Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] I had to deliver Peter Hendrickson at noon today to Milan FCI.

Expand Messages
  • Roger Hattman
    Funny interaction. This verifies further what I have observed:  The computers will accept most any address.  The problem is usually the person, so just keep
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 8 4:24 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Funny interaction.
      This verifies further what I have observed:  The computers will accept most any address.  The problem is usually the person, so just keep trying.
      When I switched my alleged license after a fraudulent suspension to General Delivery (after years of registration at the same they still to switch my alleged license), I handed the clerk at an auto tag place (a private entity that has direct access to DMV computers) the following:  registration to General Delivery (GD), insurance (GD), an invoice from the county court for an alleged traffic infraction (General Post), and a hand signed letter from the head Licensing to a (different) general post addy (another separate story of corruption).  She looked at me with a look of panic.  
       
      Me:"It is not a PO Box.  I know you cannot use PO Box."
      Clerk:  "Well, I can try it."
       
      Several minutes later she printed it all out.
      Just be persistent.  Try different people.  I have to assume that these computers all work more or less the same and will accept most anything.  I should note that c/o addresses are also expressly forbidden, as well as PO Boxes. 
       
      In addition to being an essential element for challenging jurisdiction, having a non residential address is a big plus for privacy.
       
      My only concern is, how do you get a PMB without some street address or ID or something?  I love the ambush idea, though. 

       

    • Daniel Nieves
      I thought Id share this with the group on Residence   MILLER BROS. CO. v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340 (1954) Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 8 1:27 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I thought Id share this with the group on Residence
         

        MILLER BROS. CO. v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)

        Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally recognized reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter. Of course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the citizenship, domicile or residence of the owner, the most obvious illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the realty is located. Also, the keeping of tangible or intangible personalty within a state may give it a similar taxable situs there (sometimes called a business or commercial situs or domicile). Certain activities or transactions carried on within a state, such as the use and sale of property, may give jurisdiction to tax whomsoever engages therein, and the use of highways may subject the use to certain types of taxation. These cases overlap with those in which incorporation by a state or permission to do business there forms the basis for proportionate taxation of a company, including its franchise, capital, income and property. Recent cases in which a taxable sale does not clearly take place within the taxing state, elements of the transaction occurring in different states, have presented peculiar difficulties, as have those where the party liable for a use tax does not use the product within the taxing state. 



        --- On Thu, 7/8/10, Roger Hattman <rogerhattman@...> wrote:

        From: Roger Hattman <rogerhattman@...>
        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] I had to deliver Peter Hendrickson at noon today to Milan FCI.
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, July 8, 2010, 4:24 AM

         
        Funny interaction.
        This verifies further what I have observed:  The computers will accept most any address.  The problem is usually the person, so just keep trying.
        When I switched my alleged license after a fraudulent suspension to General Delivery (after years of registration at the same they still to switch my alleged license), I handed the clerk at an auto tag place (a private entity that has direct access to DMV computers) the following:  registration to General Delivery (GD), insurance (GD), an invoice from the county court for an alleged traffic infraction (General Post), and a hand signed letter from the head Licensing to a (different) general post addy (another separate story of corruption).  She looked at me with a look of panic.  
         
        Me:"It is not a PO Box.  I know you cannot use PO Box."
        Clerk:  "Well, I can try it."
         
        Several minutes later she printed it all out.
        Just be persistent.  Try different people.  I have to assume that these computers all work more or less the same and will accept most anything.  I should note that c/o addresses are also expressly forbidden, as well as PO Boxes. 
         
        In addition to being an essential element for challenging jurisdiction, having a non residential address is a big plus for privacy.
         
        My only concern is, how do you get a PMB without some street address or ID or something?  I love the ambush idea, though. 

         


      • windandthestone
        ... substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for ... Re Pete: I have read some of his books and postings, but did he ever
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 16 10:53 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Nieves <dannyruel@...> wrote:
          >
          > I thought Id share this with the group on Residence
          >  
          > MILLER BROS. CO. v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)
          > Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for >
          >

          Re Pete:  I have read some of his books and postings, but did he ever tell anyone that giving your employer a W-4 was VOLUNTARY!!  If you don't give one,  aren't you saying in effect, "I am not volunteering to be a "federal person" this year."    (See 26 CFR 31.3402(p))

          No W-4 means no SS# means no income reported, means no taxes -- but also means no Social Security maybe's and no federal workers compensation. 

          I have spent years reading both Title 26 Code (USC) and Federal Regulations (CFR).  What a difference between the two!!  There is no taxing regulations which support the income tax on "everyman's wages."  The CFR begins with stating that Section 1 imposes a tax on everyone, but never says "there is imposed upon ..."  - yet the more I read it, the crazier it gets! 

          Like this -->

          "26 CFR 1-1.1
          (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and .... [They talk about imposing a tax, but never do it!]

           (b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in §1.931–1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

          (c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. [Note: there are no commas in that sentence.]  For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481–1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70–506, C.B. 1970–2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

          (d) Effective/applicability date. The second sentence of paragraph (b) of this section applies to taxable years ending after April 9, 2008."

          Okay folks, please tell my why section (d) is there????
        • BOB GREGORY
          *In regard to the question, **Okay folks, please tell my why section (d) is there???? **after looking at the question and CFR section again, I believe I see
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 19 1:22 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            In regard to the question, "Okay folks, please tell my why section (d) is there????" after looking at the question and CFR section again, I believe I see the problem.  The writer, windandthestone, highlighted the sentence beginning "In general, all citizens..." which is not really the second sentence of the paragraph but the first.  The second sentence begins "Persuant to section..."  I assume that the provision about nonresident aliens came into effect on April 9, 2008.

            On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:53 AM, windandthestone <mmgemmel@...> wrote:
             


            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Nieves <dannyruel@...> wrote:
            >
            > I thought Id share this with the group on Residence
            >  

            > MILLER BROS. CO. v. MARYLAND, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)
            > Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for >
            >

            Re Pete:  I have read some of his books and postings, but did he ever tell anyone that giving your employer a W-4 was VOLUNTARY!!  If you don't give one,  aren't you saying in effect, "I am not volunteering to be a "federal person" this year."    (See 26 CFR 31.3402(p))

            No W-4 means no SS# means no income reported, means no taxes -- but also means no Social Security maybe's and no federal workers compensation. 

            I have spent years reading both Title 26 Code (USC) and Federal Regulations (CFR).  What a difference between the two!!  There is no taxing regulations which support the income tax on "everyman's wages."  The CFR begins with stating that Section 1 imposes a tax on everyone, but never says "there is imposed upon ..."  - yet the more I read it, the crazier it gets! 

            Like this -->

            "26 CFR 1-1.1
            (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and .... [They talk about imposing a tax, but never do it!]

             (b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in §1.931–1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

            (c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. [Note: there are no commas in that sentence.]  For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481–1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70–506, C.B. 1970–2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

            (d) Effective/applicability date. The second sentence of paragraph (b) of this section applies to taxable years ending after April 9, 2008."

            Okay folks, please tell my why section (d) is there????

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.