Taxpayer Examined

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

from Black's 6th:

Naturalisation:

The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the priviledges of U.S. citizenship. A naturalised citizen is one who, alien by birth, has received U.S. citizenship under naturalisation laws.

the definitions of state and nation are VERY similar and quite lengthy, but I will post them if desired. Both refer to a body politic, unified governments, etc.

I havent yet found anything that indicates a free man cannot be stateless or nationless. All words, terms and proceedures seem to lean towards application or voluntary actions:

acquires nationality, entitled to priviledges, submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of a government, owing permanent allegience to a government, etc.

Though people are 'forced' or coerced into doing things everyday for many reasons, it seems quite antithetical to force a man to accept priviledges or to force a man to pledge allegience or submit to jurisdiction. Those all seem to be voluntary acts to me.

Thom

Hence;
I have brought this up before but it was not comprehended by others on this forum or maybe it was just overlooked.
But naturalization is how I believe a natural person is made.
Thanks to the link on another thread to Bouvier's dictionary here is the diction of person again.

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.

5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.

6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.

7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.

8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

PERSONABLE. Having the capacities of a person; for example, the defendant was judged personable to maintain this action. Old Nat. Brev. 142. This word is obsolete.

PERSONAL. Belonging to the person.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
The word 'man' can mean 'vassal'.

Also that Sec. 1502 uses the term "American national" not the term "American National".

[rentiap]

This may be worth looking at LINK

[palani]

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons.

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law

So would this person (formed of a husband and a wife) be considered male, female or corporate?

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
The word 'man' can mean 'vassal'.

Also that Sec. 1502 uses the term "American national" not the term "American National".

What about [A]merican:-[N]ational ?

Is that a status because I just made it up?

[rottweiler]

A firearm is not much different than anything else. Here's what I believe will work.

While abating all the foreign instruments in your possession and/or cancelling the federal reserve account, return the paperwork for the firearm as well. Draw up a title and send a copy describing it just like you would do for your home and/or motorized wagon. Don't obliterate the serial number but you could draw a single line through it so it is still readable, then carve your brand near it just like you would burn into the hide of your livestock.

There is more to it then that but the idea is to build a de jure record which includes many things. The titles to your property is just part of it.

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
The tax protestor movement was/is perhaps... a TRAAAP! Much misinformation designed to keep folks from seeing the truth. There is in fact a way to perfect 100% tax exemption from U.S. taxes.

Regarding firearms: simply the BATF types will look to the serial number on the weapon called a 'firearm' (you might do well to be careful about that statutory terminology!) to determine whether it was involved in interstate commerce. Quite frankly, IMHO you're better off rolling your own. Many receivers can be made cheaply and easily. Also from the BATF perspective, its typically the receiver that is "the firearm" for Federal/commerce among the States. If the receiver was made by a Federally licensed entity then thats where you get your Federal markings. Nothing here is to condone unlawful application of any technology.

P.S. Putting "Made in the U.S.A." on your DIY cannon might be pretty stupid. :-) You might want some bullets too.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Ownmaster

Exactly. Sometimes small differences in make up make no difference in effect.

[American] - [N]ational : {non-U.S. Citizen}

[rottweiler]

International law had (and still has) a long established doctrine that, absent any extenuating circumstances, a person is a citizen of the national jurisdiction (or sovereignty) in which he's born. The federal territories were outside of the sovereignty of the individual state governments, and within the sovereignty of the United States government; hence the de facto status as a "citizen of the United States". This principle also applies to persons in Washington DC, which is under the exclusive sovereignty of the United States. [For the sake of clarity, we use a lower case "c" for a citizen of the federal government and an upper case "C" to denote a Citizen of a state of the Union.] It should be noted that "citizens of the United States" are not The People who created the states, then by state action, created the federal government. These "federal citizens" are not "parties to the Constitution" and therefore did not have legal claim to the same rights, privileges, and immunities that state Citizens did.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

This principle also applies to persons in Washington DC, which is under the exclusive sovereignty of the United States. [For the sake of clarity, we use a lower case "c" for a citizen of the federal government and an upper case "C" to denote a Citizen of a state of the Union.

What is the basis of that?

Any docs/records/authorities?

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

International law had (and still has) a long established doctrine that, absent any extenuating circumstances, a person is a citizen of the national jurisdiction (or sovereignty) in which he's born. The federal territories were outside of the sovereignty of the individual state governments, and within the sovereignty of the United States government; hence the de facto status as a "citizen of the United States". This principle also applies to persons in Washington DC, which is under the exclusive sovereignty of the United States. [For the sake of clarity, we use a lower case "c" for a citizen of the federal government and an upper case "C" to denote a Citizen of a state of the Union.] It should be noted that "citizens of the United States" are not The People who created the states, then by state action, created the federal government. These "federal citizens" are not "parties to the Constitution" and therefore did not have legal claim to the same rights, privileges, and immunities that state Citizens did.

Keith would be cringing if he was witness to all the different jurisdictions and sophism being mixed here in your statement.I sincerely hope that you are quoting someone, and these are not your own words.
Ouch!!!!!You have flunked first grade here, maybe you should go back and listen again.