[Cold Heat]

Just a small addendum to my last post about jurisdiction not ending at the border. I was putting myself in the shoes of a traveling American earning income overseas, and I realized that it's a great example of jurisdiction insofar as the IRS is concerned and thus the federal government. As all US citizens earned income in foreign countries is not only "subject" to the taxes in their place of work, but also "subject" to US taxes.

And then there is this!

Expatriation on or after June 17, 2008

If you expatriated on or after June 17, 2008, the new IRC 877A expatriation rules apply to you if any of the following statements apply. Your average annual net income tax for the 5 years ending before the date of expatriation or termination of residency is more than a specified amount that is adjusted for inflation ($147,000 for 2011, $151,000 for 2012, $155,000 for 2013 and $157,000 for 2014).

Your net worth is $2 million or more on the date of your expatriation or termination of residency.

You fail to certify on Form 8854 that you have complied with all U.S. federal tax obligations for the 5 years preceding the date of your expatriation or termination of residency. If any of these rules apply, you are a “covered expatriate.”

Talk about cross border jurisdiction!

Tell me how Citizen differs from Subject, as many have done already.

Were are subject to this and to that and to anything they come up with, especially is you have deep pockets.

The colonists simply did not like the term because it brought forth vivid memories, but as we can see, there really is no fantasy citizen relationship with the jurisdiction the government has claimed and has exploited.

The people are not doing this, the government is. So much for the fantasy of a government subject to the people.

I could write so much more, but the jurisdiction argument got me lit up...

[RC one]

Tell me how Citizen differs from Subject, as many have done already.

....Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

"British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes "temporary" allegiance to the Crown. "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.