- Don t know if any of this applies or not, but it is interesting reading... “Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxationMessage 1 of 1 , Feb 17, 2010View SourceDon't know if any of this applies or not, but it is interesting reading...
“Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid. Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain,192 U.S. 397, 24 S.Ct. 376, 418, U.S. 1904
Comments on Colgate v. Harvey
Everyone should take time to read the published court case Colgate v. Harvey. This case is often utilized by U.S. Attorneys in their briefs. The following is a quote from page 309 of the Lawyers Edition:
Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly apparent. That is to say, a citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of "derivative and dependant" upon state citizenship.
Colgage v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427 (1935)
80 L.Ed. 299
Now, if the Fourteenth Amendment DID NOT create a national citizenship, then WHAT did it create? It created a citizenship in the District of Columbia, commonly called the "United States" in legal terminology. So, by law, a "United States" citizen is a citizen of the District of Columbia, which is not a State of the Union of several States; it is not a star on the American flag. Therefore, the District of Columbia is alien and foreign with respect to the 50 common-law States of the Union. In law, the term "resident" means "alien". I shall now establish that this is correct:
When America sends an Ambassador to France, he is then a "resident" in France and alien to France. He is just like a U.S. citizen who is "resident" in California and therefore alien to the common-law and to California.
Now, as a citizen of the District of Columbia, you are subject to ALL the municipal laws that Congress passes for the District of Columbia. This means that ALL of Titles 7, (Agriculture), 8 (Immigration), 12 (Banks & Banking), 15 (Commerce & Trade), 16 (Conservation), 19 (Customs), 20 (Education), 21, (FDA), 22 (Foreign Relations) 24, (Hospitals), 25 (Indians), Title 26 (Internal Revenue), 27 (Liquor), 29 (Labor), 30 (Mining), 33 (Navigation), 36 (Patriotic Societies), 40 (Public Buildings), 41 (Public Contracts), 42 (Public Health), 43 (Public Lands), 45 (Railroads), 47 (Telegraphs & Telephones), 48 (Territories and Insular Possessions), 50 (War and National Defense); all the above attach to you personally regardless of where you "reside" in the world. (See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S 47 (1924).) There are some individual paragraphs that attach to the common-law Citizens of the several States, but they are very few and far between.
If you recall, the President can send his troops (citizens of the District of Columbia) any place in the world and make war without the approval of Congress. This is a fact of law, since he is NOT sending any Citizen of one of the several States who is a member of the Sovereignty; he is only sending his subjects, just as the Queen of England can do to her subjects. No approval is needed.
You must remember that the Fourteenth Amendment is not law. It was never properly adopted or ratified. It is a martial law amendment adopted under martial law. When martial law ceases, so do all the laws that are promulgated under military authority.
Madden v. Kentucky, this case was decided in 1940. I would like you to read what the court said:
This position is that the privileges and immunities clause
protects all citizens against abridgment by states of rights
of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or
natural rights inherent in state citizenship.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940). 84 L.Ed. 590, at 594;
Again, I must refer you to Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935), 80 L.Ed. 299, 56 S.Ct. 252, 102 ALR 54. The Supreme Court of the United States of America always states the truth in their opinions. In the Madden case, it is telling you that, as a State Citizen, you have natural sovereign rights which are fundamental. But, as a "citizen of the United States" a/k/a a citizen of the District of Columbia, you have a different type of rights; these are called "privileges and immunities" and they are different from those "natural rights inherent in state citizenship."
Previously, the California Supreme Court also arrived at these same conclusions in K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545 (1927). It is a fundamental Right to be a state Citizen. The Supreme Court of Maryland in Crosse v. Board of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431, at 433 (1966), stated:
Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the
federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person
to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a
citizen of his state.
Now, if it is not necessary to be a U.S. citizen (citizen of the District of Columbia) which is a "privilege" (see Ex parte (Ng) Fung Sing, D.C.Wash., 6 F.2d 670), then WHY should you give up a 1st class Citizenship to accept a 2nd class citizenship as a subject of the District of Columbia? This "privilege" is regulated and controlled, as are all privileges.
--- On Wed, 2/17/10, vze4bqdp@... <vze4bqdp@...> wrote:
From: vze4bqdp@... <vze4bqdp@...>
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Taxpayer is not a “citizen” of the United States??
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 6:56 PMAt 10-0217 16:14, you wrote:
"The Law: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Fourteenth Amendment therefore establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship. Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are solely citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts. The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-22, 2007-14 I.R.B. 866, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.
I don't offer this thought as encouragement for claiming that non-citizens cannot be assessed an income tax, quite the opposite, but I do believe you have made an important mistake otherwise.
The 14th Amendment does read as you say. Gaining citizenship in the state of residence on the basis of having been born in the United States, however, is quite different from gaining American citizenship on the basis of having been born in one of the (sovereign) states. A state of residence is not, necessarily, the state of birth.
The wording of the 14th Amendment, itself, does seem to defeat any opportunity for addressing citizenship of those born in one of the states of the Union. To that extent I have come to accept the 14th Amendment as particularly narrow in scope and entirely irrelevant among states which now acknowledge citizenship as a function of live births within their respective borders. In my mind, citizenship has returned to being a common law question. The alternative would seem to admit to any number of unreconcilable issues and unanswerable questions.