Stija's declaration of fact in re: Quatloos

[stija]

50 USC § 841 - Findings and declarations of fact
The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed.

1. Congress declared that as a finding of fact.
2. Quatloos members do NOT recognize that the IRC was legislated from Art. 1, Sec 8 and NOT the 14th Amendment.
3. Quatloos members do NOT recognize the constitutional rights and constitutional government of the United States.
4. Quatloos members ONLY recognize the statutory authority AND interpret it AS THEY please VOID any constitutional authority.
5. For example, Quatloos members interpret the IRC as IF it had been legislated through the 14th Amendment when it suits their Communistic Agenda.
6. Quatloos members do NOT recognize the rules of statutory construction and interpretation as set and explained by the distinguished member of our judiciary in Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (1940) wherein the member of the judiciary dept said the following:

In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that ‘citizen‘ means ‘citizen of the United States‘, and not person generally, nor citizen of a State; and that the ‘rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States‘ means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional

7. The honorable man and a member of the FEDERAL judiciary just informed you that a federal CRIMINAL statute in question DOES NOT APPLY to a person generally NOR A CITIZEN OF A STATE.
8. It does NOT APPLY because Congress has NO TERRITORIAL jurisdiction within any of the union states.
9. Congress never HAD ANY TERRITORIAL jurisdiction over any citizen outside District of Columbia or territories and possessions of the United States government under Art. I:8:17 or Art. IV:3:2.
10. Congress does have SUBJECT MATTER legislative authority over SUBJECTS SUCH AS INCOME TAXES ONLY, among many other things - do NOT incur taxable income, do NOT pay a tax ON it, do NOT play their income games and you have nothing to worry about.
11. Thus, as PROVEN and DOCUMENTED in the above quote, the KNOWLEDGEABLE attorney forced the judge to interpret the law as it should be interpreted, which resulted in the JUDGE TELLING YOU that the United States citizen is NOT a person GENERALLY NOR A CITIZEN OF A STATE.
12. Same territorial and constructional principles apply in the IRC in section 7701 AS WELL AS ANY OTHER FEDERAL STATUTE in re: to your political citizenship under the 14th Amendment ONLY IF you are domiciled within a state of the union and outside DC or territories and possessions of the United States.
13. Being non citizen of the United States in 12 DOES NOT ABSOLVE you of liability if you incur taxable income.
14. Quatloos members are shills and COMMUNISTS not recognizing this limitation upon statutory construction and constitutional authority UNDER which such statute was passed.
15. Go to IRS.GOV for advice - STAY AWAY FROM HERE.
16. I provided evidence for my factual allegations. Both from Congressional policy and appellate court case law - THUS I PLAYED BY YOUR RULES you shill Communists.

[Pottapaug1938]

16. stija is regurgitating the same stuff he has tried to pass off on other threads, and it is no more worthy of serious discussion by being repeated here.

[stija]

16. stija is regurgitating the same stuff he has tried to pass off on other threads, and it is no more worthy of serious discussion by being repeated here.

1. LOL.
2. Stija did not try anything except post a FEDERAL APPELLATE court opinion which is REAL and not a figment of someones imagination.
3. Why don't you explain why a citizen of a union state, who also is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment, is NOT a United States citizen under the above FEDERAL statute in FEDERAL court?
4. Why don't you explain how 14th Amendment has ANYTHING to do with the above federal opinion or ANYTHING AT ALL with income taxation in the IRC?
5. You are right, you SHILL COMMUNIST, this never was a legit conversation because YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE A CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, or any constitutional protections.
6. Thus, Congress declared SHILLS like you to be MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY trying to overthrow the constitutional American Jurisprudence.
7. Thus, the above post is not a discussion, but Stija's declaration that Quatloos member, such as yourself, are SHILL COMMUNISTS, as evidenced by crystal clear Congressional language.
8. Stija DOES NOT negotiate or argue with Communists or Terrorists.
9. Stija RECOGNIZES them for what they are.

[Arthur Rubin]

3. Why don't you explain why a citizen of the state, who also is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment, is NOT a United States citizen under the above FEDERAL statute in FEDERAL court?

Because there's no truth to it?

[Pottapaug1938]

16. stija is regurgitating the same stuff he has tried to pass off on other threads, and it is no more worthy of serious discussion by being repeated here.

1. LOL.
2. Stija did not try anything except post a FEDERAL APPELLATE court opinion which is REAL and not a figment of someones imagination.
3. Why don't you explain why a citizen of a union state, who also is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment, is NOT a United States citizen under the above FEDERAL statute in FEDERAL court?
4. Why don't you explain how 14th Amendment has ANYTHING to do with the above federal opinion or ANYTHING AT ALL with income taxation in the IRC?
5. You are right, you SHILL COMMUNIST, this never was a legit conversation because YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE A CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, or any constitutional protections.
6. Thus, Congress declared SHILLS like you to be MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY trying to overthrow the constitutional American Jurisprudence.
7. Thus, the above post is not a discussion, but Stija's declaration that Quatloos member, such as yourself, are SHILL COMMUNISTS, as evidenced by crystal clear Congressional language.
8. Stija DOES NOT negotiate or argue with Communists or Terrorists.
9. Stija RECOGNIZES them for what they are.

10. I've answered your fantasies before; and
11. they are still not worthy of serious discussion.

[stija]

3. Why don't you explain why a citizen of the state, who also is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment, is NOT a United States citizen under the above FEDERAL statute in FEDERAL court?

Because there's no truth to it?

In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that ‘citizen‘ means ‘citizen of the United States‘, and not person generally, nor citizen of a State; and that the ‘rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States‘ means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr
1. Click on it.
2. Read it.
3. COMMUNIST SHILLS like you do NOT recognize federal courts.
4. COMMUNIST SHILLS like you do NOT recognize constitutional American Jurisprudence, thus FOR YOUR it does NOT exist.
5. And idiot I thought you were just ignorant or stupid, when in fact YOU'RE COMMUNISTS.
6. Stija swore an OATH to protect his country against enemies foreign and domestic.
7. You ARE Stija's domestic enemies.

[Arthur Rubin]

3. Why don't you explain why a citizen of the state, who also is a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment, is NOT a United States citizen under the above FEDERAL statute in FEDERAL court?

Because there's no truth to it?

In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that ‘citizen‘ means ‘citizen of the United States‘, and not person generally, nor citizen of a State; and that the ‘rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States‘ means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

It's the other way around. It says that (for the purpose of that law) that "citizen" means "citizen of the United States", not ... "citizen of a State"; it does not say that a citizen of the United States is not a citizen of the State he is resident in, or that a citizen of a State is not a citizen of the United States.

But you've already been told that.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
8. Stija DOES NOT negotiate or argue with Communists or Terrorists.
...

Then why are you still here?

[stija]

...
8. Stija DOES NOT negotiate or argue with Communists or Terrorists.
...

Then why are you still here?

Stija's declaration that Quatloos member, such as yourself, are SHILL COMMUNISTS, as evidenced by crystal clear Congressional language.
Stija swore an OATH to protect his country against enemies foreign and domestic.
You ARE Stija's domestic enemies.

[LPC]

Shorter stija:

1. I don't like communists.

2. I don't people at Quatloos.

3. Therefore, people at Quatloos are communists.

[Pottapaug1938]

I am really starting to feel bad for stija. With every post and every attempt to hijack threads and draw attention to himself, he sounds more pathetic with each passing day.

[fortinbras]

6. Quatloos members do NOT recognize the rules of statutory construction and interpretation as set and explained by the distinguished member of our judiciary in Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (1940) wherein the member of the judiciary dept said the following:

In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that ‘citizen‘ means ‘citizen of the United States‘, and not person generally, nor citizen of a State; and that the ‘rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States‘ means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional

7. The honorable man and a member of the FEDERAL judiciary just informed you that a federal CRIMINAL statute in question DOES NOT APPLY to a person generally NOR A CITIZEN OF A STATE.

I think Stija has it wrong. Powe v. US (5th Cir, Jan. 17, 1940) 109 F2d 147 at 149, cert.denied (1940) 309 US 679 ...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 2047054966
... was the prosecution of a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of a citizen (the details are sparse but I would assume this was an act of ethnic violence). The court, speaking through Judge Sibley, simply put the lid on any quibbling about whether the federal law meant a citizen of the same state and determined that the federal law undoubtedly meant a citizen of the country, regardless of his attachment to a particular state of the union. This is not rocket surgery.

The rest of Stija's accusations, such as that we do not follow the canons of statutory construction, etc., are mostly misplaced.

[stija]

6. Quatloos members do NOT recognize the rules of statutory construction and interpretation as set and explained by the distinguished member of our judiciary in Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (1940) wherein the member of the judiciary dept said the following:

In its construction it is proper to apply the rule that criminal laws are to be construed strictly, and to bear in mind that other rule that a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that ‘citizen‘ means ‘citizen of the United States‘, and not person generally, nor citizen of a State; and that the ‘rights and privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States‘ means those specially and validly secured thereby. Thus limited, this section has been enforced as constitutional

7. The honorable man and a member of the FEDERAL judiciary just informed you that a federal CRIMINAL statute in question DOES NOT APPLY to a person generally NOR A CITIZEN OF A STATE.

I think Stija has it wrong. Powe v. US (5th Cir, Jan. 17, 1940) 109 F2d 147 at 149, cert.denied (1940) 309 US 679 ...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 2047054966
... was the prosecution of a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of a citizen (the details are sparse but I would assume this was an act of ethnic violence). The court, speaking through Judge Sibley, simply put the lid on any quibbling about whether the federal law meant a citizen of the same state and determined that the federal law undoubtedly meant a citizen of the country, regardless of his attachment to a particular state of the union. This is not rocket surgery.

The rest of Stija's accusations, such as that we do not follow the canons of statutory construction, etc., are mostly misplaced.

1. LOL.
2. You may be just a plain slow commie.
3. Citizens of states have no civil rights.
4. Citizens of states, along with all inhabitants of the states whether stranger or foreign or illegal, enjoy natural rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
5. You should research why and for whom the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect 279*279 that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to "guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government," Art. IV, sec. 4, by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, "a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them," Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British crown colony than a republican State of America

Downes v. Bidwell

1. Those territories need Civil Rights Act because they do not enjoy constitutional protections citizens of state do.
2. Why?
3. Because they are not a party to the U.S. Constitution, only sovereign states of the union are.
4. Long live American Jurisprudence!

[obadiah]

From stija according to his ability: Approximately zero.
To stija according to his need: Everyone else here's posts.

[stija]

1. The creed of Commies...

From stija according to his ability: Approximately zero.
To stija according to his need: Everyone else here's posts.

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

1. LPC sure believes that every man is a public man since there are no constitutional courts and only statutory public courts.
2. Every citizen being public property has no rights to private property, thus has to pay a fee/tax on what he is allowed by Title 26, according to his needs, as public deems necessary through Congressional policy.
3. Anyone appearing in those courts appears in a public capacity legislated for by the Congress of the United States on one of the enumerated powers from the U.S. Constitution for its public officers.
4. Stija put Commie-goggles on.
5. Things finally start making sense now.
7. Before Stija was applying the principles of American constitutional jurisprudence, sorry.
8. Where's your hammer and sickle LPC?
9. Where do I go to get "my" public hammer and sickle?

[Cathulhu]

Now let me get this straight...Stija likes to speak of Stija in the third person, repeatedly makes ridiculous claims without evidence to back it up, unless you're fond of misquoted (that's kinder than "made up") and off-topic references, gets furious when not allowed to make ridiculous claims without evidence and the big insult is that Quatloosians are "communist shills". Again, without evidence, as Stija knows zip city about the posters here, except what has been volunteered by a few of us. This does not prevent a certain hysteria from finding its way into Stija's posts.

Stija, take your little red wagon and go home. You're embarrassing yourself. Seriously. Don't bother to respond to me; I'm busy and won't have time to post again for some while.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Stija swore an OATH to protect his country against enemies foreign and domestic.
You ARE Stija's domestic enemies.

And against these alleged enemies, you're going to do what, exactly?

Stomp your feet and hold your breath?

Keep posting pseudo-legal gibberish?

Continue making things up as you go along?

Proclaim you actually live in a fantasy world of your own creation?

Faith without works is dead, Stija - what are you going to actually do?

[Kestrel]

This is getting boring.

Stija registered here six days ago and already has 207 argumentative self-aggrandizing posts, most of which say the same thing. That's an average of one post every 30 minutes for the past six days, assuming he sleeps 6 hours a day.

Stija has sunk far below normal argument, however irrational, and into the depths where only cave trolls dwell. Even Lawdog and David Merrill were more interesting, and Harvey was more coherent.

Quatloos is about scams and frauds. I suggest that stijas posts have ceased to make a useful contribution. Everything he had to say has already been refuted, repeatedly.

[stija]

Faith without works is dead, Stija - what are you going to actually do?

1. Nothing if it is privately funded and has no public connections; i recognize the First Amendment, I am not a Commie.
2. File a complaint, 450$ of my private property, against the owner if it is either: a) publicly funded, b) publicly operated, c) or has any other public affiliations;
3. American citizen at work.
4. Because Stija private man and has alot of private nontaxable income, he has property to spend according to his will and his proportions, and not Congressional public policy.
5. Stija is first going to write to their legal counsel and ask whether public connection exists.
6. Will keep you posted, don't worry.

[jkeeb]

Fortinbras wrote:

This is not rocket surgery.

I love it.