on, because you would realize that you are a volunteer if you did. So they will never call the STATUS or OFFICE THEIR property and directly admit that you are using it and have to follow the rules for using it to get the “benefit” of deductions you don’t need as a state national.
4. We know, however, that since its their property, whether they admit it or not, ALL THEIR AUTHORITY to tax a regulate the USERS of that property derives directly and exclusively from their OWNERSHIP of the property you are using and their right to control that use as the owner legislatively, and even WITHOUT the need for implementing regulations:
“These general rules are well settled:
(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431-433; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212.
(2) That, where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35. Still, the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374; United States v. Laughlin, 249 U.S. 440.”
[United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328 (1919)]
Agreed so far? Not done yet.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:15 PM]
OK
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:16 PM]
BTW: The above case is the ONLY reason Congress can make the remedy “exclusive” in 7422: Because the right is exercised against THEM and they CONSENTED to the suit and waived sovereign immunity by doing so.
Right?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:18 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Congress controls the jurisdiction of federal courts. That’s why Congress can make that remedy exclusive
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:20 PM]
NO. Congress cannot make the remedy exclusive for CONSTITUTIONAL issues. They can only do so for STATUTORY privileges they created and therefore are the OWNER of:
But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521 (1997). This case therefore turns on whether the Miranda Court announced a constitutional rule or merely exercised its supervisory authority to regulate evidence in the absence of congressional direction. Recognizing this point, the Court of Appeals surveyed Miranda and its progeny to determine the constitutional status of the Miranda decision. 166 F.3d, at 687—692. Relying on the fact that we have created several exceptions to Miranda’s warnings requirement and that we have repeatedly referred to the Miranda warnings as “prophylactic,” New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 653 (1984), and “not themselves rights protected by the Constitution,” Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 444 (1974), 2 the Court of Appeals concluded that the protections announced in Miranda are not constitutionally required. 166 F.3d, at 687—690.
[Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)]
The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers 524*524 between Congress and the Judiciary. 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. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, “Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States.” Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal’s threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, “provide[s] safeguards to be enforced by the courts, and not to be exercised by the Legislature”); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it “was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens”). 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). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.
[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]
Right?
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:25 PM]
If Congress “may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution” as above, then they may not write ANY statute that makes the STATUTE exclusive, right?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:26 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Obviously they can, because they DID
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:26 PM]
That’s because constitutional rights are PRIVATE, not public, and Congress didn’t create them and is therefore NOT the owner. The Sovereign People, also called “the State” or “the body politic” created them. The Declaration of Independence says THE CREATOR created them. So Caesar is not the owner.
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:27 PM]
In 7422 you mean?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:30 PM]
Yes. And you have never explained how or why that remedy is inadequate or how there is any injury to any of your rights in having only that remedy. “Pay first, litigate later” has been found to satisfy due process. So you have no hope of working around that remedy as inadequate. Like, none. Give it up.
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:32 PM]
I’m not arguing whether the remedy is sufficient. Only why they have a right to prescribe one AT ALL by statute as described in the Babcock case.
Do we agree on the following?:
“A statutory civil right (which is PUBLIC PROPERTY) exercised against a fiction of law (straw man, Form #05.042) such as a “person” is a right exercised against the GRANTOR/CREATOR of the OFFICE, and not the human(s) FILLING the office. This is an outgrowth of the law of agency. Thus, a civil statute used as a remedy in court against someone else is a remedy against the GOVERNMENT GRANTOR/CREATOR of the right, and not the OFFICER filling the office to which the PUBLIC right attaches. The CREATOR is the OWNER, and the OWNER of the right is the person legally RESPONSIBLE for its effect on others.”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:34 PM]
I don’t know
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:36 PM]
You conceited that rights are property, that offices are property. That the government is the creator of the office and the owner.
Why would it be a big leap to expect them to take responsibility and be the “real party in interest” in all cases involving fictions they created and therefore owned?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:37 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Sovereign immunity
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:37 PM]
So what you are suggesting is that:
1. Ownership and responsibility can be separated?
2. That even though they are the owner of the office of citizen and resident as the CREATOR, SOMEONE ELSE is the real party in interest?
3. That they can hand you property as an office, PRETEND its YOUR property even though its theirs, but then turn right around and contradict themself by saying YOU are the party ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for everything that happens to the office even though you were compelled to fill it?
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:38 PM]
That’s ridiculous!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:39 PM]
Give me an example of how you might implement this idea
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:39 PM]
I just did. That’s exactly how they implement tax enforcement!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:40 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
What office was I compelled to fill? And who applied the compulsion?
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:42 PM]
How about EVERYTHING IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. Justice demands that they leave me alone, and not unilaterally “elect” me into office for deceive other people to do so with false information returns filed erroneously based on speech they are not accountable for the accuracy of.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:43 PM]
Always comes back to you trying to sue the government because of the actions of a private party
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:43 PM]
Do we agree on the following?:
“A statutory civil right (which is PUBLIC PROPERTY) exercised against a fiction of law (straw man, Form #05.042) such as a “person” is a right exercised against the GRANTOR/CREATOR of the OFFICE, and not the human(s) FILLING the office. This is an outgrowth of the law of agency. Thus, a civil statute used as a remedy in court against someone else is a remedy against the GOVERNMENT GRANTOR/CREATOR of the right, and not the OFFICER filling the office to which the PUBLIC right attaches. The CREATOR is the OWNER, and the OWNER of the right is the person legally RESPONSIBLE for its effect on others.”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:44 PM]
No
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:44 PM]
Because?
The reason I’m asking is because of the use of the phrase “against itself” in the Babock Case.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:45 PM]
You’re talking about income tax. So just discuss this in income tax terms instead of sweeping generalities. It’s nearly incomprehensible what you are are trying to say
SEDM Admin [9/30/2022 1:46 PM]
When you sue a police “officer” and he is acting within his statutory authority, are you suing the municipality that legislatively created the office or not?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:47 PM]
I don’t know
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:36 PM]
You conceited that rights are property, that offices are property. That the government is the creator of the office and the owner.
Why would it be a big leap to expect them to take responsibility and be the “real party in interest” in all cases involving fictions they created and therefore owned?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:37 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Sovereign immunity
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:37 PM]
So what you are suggesting is that:
1. Ownership and responsibility can be separated?
2. That even though they are the owner of the office of citizen and resident as the CREATOR, SOMEONE ELSE is the real party in interest?
3. That they can hand you property as an office, PRETEND its YOUR property even though it’s theirs, but then turn right around and contradict themself by saying YOU are the party ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for everything that happens to the office even though you were compelled to fill it?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:38 PM]
That’s ridiculous!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:39 PM]
Give me an example of how you might implement this idea
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:39 PM]
I just did. That’s exactly how they implement tax enforcement!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:40 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
What office was I compelled to fill? And who applied the compulsion?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:42 PM]
How about EVERYTHING IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. Justice demands that they leave me alone, and not unilaterally “elect” me into office for deceive other people to do so with false information returns filed erroneously based on speech they are not accountable for the accuracy of.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:43 PM]
Always comes back to you trying to sue the government because of the actions of a private party
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:43 PM]
Do we agree on the following?:
“A statutory civil right (which is PUBLIC PROPERTY) exercised against a fiction of law (straw man, Form #05.042) such as a “person” is a right exercised against the GRANTOR/CREATOR of the OFFICE, and not the human(s) FILLING the office. This is an outgrowth of the law of agency. Thus, a civil statute used as a remedy in court against someone else is a remedy against the GOVERNMENT GRANTOR/CREATOR of the right, and not the OFFICER filling the office to which the PUBLIC right attaches. The CREATOR is the OWNER, and the OWNER of the right is the person legally RESPONSIBLE for its effect on others.”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:44 PM]
No
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:44 PM]
Because?
The reason I’m asking is because of the use of the phrase “against itself” in the Babock Case.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:45 PM]
You’re talking about income tax. So just discuss this in income tax terms instead of sweeping generalities. It’s nearly incompehensible what you are are trying to say
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:46 PM]
When you sue a police “officer” and he is acting within his statutory authority, are you suing the municipality that legislatively created the office or not?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:47 PM]
I don’t know
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:36 PM]
You conceited that rights are property, that offices are property. That the government is the creator of the office and the owner.
Why would it be a big leap to expect them to take responsibility and be the “real party in interest” in all cases involving fictions they created and therefore owned?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:37 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Sovereign immunity
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:37 PM]
So what you are suggesting is that:
1. Ownership and responsibility can be separated?
2. That even though they are the owner of the office of citizen and resident as the CREATOR, SOMEONE ELSE is the real party in interest?
3. That they can hand you property as an office, PRETEND its YOUR property even though its theirs, but then turn right around and contradict themself by saying YOU are the party ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for everything that happens to the office even though you were compelled to fill it?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:38 PM]
That’s ridiculous!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:39 PM]
Give me an example of how you might implement this idea
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:39 PM]
I just did. That’s exactly how they implement tax enforcement!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:40 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
What office was I compelled to fill? And who applied the compulsion?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:42 PM]
How about EVERYTHING IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. Justice demands that they leave me alone, and not unilaterally “elect” me into office for deceive other people to do so with false information returns filed erroneously based on speech they are not accountable for the accuracy of.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:43 PM]
Always comes back to you trying to sue the government because of the actions of a private party
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:43 PM]
Do we agree on the following?:
“A statutory civil right (which is PUBLIC PROPERTY) exercised against a fiction of law (straw man, Form #05.042) such as a “person” is a right exercised against the GRANTOR/CREATOR of the OFFICE, and not the human(s) FILLING the office. This is an outgrowth of the law of agency. Thus, a civil statute used as a remedy in court against someone else is a remedy against the GOVERNMENT GRANTOR/CREATOR of the right, and not the OFFICER filling the office to which the PUBLIC right attaches. The CREATOR is the OWNER, and the OWNER of the right is the person legally RESPONSIBLE for its effect on others.”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:44 PM]
No
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:44 PM]
Because?
The reason I’m asking is because of the use of the phrase “against itself” in the Babock Case.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:45 PM]
You’re talking about income tax. So just discuss this in income tax terms instead of sweeping generalities. It’s nearly incompehensible what you are are trying to say
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:46 PM]
When you sue a police “officer” and he is acting within his statutory authority, are you suing the municipality that legislatively created the office or not?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:47 PM]
I don’t know
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:47 PM]
Now I understand why you are still a slave.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:47 PM]
Does that mean you will leave me alone?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:49 PM]
“i don’t know” is a copout. It ought to be obvious. Right is obviously more important than fact or logic for you in this case. Its foolish to try to convince irrational people who won’t admit facts.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:49 PM]
A tax refund suit is not the same thing as suing a cop
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:50 PM]
Such people deserve to be left alone, so they can continue injuring themselves and everyone around them until their own follow teaches them to humbly admit the reality of the situation.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:50 PM]
I’m not even talking about a refund suit. I’m talking about legislative authority GENERALLY for all civil legislation. Don’t change the subject.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:50 PM]
7422 was just an example, not the main subject.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:51 PM]
You keep trying to change the subject because you want to avoid the reality.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:52 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
So Congress doesn’t have authority to pass any legislation. Got it
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:52 PM]
That’s not the point either.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:52 PM]
Ooh are we finally going to hear what the point is?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:53 PM]
The point is: Where does their authority to CIVILLLY legislate come from?
You have to answer that question to challenge any kind of jurisdiction.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:54 PM]
I don’t understand what “civilly legislating” is supposed to mean
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:54 PM]
Anything other than the criminal law.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:55 PM]
So do you still advocate any of the following?
1. Ownership and responsibility can be separated?
2. That even though they are the owner of the office of citizen and resident as the CREATOR, SOMEONE ELSE is the real party in interest?
3. That they can hand you property as an office, PRETEND its YOUR property even though its theirs, but then turn right around and contradict themself by saying YOU are the party ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for everything that happens to the office even though you were compelled to fill it? By “compelled” I mean elected into office by someone else with an information return or any kind of legal obligation attached to an office you never expressly consented to fill.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 1:56 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
So Congress has 17 enumerated powers to legislate, but you don’t know where it’s right to legislate comes from?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:57 PM]
Everything in [Constitution Article] 1:8 relates to property and franchises they own and are responsible for as “subject matter” and not general jurisdiction. The only people they can control or legislate for under 1:8 are people who consent to an office in delivering those “subject matter” services to the sovereign states.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:58 PM]
If you don’t want to volunteer or be employed to execute any of those functions, uncle is “foreign” and you are a nonresident in relation to any and all civil legislation (meaning anything other than CRIMINAL, title 18) which might execute those functions.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 1:59 PM]
Right?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:00 PM]
You haven’t answered my question: what office were you compelled into and by whom?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:02 PM]
A W-4 I was forced to submit and the W-2 that it produces create a presumption that I am an “employee” and that I execute “The functions of a public office” in connection with the earnings so associated. You can’t “execute the functions of a public office” (an excise taxable activity) without BEING a public officer, and a compelled one in this case.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:03 PM]
Ditto for the compelled use of SSNs/TINS. 26 CFR 301.6012-1(b) says they are only required for OFFICERS called “citizens” and “residents” and also NRAs engaging in the “trade or business” office.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:03 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Who forced you to submit W-4? Usually it’s optional, because the employer is already assuming you are an employee who will be paid “wages”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:04 PM]
When they told me they would not hire, would not promote, or would fire me if I don’t submit a W-4.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:04 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
A W-4 doesn’t establish any of that.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:04 PM]
Proof?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:05 PM]
It says “employee’s withholding allowance certificate”. You’re an “employee”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:05 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
I don’t have to prove a negative. You prove it does
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:05 PM]
I just did
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:05 PM]
Yes, you set a very low bar for yourself
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:06 PM]
Your premises are faulty, making it impossible for your conclusions to be of any value
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:07 PM]
I’m consenting to TWO things in filing a W-4:
1. I CONSENT to “be treated AS IF” I’m a STATUTORY employee. That’s an office. The Owner is converted to PUBLIC.
2. I consent to convert my earnings into “federal payment”under 3402(p). The PROPERTY (earnings) are converted from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:08 PM]
And who forced you to do that?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:08 PM]
The person who said they wouldn’t hire, would fire, or would not promote me if I didn’t submit it
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:09 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
So how is the government liable?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:10 PM]
The office, and the number are both their creations and property. The owner is the ONLY person responsible for the damage their property does to others. If a car rolls down a hill with the brakes off and damages another, the owner of the vehicle pays. Not the driver. There was no driver
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:12 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
What property was the employer using that injured you?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:12 PM]
The office and the number, which are both creations of and therefore absolutely owned property of their creator. They can’t be owner WITHOUT also be responsible for the property. Absolute ownership and responsibility cannot be legally separated.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:13 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
What is the injury?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:13 PM]
Damage to the other vehicle by its other owner as a result of the car rolling downhill and ramming the other vehicle while parked.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:14 PM]
The injury from the employer using “the office” and “the number”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:18 PM]
1. Responding to notices not directed at a real officer. Billable hours.
2. Being the target of enforcement of the obligations of an office that I never consensually occupied. Damages are property that was taken that was still PRIVATE because it was never consensually converted to PUBLIC by its lawful owner.
3. Being a victim of identity theft, in which fictitious obligations I didn’t create are treated as my obligations. 18 USC 912. This happens all the time with credit cards. The SSN/TIN is the legal equivalent of a credit card for uncle to steal from people with.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:20 PM]
Instead of stealing a credit card, the employer is stealing a public identity and office and affixing it non-consensually to an innocent otherwise PRIVATE victim. He’s an identity thief, and to the extent Uncle protects it or denies a remedy, they are a co-conspirator.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:21 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
You don’t have a right not to be inconvenienced
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:21 PM]
Justice is the right to be left alone. Any interference with that is injustice.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:21 PM]
The main purpose of government is justice.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:22 PM]
OK, so it’s unjust. Now what?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:22 PM]
If its unjust, you have a remedy BEFORE the office itself. Occupying the office to get the remedy is more injustice.
Justice can NEVER be a privilege:
“To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.”
[Magna Carta, ch. 40 (1215)]
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:22 PM]
You wish
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:24 PM]
“sell” above =franchise or privilege
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:24 PM]
“The king establishes the land by justice, But he who receives bribes overthrows it. “
[Prov. 29:4, Bible, NKJV]
Taxes on an office you don’t occupy=bribe.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:24 PM]
You waste a colossal amount of time worrying about how to get a remedy for being merely inconvenienced. The law provides a remedy for you to recover a refund. You’re just a whiner who expects other people to fix everything that makes you unhappy
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:25 PM]
So what you are saying:
“Justice is a colossal waste of time and its ok if it’s a privilege rather than a right?”.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:26 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Yes, that’s what I said. The world isn’t fair, get used to it.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:27 PM]
“Getting used to it”=promoting and protecting injustice.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:27 PM]
Did Jesus get a fair trial?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:28 PM]
Fair by God’s measure. He abandoned this miserable space ship and got all the glory for rescuing an entire planet of slaves.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:28 PM]
Beam me up Scotty: There’s no intelligent life here. That’s the contemporary version of “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do [DUMB SHITS]”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:28 PM]
You help no one by beating your head against the wall and bitching about how unfair and unjust the world is. Grow up
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:29 PM]
Do we agree on this?
“If you use a civil statutory fictional office for private gain, the creator of the office is the owner of all income and property attached to the office through the use of the franchise mark, the Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number. They must reward you with a portion of the PUBLIC property attached to the office to induce you to volunteer for the office to begin with. Thus, a “trade or business” partnership is established to remit the “kickback”. This is called a “return”.”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:30 PM]
No they don’t claim to own “all the income”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:31 PM]
The rate of the return of income to which they would be entitled is established in the Code
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:31 PM]
If the office owns all the income because the owner was changed from a private human to a “citizen” or “resident”, then they have the discretion to keep it all if they want. The fact that they reserve a refund for you is a privilege they can take away.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:32 PM]
There is nothing for them to own until the tax is actually assessed
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:33 PM]
What constrains them from setting ANY TAX RATE THEY WANT by the code? And if they can, don’t they effectively own it all? They can only take away what they own (PUBLIC property and all earnings associated with the office)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:34 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
You’re confusing what they COULD do with what they have actually done.
Theoretical effective ownership is not ownership
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:35 PM]
You’re compartmentalizing so you don’t have to deal with the truth
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:36 PM]
1. Someone has to own it.
2. When you associate it with an office, you elect them as the owner of EVERYTHING so associated.
3. The office is a “res”. A res is simply a collection of obligations and rights.
4. Whatever PRIVATE property you connect to PUBLIC property (INCLUDING offices), one of the two has to convert, because they can’t mix. its a crime to embezzle or convert WITHOUT consent of the absolute owner.
5. They can only regulate what they own.
6. Congress cannot by legislation impair PRIVATE property. Therefore, any obligations or property attached to an office cannot SIMULTANEOUSLY have BOTH a PRIVATE and a PUBLIC owner.
“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925.”
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:40 PM]
Absurd.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:41 PM]
They don’t purport to impair private rights.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:43 PM]
1.The conversion from PRIVATE to PUBLIC has to occur at some point.
2. When exactly did it occur?: When you consented to the office.
3. It never occurred if you never consented and evidence indicating otherwise is false and rebuttable.
4. If you never rebut, you are PRESUMED sub silentio to have consented.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:43 PM]
You have remedy to get your refund. But you want to bill someone for your time straightening out your employer’s mistake: bill the employer. And if you don’t have the balls to do that, shut up and pay the price for your lack of courage
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:46 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
No conversion happens. Withholding is either legally appropriate or it is not
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:47 PM]
The money you pay in (whether or not withholding is appropriate) becomes a credit toward your tax liability. That credit is effectively your property
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:48 PM]
Consent=lawful conversion.
No consent=THEFT.
“Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest. What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent. Jenk. Cent. 251. Sed vide Eminent Domain.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; https://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
ALL JUST POWERS of government derive ONLY from consent in a civil context. That’s the main gist of the Declaration.
Once the money is in their possession or not, they effectively treat is as THEIR property or else they couldn’t make rules for it to begin with under 4:3:2.
I haven’t seen any proof that any of the items I suggested are wrong. So, they are now enumerated at:
1. Laws of Property, Section 1
2. How you Lose Constitutional or Natural Rights, Form #10.015, Section 1
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/HowLoseConstOrNatRights.pdf
3. Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:49 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
That’s your problem: you don’t make any effort to self-correct
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:49 PM]
You just assume you are correct
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:49 PM]
I’m speaking of the ideal case only. Everything from that point of departure is a corruption of some kind.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:50 PM]
And: you don’t listen when I do correct you. It’s in one ear, out the other
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:51 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
You can’t lose natural rights
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:51 PM]
You haven’t corrected me so far. You’ve only said that its basically just but why pursue justice? Let’s just corrupt the world further by protecting and condoning injustice.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:52 PM]
Hardly something your average man could get passionate about.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:52 PM]
You dodge any attempt to hold the employer that violated your rights responsible
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:52 PM]
Prove that rights ARE NOT property. Only disagreement so far.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:53 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Member]
It’s misguided
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:53 PM]
I don’t dodge that, but I want to sue both of them. Not just one.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:53 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
I don’t have to prove a negative. Prove your thesis or STFU
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:53 PM]
You NEVER want look the gift horse in the mouth.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:55 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Your employer is either liable for his actions or he is not. Make up your mind. If he is not liable for his actions, how in the world do you figure the government is?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:55 PM]
I proved every step. The only thing you whined about was:
1. Rights being property so far.
2. That property in the custody of Uncle cannot be anything OTHER than PUBLIC. You seem to think that POSSESSION is NOT 9/10ths of the law.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:56 PM]
My employer AND uncle are both liable. Uncle made the gun, employer fired it at the wrong person.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:56 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
One has sovereign immunity, the other does not
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:58 PM]
You can recover a refund from United States but you’re not getting any $ from them for your “billable hours” you spent straightening out your employer’s mistakes or because you cry about your right to be “left alone”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:59 PM]
NO SUCH THING as sovereign immunity, according to district court. See section 2.1
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 2:59 PM]
Yes of course there is no such thing. Silly me 🙄
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 2:59 PM]
Supreme Court can’t REPEAL the applicability of any statute to any specific group, including government, without “making law” in violation of the separation of powers and violating the constitutional requirement for equal treatment.
“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:00 PM]
Let me know when you start your own country
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:02 PM]
Countries are equal to each other under the law of nations.
If our system of jurisprudence is based on equal treatment and individual rights, why can’t individual humans be treated equal to an entire country?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:02 PM]
To suggest otherwise is to advance a pagan religion where government is god to be obeyed/worshipped.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:03 PM]
Waaaah! Life isn’t fair!! 😫
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:04 PM]
That seems to be the point of your work
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:05 PM]
You’ve gone way beyond that:
Life isn’t fair, so lets just make a business out of injustice to promote more of it by:
1. Never biting the hand that feeds you.
2. Making justice into a privilege so it can be administratively denied.
3. Promote and protect injustice by never complaining about justice being a privilege.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:07 PM]
That seems to be the point of Jesus work as well. The FIRST place he visited in the New Testament was the tax office. The first sinner he called to repentance was a tax collector, Matthew. And he dined with tax collectors because he said he didn’t come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners. So he didn’t need to go to dinner with anyone else.
Every time he used the word “tax collectors” he put “and sinners” after it, because they are synonymous. They WEREN’T FAIR is the message.
bible=Life isn’t fair.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:08 PM]
Our member agreement on this subject:
“It is precisely the above abuses by political and/or religious leaders that were the ONLY thing that Jesus ever got angry about during his short time on Earth. See Matt. 21:12-17 and Matt. 23. These passages were written by a former tax collector who quit his job in disgust when Jesus showed him the evil inherent in the above abuses. As a believer, these types of abuses make me just as angry and upset as Jesus was because of the inequality, injustice, and hypocrisy they promote and protect. Like Jesus, I call to repentance any and all in churches and or governments who engage in such despicable behavior. The behavior is so prevalent in Jesus’ time that every time Jesus used the phrase “sinners”, He also preceded it with “tax collectors and”, as if to imply that they are synonymous. That’s why the New Testament BEGAN in the Tax Collector’s office of Matthew, where the sinners he came to call to repentance could be found. See Eccl. 2:26, which indicates that those who “gather and collect” are sinners. It shouldn’t therefore surprise us that one of the charges levied against Jesus was that he was a “tax protester” in Luke 23:2 and that his advocacy was “perverting a nation”. See the following:”
Jesus of Nazareth: Illegal Tax Protester, Ned Netterville; Link1, Link 2 (Form #11.306)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:09 PM]
You arguing with the bible now? I thought you read it and really understood it?
We’re not complaining life is unfair. We’re simply repeating what God said about life. Are you now faulting us for THAT?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:12 PM]
By helping the irs or protecting their habit of “gathering and collecting” aren’t you protecting what the bible calls “sinners”? Is that what you think the bible was written for: To help protect sinners?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:14 PM]
So you think I should do what? Just use your absolutely useless ideas? Is that what it takes to meet your purity test?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:22 PM]
Well, that goes both ways. Our mission statement is the bible. It is our delegation of authority order:
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf
Like the government, everything we must be consistent with our delegation of authority order from the Bible. When it is not, and we step outside of our godly office, Satan punishes us.
1. How do YOU propose to keep what we both do consistent with our delegation of authority order without inviting Satan into our life?
2. How can we both help free people without protecting or helping sinners by pretending to occupy a public office that God’s delegation of authority order says WE CANNOT occupy? The FIRST FOUR COMMENDMENTS of the Ten commandments prohibit us from “serving other Gods”. A public officer is someone who, BY LAW serves “other gods”, if the government he or she services has sovereign immunity while the people don’t (the are unequal, which is why they are subservient to begin with).
3. How do you propose to help solve this conundrum so we can act and speak with integrity and coherence. Still looking.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:23 PM]
The answer cannot be: Abandon or willfully disobey God’s law and delegation of authority order.
So what is your Plan B? Or do you not even care about behaving consistent with what the Bible says (anarchy)?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:26 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
You’re out of your mind. Looks like we need another several months of not communicating
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:27 PM]
So was Jesus. His own mother said he was crazy
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:27 PM]
Keep judging everyone and looking down your nose, I’m sure that will work out great for you
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:28 PM]
“Everyone who doesn’t do things my way worships Satan”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:28 PM]
Treating and expecting to be treated equally is not judging. Its a way of acting respectfully.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:29 PM]
None of this is “my way”. Its all God’s way.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:29 PM]
No one would listen to us if it was our way. Right out of the bible:
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:30 PM]
The opening page says:
“SEDM Ministry Team, A society of laws and not men”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:31 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Have you stopped beating your wife?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:31 PM]
What you responded to was not a question.
So what is your Plan B? Or do you not even care about behaving consistent with what the Bible says (anarchy)?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:32 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
What’s wrong with my plan A?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:33 PM]
You mean statutes the Lord says you can’t follow and would be serving other “gods” if you did in violation of the Ten Commandments?:
“Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers [the heathens], nor observe their [STATUTORY but not COMMON LAW] judgments, nor defile yourselves with their [pagan government] idols. I am the LORD your God: Walk in [obey] My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them; hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.” [Ezekial 20:10-20, Bible, NKJV]
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:34 PM]
I think maybe you need a new church
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:34 PM]
This is the ONLY biblical Plan A on our opening page:
“He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” [Micah 6:8, Bible, NKJV]
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:34 PM]
I think you ARE your own church.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:35 PM]
The pastor of self-worship and the mutual admiration society.
The bible says “there is none that are good”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:35 PM]
Look who’s talking about self worship
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:36 PM]
Everything I’ve advocated is what the lord requires from his law. Hardly self-worship
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:36 PM]
You’re a solipsist
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:36 PM]
“It’s not my way, it’s God’s way”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:36 PM]
Names will always do when there are not facts, law, or rational arguments.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:37 PM]
You are full of Arrogance and self-righteousness
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:38 PM]
You’re like one of those fire and brimstone preachers everyone hates
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:39 PM]
“SEDM Ministry Team, A society of laws and not men”
The burden of proof on all readers and members is to prove that what we teach is inconsistent with God’s law.
There is no self. Its all what god requires. My name isn’t on anything. All glory goes to God an never any man, and certainly not us.
“The reader will note that NOWHERE on this site do we identify our names. We do this in fulfillment of the above scriptures as explained in About Us Page, Section 3: About Privacy. ALL praise and ALL glory related to the content of this site or the services of this ministry are God’s alone. This is HIS ministry, not ours. From a legal perspective, God is the “Principal” and we are mere “agents” of Him under the delegated authority of His holy law (Form #13.007). As such, all liability and responsibility rests solely with Him and must be litigated against God Himself and not us personally.”
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
[John 6:38, Bible, NKJV]
Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.”
[John 4:34, Bible,NKJV]
“He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him [God] who sent Me.”
[Matt. 10:40, Bible, NKJV]
“He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him [God] who sent Me.”
[Luke 10:16, Bible, NKJV]
“And he who sees Me sees Him [God] who sent Me.”
[John 12:45, Bible, NKJV]
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:40 PM]
Love how you put the burden on others to prove you are wrong (most often meaning that you demand others prove a negative)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:41 PM]
You take no responsibility for correcting yourself
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:41 PM]
“Well nobody bothered to debunk my 700 page document, so that means I must be right!”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:41 PM]
We have already proved that what I just said is consistent with God’s law:
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf
Prove that it is NOT
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:42 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Member]
Jus like today. Whenever I do correct you, it’s in one ear, out the other
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:42 PM]
I don’t have time for this bullshit
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:42 PM]
10,000 members plus have the burden of proving anything on the site wrong, and they must, per the member agreement, point out any errors immediately when they find them so they can be fixed. Still waiting for that rebuttal.
Apparently, you are smarter then 10,000 people who want to obey God’s law, because you don’t have to and don’t want to
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:43 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
What a convenient way of avoiding responsibility for checking your own work
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:45 PM]
We’ve already done that, and it improves over time continually because of the feedback. You are the author of some of that, but only in the secular domain.
Apparently, 20 years of trying to make our materials consistent with God’s law isn’t enough. Nothing is ever enough for you if it means being inaccurate or mistaken.
Nevertheless, thank you for your time, friend.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:45 PM]
You can sure dish out criticism and judgment but you can’t take it
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:46 PM]
I started all this looking for facts and law to disprove anything. Still waiting for that. I was inviting criticism. Why waste time if I wasn’t. the goal is accuracy and completeness, not being right.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:46 PM]
You twist yourself into knots defending some of your premises because it’s less work than admitting you got things wrong and revising all your content
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:47 PM]
I showed evidence to prove every step, and you didn’t prove it was wrong. And most of the case cites I gave came right from you. Like I said. Nothing is ever enough when it means being inaccurate or mistaken.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:50 PM]
This has been wonderful. Thank you
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:50 PM]
The case cites don’t support your thesis, but you don’t care
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:50 PM]
You just look for anything you can grab onto to confirm the conclusion you already reached
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:51 PM]
what part of each step I presented is INCONSISTENT with the cites I provided? Still waiting
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:51 PM]
You have to look for evidence that goes against your thesis and try to debunk yourself
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 3:52 PM]
That’s what I’ve been doing for the past week. And thank you for the cites so far to help with that process.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:52 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
You don’t listen. I’m not going to repeat myself
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:52 PM]
If you gave a shit you could just go back and read what I said
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:55 PM]
I will repeat this: if your position is that an amount held by IRS is your private property, that is the very thing you must prove to get your refund. But you beg the question, expecting everyone to recognize it’s your private property before you have PROVEN that. So no, you don’t get some “non-statutory” remedy, and God does not forbid you to use a statutory remedy! 🙄 this is legalistic nonsense
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 3:58 PM]
You think God wants you spending this much time worrying about a few shekels?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:03 PM]
You think God wants you to spend this much time not worrying about how to make his words and your actions consistent?
Its legalistic nonsense to suggest that:
1. The constitution authorizes “sovereign immunity”
2. The Supreme Court can create sovereign immunity without constitutional authority.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2073950510665962726
3. Any civil statute can regulate or tax private property:
“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925.”
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]
4. The Congress can, by legislation, regulate the ENFORCEMENT or even interpretation of any part of the constitution.
5. That a government created to PROTECT private property and private rights can make a profitable business out of doing the OPPOSITE by STEALING all property in the guise of protecting it.
6. That there can be ANY freedom at all without private property, the origin of which is your right to own yourself and the fruit of your labor.
7. That turning justice into a privilege is still justice or does not result in injustice:
“To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.”
[Magna Carta, ch. 40 (1215)]
8. That collective rights in statutory form always trump individual rights in the context of the civil law (anything other than the criminal law).
9. That we ought to promote and even protect injustice by ASSUMING that the system is correct and we should never try to fix it by suing the government in equity under a contract associated with property we loaned them, just like they do to us to regulate us.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:06 PM]
But yes, we should sue both the employer/withholding agent and the government for the damage its misused property and negligence and deception is causing.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:07 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Not what I said.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:08 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
You don’t get it. The government designed the system so they cannot be held liable, by getting go-betweens to assume all liability for the coercion needed to get people on the plantation
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:10 PM]
Just like with the OSHA vaccine mandates
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:12 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
It’s not a loan of property when an employer misapplies the law, it is mistake of law and a sum erroneously collected. The fact of it being not theirs but yours is the very thing you must PROVE
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:13 PM]
Democrats are suing the gun manufacturers, not the users. They want to put the manufacturers out of business. The irs is an EQUALLY private business like those manufacturers. It has no sovereign immunity.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:13 PM]
So until you have done that, you have no recognized right to couch it as a “loan of your property” subject to your terms and conditions
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:14 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
And? You can sue whomever you want for any stupid reason you can think of. Doesn’t mean you have a case
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:15 PM]
Again, you don’t listen to my point and just move right on, changing the subject
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:15 PM]
You can sue a private business for a refund and pretend its a government. The fact that you get a refund doesn’t mean its a government or that you were following REAL law. You might just be a useful idiot pretending to work for that private company as a volunteer officer and helping them “gather and collect” without even knowing it.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:17 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
I’m not following this at all
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:18 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
So getting a refund = helping them gather and collect. OK
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:18 PM]
IRS=private business
De facto gov=private business
Tax code=employment agreement
“taxpayer”=volunteer for the private business
Refund=employment compensation (benefit).
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:18 PM]
So what does a failed attempt to get a refund with a SEDM “non-statutory” refund claim do? Does that help them gather and collect too or nah?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:20 PM]
Botta v. Scanlon or something similar is what it does. A fifth amendment refund to a nontaxpayer/non-volunteer
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:20 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
I guess we are just in that part of the Matrix where it feels like we unplugged from
the Matrix then. 🤷🏼♂️
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:21 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
No such thing
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:21 PM]
7422 is your due process, guaranteed by 5th
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:22 PM]
There is no separate remedy for people who frivolously equate non-liability with being a “non-taxpayer”
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:23 PM]
Play by the rules or go home. There’s no touchdowns in baseball
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:26 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
However you label it, it’s either a valid return/refund claim or it isn’t. So if you do get a refund, you’re still just “helping them gather and collect” as much as any statutory refund claim is (still don’t get how that works)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:26 PM]
Private and Public rights don’t mix. Everything congress enacts is a PUBLIC privilege, not a PRIVATE right.
In fact, there is no “PRIVATE PROPERTY” in any office such as “taxpayer”, “Person”, Etc.
“Indeed, there can be no such thing in this country as property in office, although the common law sustained a different view sometimes reflected in early cases. 1974 “
_____________
FOOTNOTES:
1974 Butler v. Pennsylvania, 51 U.S. (10 How.) 402 (1850). Cf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803); Hoke v. Henderson, 154 N.C. (4 Dev.) 1 (1833). See also United States v. Fisher, 109 U.S. 143 (1883); United States v. Mitchell, 109 U.S. 146 (1883); Crenshaw v. United States, 134 U.S. 99 (1890)
[United States Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004, p. 392; https://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/CRS/USConstAnnotated.pdf]
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:26 PM]
If everyone followed my approach their system would collapse
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:27 PM]
Can’t say the same for people sending in a non-statutory non-person refund claim. I think there would be a record number of frivolous return penalties
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:29 PM]
That’s an excellent starting point. Thank you for dedication in perfecting that over the years and for our friendship. It (NRA) has been my approach from the beginning in 2000 to the present day. But it fights a corrupt system from the INSIDE.
God doesn’t call ANYONE to be an insider. Everyone he called was a nonresident and a stranger in every way possible:
“Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship [and “citizenship”/domicile] with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [statutory “citizen” or “taxpayer” or “resident” or “inhabitant”] of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]
“And I heard another voice from heaven [God] saying, ‘Come out of her [Babylon the Great Harlot, a democratic state full of socialist non-believers], my people [Christians], lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.'”
[Revelation 18:4, Bible, NKJV]
And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head [non-resident].”
[Matt. 8:20, Written by an EX tax collector]
How do we reconcile the two above approaches?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:32 PM]
Not my words. His.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:32 PM]
All I want is a way to follow them and still live
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:36 PM]
You can’t do anything about what they CALL you. You can just be the guy whose $ they have, you don’t have to call yourself “taxpayer”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:37 PM]
But you can emulate them and call them, and make them prove they aren’t what you called them under YOUR franchise. Then, they have to help you defeat the very thing they are using against you.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:38 PM]
Why would you emulate them?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:38 PM]
Then you are no better than they are
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:38 PM]
Q:How do you train a dog not to shit in the house?
A: Rub his nose in the SHIT, the SAME shit you don’t like
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:39 PM]
That’s not actually how you train a dog, unless you’re a lunatic
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:39 PM]
What’s your tactic? Treats?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:39 PM]
It’s a bad analogy
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:40 PM]
Well, when they take all your goodies, there aren’t any treats left to train them with. 😊
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:42 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Member]
Calling yourself a taxpayer is not necessary for your refund claim
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:42 PM]
The 1040NR doesn’t call you a “taxpayer”, is that it?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:43 PM]
It says “other than taxpayer” if I recall, under the preparer block
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:44 PM]
You don’t have to use any form at all, but you’re missing the point and confusing form with substance. If you are not liable then “taxpayer” only means “the guy we owe a refund to”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:44 PM]
So even if a form used “taxpayer”, since you can’t trust anything they print according to the courts, then it wouldn’t mean anything?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:45 PM]
Well, if that were the case, then NOTHING you write on the form would be trustworthy either, if it related to terms on the form or in the law. Even if its signed under penalty of perjury.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:46 PM]
I didn’t say it doesn’t mean ANYTHING, I said equitably they have to expand the meaning of “taxpayer” from the limits in the statute so that you’re not denied a refund. As you know the IRS has actually argued before that someone wasn’t a taxpayer because he wasn’t liable to try to DENY him a refund. The court didn’t go for that argument at all
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:47 PM]
I’d like to see that. Was that YOU or a client?
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:48 PM]
Neither
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 4:48 PM]
Darnit!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:49 PM]
It’s a real case though. And it shows that intent of Congress and equity matter in construing statutes. You can’t be rigid in every situation as to the language of a statute, especially in a taxing statute where a rigid construction would work against the “taxpayer”/party otherwise entitled to a refund
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:57 PM]
Texas v. United States, Civil Action No. 7:15-cv-00151-O, at *9-10 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2016) (“Standing has both constitutional and prudential components. See Cibolo Waste, 718 F.3d at 473 (quoting Elk Grove, 542 U.S. at 11) (explaining that standing “contain[s] two strands: Article III standing . . . and prudential standing”). Constitutional standing requires a plaintiff to establish that she has suffered an injury in fact traceable to the defendant’s actions that will be redressed by a favorable ruling. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The injury-in-fact must be “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent,” as opposed to “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. “Prudential standing requirements exist in addition to ‘the immutable requirements of Article III,’ . . . as an integral part of ‘judicial self-government.'” ACORN v. Fowler, 178 F.3d 350, 362 (5th Cir.1999); see also id. “The goal of this self-governance is to determine whether the plaintiff ‘is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial power.'” Id. (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 n.8 (1986)). The Supreme Court has observed that prudential standing encompasses “at least three broad principles,” including “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights . . . .” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1386 (2014); Cibolo Waste, 718 F.3d at 474 (quoting Elk Grove, 542 U.S. at 12); see also Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 290 (2008) (discussing cases where third-parties sought “to assert not their own legal rights, but the legal rights of others”); Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 773 (2000) (noting “the assignee of a claim has standing to assert the injury in fact suffered by the assignor”).”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 4:58 PM]
Texas v. United States, Civil Action No. 7:15-cv-00151-O, at *12-13 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2016) (“Constitutional standing requires a plaintiff to establish that she has suffered or is immediately in danger of suffering an injury-in-fact traceable to the defendant’s actions that will be redressed by a favorable ruling. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983). The injury-in-fact must be “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent,” as opposed to “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. “When a litigant is vested with a procedural right, that litigant has standing if there is some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury-causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant.” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 150-51 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 518 (2007)). “[T]he presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.” Texas, 809 F.3d at 151 (quoting Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006)). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:00 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Texas v. United States, Civil Action No. 7:15-cv-00151-O, at *20-21 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2016) (“The Supreme Court also examined the meaning of a “taxpayer” under 26 U.S.C. § 6511, under which only a “taxpayer” may sue for a refund. 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) provides, in relevant part:
(a) Period of limitation on filing claim Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time
the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid.
26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) (emphasis added). The Williams majority observed that the “provision’s plain terms provide only a deadline for filing for administrative relief, not a limit on who may file. To read the term ‘taxpayer’ as implicitly limiting administrative relief to the party assessed is inconsistent with other provisions of the refund scheme, which expressly contemplate refunds to parties other than the one assessed.” Williams, 514 U.S. at 534. The Supreme Court reasoned that § 7701(a)(13), which defines “taxpayer,” states that “[w]hen used in [the Internal Revenue Code], where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, . . . [t]he term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.'” Id. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court ultimately held that under the statutory scheme, the respondent was able to seek a refund, as she was “the taxpayer” who filed for a return within the requisite time from which “the tax was paid.” Id.; see also 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a). Therefore, the Supreme Court held that “in authorizing the Secretary to award a credit or refund ‘[i]n the case of any overpayment,’ 26 U.S.C. § 6402(a) describes the recipient not as the ‘taxpayer,’ but as ‘the person who made the overpayment.'” Id.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:01 PM]
“Supreme Court reasoned that § 7701(a)(13), which defines “taxpayer,” states that “[w]hen used in [the Internal Revenue Code], where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, . . . [t]he term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.'” Id. “
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:01 PM]
Therefore, the Supreme Court held that “in authorizing the Secretary to award a credit or refund ‘[i]n the case of any overpayment,’ 26 U.S.C. § 6402(a) describes the recipient not as the ‘taxpayer,’ but as ‘the person who made the overpayment.’
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:02 PM]
26 U.S.C. § 6402 (“(a) General rule In the case of any overpayment, the Secretary, within the applicable period of limitations, may credit the amount of such overpayment, including any interest allowed thereon, against any liability in respect of an internal revenue tax on the part of the person who made the overpayment and shall, subject to subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), refund any balance to such person.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:03 PM]
“…. on the part of the person who made the overpayment and shall, subject to subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), refund any balance to such person.”)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:03 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Member]
Is that Texas v. U.S? I don’t see any quotes.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:03 PM]
yes, an excerpt from the post I just posted before it
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:04 PM]
Well, thanks for that. I’ll add it to “how to file”. I’ve also been expanding the “How State Nationals Volunteer” with all your latest cites.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:04 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 531 (1995) (“The question before us is whether the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 1346(a)(1) authorizes a refund suit by a party who, though not assessed a tax, paid the tax under protest to remove a federal tax lien from her property. In resolving this question, we may not enlarge the waiver beyond the purview of the statutory language. Department of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607, 614-616 (1992). Our task is to discern the “unequivocally expressed” intent of Congress, construing ambiguities in favor of immunity. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:05 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 531-32 (1995) (“To fathom the congressional instruction, we turn first to the language of § 1346(a). This provision does not say that only the person assessed may sue. Instead, the statute uses broad language:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims, of:
“(1) Any civil action against the United States for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal-revenue laws.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (1988 ed. and Supp. V) (emphasis added).
Williams’ plea to recover a tax “erroneously . . . collected” falls squarely within this language. The broad language of § 1346(a)(1) mirrors the broad common-law remedy the statute displaced: actions of assumpsit for money had and received, once brought against the tax collector personally rather than against the United States. See Ferguson, Jurisdictional Problems in Federal Tax Controversies, 48 Iowa L. Rev. 312, 327 (1963). Assumpsit afforded a remedy to those who, like Williams, had paid money they did not owe typically as a result of fraud, duress, or mistake. See H. Ballantine, Shipman on Common-Law Pleading 163-164 (3d ed. 1923). Assumpsit refund actions were unavailable to volunteers, a limit that would not have barred Williams because she paid under protest. See Philadelphia v. Collector, 5 Wall. 720, 731-732 (1867) (“Where the party voluntarily pays the money, he is without remedy; but if he pays it by compulsion of law, or under protest, or with notice that he intends to bring suit to test the validity of the claim, he may recover it back . . . .”).”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:06 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 532 (1995) (“Assumpsit afforded a remedy to those who, like Williams, had paid money they did not owe typically as a result of fraud, duress, or mistake. See H. Ballantine, Shipman on Common-Law Pleading 163-164 (3d ed. 1923). ”)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:06 PM]
Good stuff. Those seem more like equitable than statutory remedies.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:07 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 533-34 (1995) (“From the statute’s use of the term “taxpayer,” rather than “person who paid the tax,” the Government concludes that only a “taxpayer” may file for administrative relief under § 7422, and thereafter pursue a refund action under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (1). Then, to show that Williams is not a “taxpayer,” the Government relies on 26 U.S.C. § 7701 (a)(14), which defines “taxpayer” as “any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” According to the Government, a party who pays a tax is not “subject to” it unless she is the one assessed.”)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:07 PM]
These are great. I’ll add those to “how to file”. They are more equitable than statutory so they are easier to swallow for our members.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:08 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
They are discussing the common law remedy of Assumpsit, whose language is mirrored in the STATUTE at 1346.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:09 PM]
So what you provided essentially is a common law remedy, more than a statutory remedy. Kinda like Brushaber, which was also common law
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:09 PM]
So it is a statutory remedy, but the language of the statute permits an equitable construction of the statutory definition of “taxpayer”. Note that 7701(a) qualifies every definition with the “where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, ” language
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:10 PM]
I’ve been trying to perfect that approach, and this is very helpful
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:10 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 534 (1995) (“The Government’s argument fails at both statutory junctures. First, the word “taxpayer” in § 6511(a) — the provision governing administrative claims cannot bear the weight the Government puts on it. This provision’s plain terms provide only a deadline for filing for administrative relief, not a limit on who may file. ”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:11 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 534 (1995) (“To read the term “taxpayer” as implicitly limiting administrative relief to the party assessed is inconsistent with other provisions of the refund scheme, which expressly contemplate refunds to parties other than the one assessed. Thus, in authorizing the Secretary to award a credit or refund “[i]n the case of any overpayment,” 26 U.S.C. § 6402(a) describes the recipient not as the “taxpayer,” but as “the person who made the overpayment.” Similarly, in providing for credits and refunds for sales taxes and taxes on tobacco and alcohol, 26 U.S.C. § 6416(a) and 26 U.S.C. § 6419(a) describe the recipient as “the person who paid the tax.” ”)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:11 PM]
Fabulous!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:11 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 535 n.7 (1995) (“As a statute of limitations, § 6511(a) does narrow the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 1346(a)(1) by barring the tardy. See United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 602 (1990) (“Read together, the import of these sections [§§ 1346(a)(1), 7422(a), 6511(a)] is clear: unless a claim for refund of a tax has been filed within the time limits imposed by § 6511(a), a suit for refund, regardless of whether the tax is alleged to have been `erroneously,’ `illegally,’ or `wrongfully collected,’ §§ 1346(a)(1), 7422(a), may not be maintained in any court.”).”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:12 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 535 (1995) (“Further, even if, as the Government contends, only “taxpayers” could seek administrative relief under § 6511, the Government’s claim that Williams is not at this point a “taxpayer” is unpersuasive. Section 7701(a)(14), defining “taxpayer,” informs us that “[w]hen used in [the Internal Revenue Code], where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, . . . [t]he term `taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.” That definition does not exclude Williams. ”)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:12 PM]
I’ve got a problem with that. Now we are making justice a privilege and taking it away after a time period. That’s an injustice
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:12 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 535 (1995) (“The Government reads the definition as if it said “any person who is assessed any internal revenue tax,” but these are not Congress’ words. The general phrase “subject to” is broader than the specific phrase “assessed” and, in the tax collection context before us, we think it is broad enough to include Williams. In placing a lien on her home and then accepting her tax payment under protest, the Government surely subjected Williams to a tax, even though she was not the assessed party.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:13 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
There are statutes of limitations for ALL civil claims of any kind. What is your excuse for waiting longer than three years to make your refund claim? It wasn’t important enough?
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:14 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Member]
An equitable or common law claim is not a CIVIL claim. Its purely in equity and cannot be limited by statute.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:14 PM]
We expound on this in:
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:14 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
Well too bad, sorry you don’t like it
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:15 PM]
[Forwarded from SEDM Member]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 535 (1995) (“The Government reads the definition as if it said “any person who is assessed any internal revenue tax,” but these are not Congress’ words. The general phrase “subject to” is broader than the specific phrase “assessed” and, in the tax collection context before us, we think it is broad enough to include Williams. In placing a lien on her home and then accepting her tax payment under protest, the Government surely subjected Williams to a tax, even though she was not the assessed party.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:15 PM]
You are so busy arguing you are missing some great stuff
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:15 PM]
They have used statutes to APPROXIMATE a common law remedy, apparently. But Its still not a PRIVATE right if they can take it away. That would be STEALING, unless the remedy was PRIVATE property, they identified it as such, and there was no statute of limitations.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:16 PM]
[In reply to SEDM Admin]
in theory it is a representative government accountable to the people at the polls
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:16 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 535 (1995) (“In placing a lien on her home and then accepting her tax payment under protest, the Government surely subjected Williams to a tax, even though she was not the assessed party.”)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:16 PM]
I haven’t been debating with you in a long time. Too busy writing and publishing and answering dumb questions. This is a rare exception after probably a year break
You’ve been missing some great stuff by only reading caselaw and not looking at other materials on our vast sites, my friend.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:17 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 536 (1995) (“As we have just developed, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) clearly allows one from whom taxes are erroneously or illegally collected to sue for a refund of those taxes. And 26 U.S.C. § 6402(a), with similar clarity, authorizes the Secretary to pay out a refund to “the person who made the overpayment.””)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:18 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 536 (1995) (“The Government’s strained reading of § 1346(a)(1), we note, would leave people in Williams’ position without a remedy. See supra, at 529, n. 1. This consequence reinforces our conclusion that Congress did not intend refund actions under § 1346(a)(1) to be unavailable to persons situated as Lori Williams is. ”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:21 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 541 (1995) (“JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court, except insofar as it holds that Williams is a “taxpayer” within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) and 7701(a)(14), see ante, at 534-536. That seems to me unnecessary to the decision, since § 6511(a), an administrative exhaustion provision, has too remote a bearing upon § 1346(a)(1), the jurisdictional provision at issue, to create by implication the significant limitation upon jurisdiction that the Government asserts.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:22 PM]
Scalia didn’t think it was necessary to hold that Williams was a “taxpayer” in order for her to be entitled to sue for refund
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:22 PM]
Fabulous.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:23 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 541 (1995) (“CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom JUSTICE KENNEDY and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:23 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 542 (1995) (“The legal question at hand is whether the Government has waived its sovereign immunity in 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) to authorize respondent, who conceded that she “is not the taxpayer,” App. 16, to file a refund suit. ”)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:25 PM]
Well, I’ve got a lot of updates to do on “how to file”, thanks to you.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:25 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 545 (1995) (“The Court believes its position is reinforced by its conclusion that respondent is left without a remedy if she cannot bring a refund suit under § 1346(a)(1). Equities ordinarily do not assume such a dominant role when dealing with questions of sovereign immunity, but if they are to play that role, the equities ought to be those which can be confirmed on the record before us.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:26 PM]
United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 548 (1995) (“If this case involved the interpretation of a statute designed to confer new benefits or rights upon a class of individuals, today’s decision would be more understandable, since such a statute would be “entitled to a liberal construction to accomplish its beneficent purposes.” Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister, 337 U.S. 783 (1949) (construing the Jones Act); see also Atchison, T. S. F. R. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 562 (1987) (stating that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act is a “broad remedial statute” which must be given a “`liberal construction'”). But it would surely come as news to the millions of taxpayers in this country that the Internal Revenue Code has a “beneficent purpose” as far as they are concerned. It does not, and the Court is mistaken to decide this case in a way that can only be justified if it does. ”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:27 PM]
Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion, in which Scalia, O’Connor, Stevens, Souter and Breyer all joined. it was 6-3 with Thomas< Rehnquist and Kennedy dissenting
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:29 PM]
That’s a doozy
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:33 PM]
Rothkamm v. United States, 802 F.3d 699, 705 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Following Williams, Congress did not revise § 7701(a)(14), so the Supreme Court’s interpretation stands. Thus, under § 7701(a)(14), the word “taxpayer” means not only the person against whom a tax is assessed (here, Rothkamm’s husband) but also the person who actually pays the tax (here, Rothkamm herself). Pursuant to § 7701(a), that definition applies throughout Title 26 “where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof.””)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:39 PM]
Brodey v. U.S., 788 F. Supp. 44, 48 (D. Mass. 1991) (“I cannot find any support for the government’s narrow reading of the term “taxpayer” from the statutory definition in § 7701(a)(14) or elsewhere in the Code. “The literal language of the pertinent statutes does not help the court, the `taxpayer’ — `non-taxpayer’ dichotomy not being found therein.” Economy Plumbing Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, 596, 200 Ct.Cl. 31 (1972) (dissenting opinion). Nor has the government advanced any convincing reasons why it should not refund amounts erroneously paid to the people who paid them. The government should be setting an example of fair dealing in regard to taxes. In my opinion for purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) Ms. Brodey was a “taxpayer” because she reasonably believed that she was paying a tax for which she was liable. Accordingly she is entitled to sue for a refund.”)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:41 PM]
That’s even better!
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:42 PM]
Sandrow v. U.S., 832 F. Supp. 918, 921 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (“The court appreciates that it is the mission of the IRS to obtain and retain for the treasury every dollar possible. Ultimately, however, the touchstone for the dealings of the government with our citizens should be fairness and reasonableness. When the government seeks to collect delinquent corporate taxes from someone it believes or assumes may be liable as a “responsible person” therefor, it is not fair or reasonable for the government to accept payment and thereafter declare that the payor was not a responsible person but a non-taxpayer volunteer without standing to seek a refund. Someone to whom the IRS directs rather intimidating, if standard, demand letters as “a person required to collect, account for and pay” a referenced tax should not be required to guess at his peril whether or not he may ultimately be determined not to be responsible for such payment.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:43 PM]
Sandrow v. U.S., 832 F. Supp. 918, 921 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (“As the Court in Brodey noted, there are no “convincing reasons why [the government] should not refund amounts erroneously paid to the people who paid them.” Brodey, 788 F. Supp. at 48. The court believes that § 1346(a)(1) does not mandate otherwise. ”)
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:44 PM]
Fantastic.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:45 PM]
Sandrow v. U.S., 832 F. Supp. 918, 920 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (“In David v. U.S., 551 F. Supp. 850 (C.D.Cal. 1982) the plaintiff sued for a refund of sums he paid for FICA taxes assessed against a corporation of which he was an officer and majority shareholder. Plaintiff made these payments because he erroneously “assumed that since he was an officer of the corporation he would be personally liable.” The government argued that plaintiff lacked standing because he was not a taxpayer since he was not assessed or actually liable for these taxes. The Court found that plaintiff was not a volunteer or donor when he paid taxes “he was under the impression that he was personally liable for” and held that since he was not actually liable, in accepting his payment the IRS “wrongfully collected the taxes.” Id., at 853-54.”)
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:45 PM]
So not liable = any amount paid in is “wrongfully collected taxes”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:52 PM]
If you had pointed out these cites early on when we first met, we could have saved a lot of debate. Too bad you don’t have all these authorities relating to “taxpayer” usefully organized in one place, so I didn’t have to pry them out of you. I guess that’s where I come in.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:58 PM]
i just found these
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 5:58 PM]
Oh. Then I haven’t missed much.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:58 PM]
It wasn’t important to me because I don’t care if they call me a taxpayer or not
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 5:59 PM]
But you care, so I was trying to show you that you don’t HAVE to be a taxpayer to be a person who paid an amount that was wrongfully collected
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:00 PM]
I’ve got to have a reason for everything I do and every word on any paper I touch, or I’ll resist it. I try not to act presumptuously.
Now I have a reason and evidence, I’m OK with acting accordingly:
‘But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one [b]brings reproach on the Lord, and he shall be cut off from among his people.
[Num. 15:30, Bible, NKJV]
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 6:01 PM]
I just use parallel search on Casetext and it turns up a lot of gold nuggets
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:01 PM]
Lexis doesn’t have that. Or I haven’t found it yet
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 6:01 PM]
I didn’t realize SCOTUS had weighed in on “taxpayer”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:01 PM]
Me neither
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 6:02 PM]
I find so much stuff that way that I would not have known to look for
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:02 PM]
Well I wish I had that tool and the time. I’ve been using Lexis and stuck in other things
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 6:03 PM]
I mean it took me 30 seconds to enter the sentence “government claims the plaintiff is not a taxpayer” and it pulled up all those cases I just shared with you
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:04 PM]
Wow
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 6:04 PM]
Granted I am pretty good at quickly finding good stuff within the decisions
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:04 PM]
Being good at selecting the right questions to ask the AI also helps.
This is my latest attempt to organize the jurisdiction subject over the past week:
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:05 PM]
And our debate was an attempt to validate it.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:05 PM]
I don’t care about being right, just don’t want to put our inaccurate info, so debates are the vetting mechanism. And thank you for helping.
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:08 PM]
“extraterritorial”=outside the statutory geographical “United States”
SEDM Admin, [9/30/2022 6:09 PM]
I have given up trying to get you to read anything I write, but I can debate and validate pieces Socratically, which is what we did today.
SEDM Member, [9/30/2022 6:25 PM]
It’s good for you to learn how to be concise
[…] Debate of “Authorities on Rights as Property” Page, SEDMhttps://sedm.org/debate-of-rights-as-property-page/ […]