Anti-Globalist Forum

[IxCimi]

It's all there, once you find it. The United States is the parent corporation (See 28 U.S.C. § 3002 15 (a)) of all other legal entities, including US citizens, persons, both natural and artificial, and individuals deemed subject (under the commerce clause) to its legislative acts as defined “individual” (26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3)); a “person” (26 USC §7701(c)); or a statutory “U.S. citizen” as described in 8 USC §1401. However, the Uniform Commercial Code at § 9-307 States; LOCATION OF DEBTOR; (h) “The United States is located in the District of Columbia." As mirrored in the auxiliary corporate department or agency, the State of________ revised codes. For example, Oregon, at ORS § 79.0307¹ (8) Location of debtor).

The District of Columbia and the territorial districts of the United States, are not states within the meaning of the constitution and of the judiciary act. 2 Cranch, 445; 1 Wheat. 91. A “non-citizen national” described in 8 USC §1101(a)(21) and 8 USC §1452 domiciled outside the statutory but not constitutional “United States” (26 USC § 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)); 3. A constitutional (Fourteenth Amendment, Sect. 1) “National” domiciled outside the statutory “United States” (i) one of the People such as I am is described in (26 USC § 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)) (i), being within the constitutional “united states of America” (several states of the Union), (a state Citizen) as stiled in the 2008 U.S. Government Printing Office style manual via GPO Access)[[chapter 5 spelling (93) page 108] Nationalities, etc. 5.22. The table on Demonyms in Chapter 17 “Useful Tables” shows forms to be used for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality.

5.23. In designating the natives of the states, the following forms will be used.
Nevadan, New Hampshirite, New Jerseyan, New Mexican, New Yorker, North Carolinian, North Dakotan, Ohioan, Oklahoman, Oregonian, Pennsylvanian, Rhode Islander, South Carolinian, South Dakotan, Tennessean, Texan, Utahn, Vermonter, Virginian, Washingtonian, West Virginian, Wisconsinite, Wyomingite, Alabamian, Alaskan, Arizonan, Arkansan, Californian, Coloradan, Connecticuter, Delawarean, Floridian, Georgian, Hawaiian, Idahoan, Illinoisan, Indianian, Iowan, Kansan, Kentuckian, Louisianian, Mainer, Marylander, Massachusettsan, Michiganian, Minnesotan, Mississippian, Missourian, Montanan, or Nebraskan.

I am none of the following;

1. An “individual” (26 CFR § 1.1441-1(c )(3));
2. The “nonresident alien individual” described in 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii); 26 USC § 871, or 26 CFR § 1.6012 -1(b); or, “nonresident alien” in (26 USC § 7701(b)(1)(B));
3. A “person” (26 USC § 7701(c));
4. “taxpayer” (26 USC §§ 7701(a)(14) and 1313);
5. A statutory “U.S. citizen” as described in 8 USC § 1401;
6. A “resident alien” as described in 26 USC § 7701 (b)(1)(A).

Nor am I a United States person

The term “United States person” means—
(A)a citizen or resident of the United States,
(B)a domestic partnership,
(C)a domestic corporation,
(D)any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E)any trust if—
(i)a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii)one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust. United States -
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

I am, in fact Stateless, (but not stateless) pursuant to 28 USC §1332 because I am not domiciled in "this State” or a federated State described in 26 USC §1332(d). “Stateless” in relation to the national government because not domiciled on federal territory. See Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)

That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship
of a state,  and the privileges and immunities of one  are not the
same  as the other  is well established  by  the decisions  of the
courts of this country.
                          [Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)]

citizens  of the  District of  Columbia were  not granted the
privilege of  litigating in  the federal  courts on the ground of
diversity of  citizenship.   Possibly no  better reason  for this
fact exists  than  such citizens were  not  thought of  when  the
judiciary article  [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.
... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of;
but in  any event  a citizen of the United States**, who is not a
citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal]
Constitution.
                            [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
                                                 [emphasis added]