Anyone know what happend to this guys

Post Reply
User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Anyone know what happend to this guys

#1

Post by Just some guy » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:21 am

Request after the court sent it back?

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... 5cv1631-91

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#2

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:41 am

I'm mildly interested in seeing if the state of war portion of the opinion was appalled, so I'll check when I get home in an hour or so. (In other words, no need for anyone else to spend money on a PACER search.)
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#3

Post by Just some guy » Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:42 am

Thanks Mike

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#4

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:08 am

More later, but the short version is that Kaufman is still pissed off, still litigating, and still an American citizen.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#5

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Nov 28, 2016 12:48 pm

Here's the longer summary, mostly based on my reading of some of the briefing in Kaufman's current appeal (D.C. Cir, Case #16-5065).

Bottom line: renunciation of citizenship while within the USA requires both a state of war and an intention to relinquish all benefits of citizenship (including continued residence in the US), and the person wishing to renounce citizenship must prove that the intent is genuine.

Kaufman's attempts to renounce his citizenship began in 2004, while he was serving a prison sentence in Wisconsin for First-Degree Sexual Assault of a Minor. His first attempt to renounce lead to a D.C. Cir order that the trial court determine whether the authority granted the Attorney General in the renunciation statute had been transferred to Homeland Security during the reorganization of government functions carried out when DHS was created.

On remand, the parties agreed that the authority had been transferred to DHS and Kaufman renewed his request. That lead to the case you found. That was appealed, but the appeal was subsequently dismissed by the government and Kaufman's application went forward to the next step. That step required that Kaufman appear for an in-person interview, so the application was held in abeyance until 2013, when Kaufman was released into community supervision.

Kaufman appeared for his interview, but his application to renounce citizenship was denied on the grounds that he lacked both the ability to legally depart the country (due to parole requirements) and a genuine intention to do so (as demonstrated by his complete lack of any plan for departing the country without a passport, or gaining permission - as a stateless felon - to enter or work in any other country). He sued, and the district court upheld the agency determination. That decision is presently on appeal, and I'd expect to see an order upholding the district court issue some time within the next year.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8096
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#6

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:06 pm

Doesn't it seem like a disproportionate number of SovCits are kid-touchers? Odd, that.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27045
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#7

Post by bob » Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:20 pm

What happened with the state of war requirement?
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8432
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#8

Post by Northland10 » Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:23 pm

RoadScholar wrote:Doesn't it seem like a disproportionate number of SovCits are kid-touchers? Odd, that.
I have a couple of theories about that.

First, I suspect many decide to go SovCit in a strange attempt to avoid any responsibility for their actions. It is the "I can do what I want and nobody can tell me what to do" folks. They were lawbreakers first and became SovCits to explain away their bad behavior. The level of lawless behavior varies from rather minor things to fraud, theft, and and various levels of assault.

The second theory is basically one I have seen among the racists and neo-nazis and their issues with sexual assaults on minors. These folk do not see other people as fellow humans. Other people are objects to them so they see no issue with using them however they want. Their need dominate others only adds to this, and their assaults on women and children is a reflection of that domination need they have. Note that the background of SovCits is in Christian Identity, or even Moorish Identity ideology. Both of these are based upon being the "chosen ones."

I think the SovCits viewing others as objects is one core basis, since if they did not, they might realize that some of the laws they so much hate exist to protect other people. Remember the report from one of Dowdell's sessions where one lady did not think we should have any traffic laws, even if they existed to save others from reckless driving.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#9

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:26 pm

bob wrote:What happened with the state of war requirement?
Here's the footnote where that question is addressed:
Given DHS’s withdrawal of its appeal of the district court’s “state of war” determination (Kaufman v. Holder, 2010 WL 3245512 (D.C. Cir. 2010)), DHS’s March 21, 2014, decision assumes the “state of war” requirement is satisfied for purposes of this case. A.R. at 4-5. DHS, however, notes that whether or not the United States is in a “state of war” for purposes of the statute is not a static determination, but subject to change over time and, therefore, available to be challenged in future litigation. Historically, the government summarily denied domestic renunciation requests on the ground that the United States was not in a state of war. Accordingly, renunciations occurred only overseas and were processed by the Department of State. Appellant’s case involves the first 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6) adjudication since the close of World War II, owing to the Executive Branch’s consistent application of section (a)(6)’s “state of war” requirement as not having been met by any instance of United States military intervention post World War II. For example, in 1967, INS General Counsel Charles Gordon issued an opinion concluding that the Vietnam conflict was not a “state of war” for purposes of this statute. INS Gen. Counsel Op. No. 349-P (Feb. 23, 1967).
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

noblepa
Posts: 1066
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#10

Post by noblepa » Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:30 pm

So, he seems to be another one that wants to renounce his citizenship, but remain in the United States.

Has he ever given any reason for trying to renounce?

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12692
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#11

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:51 pm

If he's like the majority of sovcits he thinks then he'll be exempt from US law.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#12

Post by Just some guy » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:20 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:If he's like the majority of sovcits he thinks then he'll be exempt from US law.
Most sovcits are idiots, but for the ones who are not, it is not US law they want out from under. It is statutory law.

natural law vs statutory law.

NO ONE is exempt from natural law no matter where you are or whose jurisdiction you are under.

murder is against natural law

Not wearing my seatbelt is a statutory revenue generating law.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#13

Post by Just some guy » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:23 am

RoadScholar wrote:Doesn't it seem like a disproportionate number of SovCits are kid-touchers? Odd, that.
Disproportionate compared to who? priests? cops?

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#14

Post by Just some guy » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:26 am

Northland10 wrote:
RoadScholar wrote:Doesn't it seem like a disproportionate number of SovCits are kid-touchers? Odd, that.
I have a couple of theories about that.

First, I suspect many decide to go SovCit in a strange attempt to avoid any responsibility for their actions. It is the "I can do what I want and nobody can tell me what to do" folks. They were lawbreakers first and became SovCits to explain away their bad behavior. The level of lawless behavior varies from rather minor things to fraud, theft, and and various levels of assault.

The second theory is basically one I have seen among the racists and neo-nazis and their issues with sexual assaults on minors. These folk do not see other people as fellow humans. Other people are objects to them so they see no issue with using them however they want. Their need dominate others only adds to this, and their assaults on women and children is a reflection of that domination need they have. Note that the background of SovCits is in Christian Identity, or even Moorish Identity ideology. Both of these are based upon being the "chosen ones."

I think the SovCits viewing others as objects is one core basis, since if they did not, they might realize that some of the laws they so much hate exist to protect other people. Remember the report from one of Dowdell's sessions where one lady did not think we should have any traffic laws, even if they existed to save others from reckless driving.

Most stories I tend to find criminals who latch onto the whole I don't consent thing, which automatically makes me assume they are not sov's and if so, they are lacking in basic research skills, everyone who studies knows that consent was had when upon age of majority they did not contest being a member of their local body.

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#15

Post by Just some guy » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:29 am

Mikedunford wrote:Here's the longer summary, mostly based on my reading of some of the briefing in Kaufman's current appeal (D.C. Cir, Case #16-5065).

Bottom line: renunciation of citizenship while within the USA requires both a state of war and an intention to relinquish all benefits of citizenship (including continued residence in the US), and the person wishing to renounce citizenship must prove that the intent is genuine.

Kaufman's attempts to renounce his citizenship began in 2004, while he was serving a prison sentence in Wisconsin for First-Degree Sexual Assault of a Minor. His first attempt to renounce lead to a D.C. Cir order that the trial court determine whether the authority granted the Attorney General in the renunciation statute had been transferred to Homeland Security during the reorganization of government functions carried out when DHS was created.

On remand, the parties agreed that the authority had been transferred to DHS and Kaufman renewed his request. That lead to the case you found. That was appealed, but the appeal was subsequently dismissed by the government and Kaufman's application went forward to the next step. That step required that Kaufman appear for an in-person interview, so the application was held in abeyance until 2013, when Kaufman was released into community supervision.

Kaufman appeared for his interview, but his application to renounce citizenship was denied on the grounds that he lacked both the ability to legally depart the country (due to parole requirements) and a genuine intention to do so (as demonstrated by his complete lack of any plan for departing the country without a passport, or gaining permission - as a stateless felon - to enter or work in any other country). He sued, and the district court upheld the agency determination. That decision is presently on appeal, and I'd expect to see an order upholding the district court issue some time within the next year.
Would love to know if he switched his domicile of choice to outside the us before filing this, so many miss the domicile aspect when it comes to jurisdiction it seems.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8096
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#16

Post by RoadScholar » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:29 am

Just some guy wrote:
RoadScholar wrote:Doesn't it seem like a disproportionate number of SovCits are kid-touchers? Odd, that.
Disproportionate compared to who? priests? cops?
Why, yes.

Thanks for playing. 8-)
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22017
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#17

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:53 am

Just some guy wrote:
Mikedunford wrote:Here's the longer summary, mostly based on my reading of some of the briefing in Kaufman's current appeal (D.C. Cir, Case #16-5065).

:snippity:
Would love to know if he switched his domicile of choice to outside the us before filing this, so many miss the domicile aspect when it comes to jurisdiction it seems.
I can assure you that with his criminal record he would not have found a place of residence outside the US. And one point I think was not addressed, one can only drop the US citizenship when it is assured one does not become stateless, eg the guy would need to become citizen elsewhere prior. Not an easy thing to do on the short term (speaking like five to ten+ years of continuous residency in a country of choice), nor with a criminal record at home.

User avatar
Mary Quite Contrary
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#18

Post by Mary Quite Contrary » Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:If he's like the majority of sovcits he thinks then he'll be exempt from US law.
I officially find this man(?) fascinating in a completely weird way.

If he does become "exempt" from US law wouldn't he also he exempt from US rights too? And does anyone know what country he thinks would take him?
"My greatest hope is for inclusion and love for all humanity in 2017 and beyond." -Pharrell Williams

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10444
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#19

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:16 am

Just some guy wrote:Would love to know if he switched his domicile of choice to outside the us before filing this, so many miss the domicile aspect when it comes to jurisdiction it seems.
I'm fairly sure that we've been through this before, but...

For the purposes of jurisdiction, domicile is a question of fact that is determined by the finder of fact. (By the way, that's true in most of the world, not just the USA.) You can declare your domicile to be anywhere in the world. You can declare your domicile to be Mars. but nobody is under any obligation to accept your declaration of domicile as determinative. Your declaration is just evidence of your domicile, nothing more.

So, in this case, let's assume that Joe makes some sort of declaration that he is domiciled in Greece, and then attempts to renounce his citizenship. Joe will still need to demonstrate that he has the intent to relinquish all of the rights and benefits of US citizenship before his renunciation can be accepted. That, in turn, means that he has to demonstrate that he has the intent to permanently leave the USA (because residence in the USA is one of the rights and benefits). To demonstrate intent to depart, he'll need to demonstrate that he has some plan to live somewhere else. Being domiciled in Greece is a big step in that direction, but there is no obligation that anyone accept his declaration as being decisive. It is evidence of his domicile. But if he has no home in Greece and no legal right to reside in Greece, his domicile is not Greece, and nobody is going to agree that his domicile is Greece.

In Kauffman's case, he declared that he intended to immediately depart the country. But he had no legal right to leave his state of residence, and - as a stateless person - no right to enter any other state. It's irrelevant whether or not he declared that he was domiciled outside the USA, because the facts would clearly demonstrate that - whatever he might declare - he was, as a matter of fact, domiciled in the USA.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

noblepa
Posts: 1066
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#20

Post by noblepa » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:48 am

Just some guy wrote:
Northland10 wrote:
RoadScholar wrote:Doesn't it seem like a disproportionate number of SovCits are kid-touchers? Odd, that.
I have a couple of theories about that.

First, I suspect many decide to go SovCit in a strange attempt to avoid any responsibility for their actions. It is the "I can do what I want and nobody can tell me what to do" folks. They were lawbreakers first and became SovCits to explain away their bad behavior. The level of lawless behavior varies from rather minor things to fraud, theft, and and various levels of assault.

The second theory is basically one I have seen among the racists and neo-nazis and their issues with sexual assaults on minors. These folk do not see other people as fellow humans. Other people are objects to them so they see no issue with using them however they want. Their need dominate others only adds to this, and their assaults on women and children is a reflection of that domination need they have. Note that the background of SovCits is in Christian Identity, or even Moorish Identity ideology. Both of these are based upon being the "chosen ones."

I think the SovCits viewing others as objects is one core basis, since if they did not, they might realize that some of the laws they so much hate exist to protect other people. Remember the report from one of Dowdell's sessions where one lady did not think we should have any traffic laws, even if they existed to save others from reckless driving.

Most stories I tend to find criminals who latch onto the whole I don't consent thing, which automatically makes me assume they are not sov's and if so, they are lacking in basic research skills, everyone who studies knows that consent was had when upon age of majority they did not contest being a member of their local body.
I'll probably be sorry, but . . .

So, you are saying that we get one chance, on our 18th birthday, to renounce our membership in the "local body", and thus become exempt from statutory law? If so, we need to find a 17 year old, about to turn 18, and convince him/her to do this. BTW, what is the mechanism for doing so? Does he publish something in the local paper, file a notice with the local court, return his birth certificate to the state? Then, the newly freed 18 year old must be willing to commit a violation of statutory law and be prosecuted for it.

Must he also do this at the federal level? Remember, in this country, we have both state and federal statutes, that are prosecuted and tried separately.
Just some guy wrote: murder is against natural law
Murder may be against natural law (whatever that means), but a murderer is punished under statutory law. It is criminal statutes that define the different levels of murder (first degree, second degree, manslaughter, vehicular, etc.) and the corresponding punishment.

If our hypothetical 18 year old commits murder (a violation of natural law), how can he be punished, if the penalties are contained in the statutes that he recently freed himself from?

noblepa
Posts: 1066
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#21

Post by noblepa » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:51 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Just some guy wrote:Would love to know if he switched his domicile of choice to outside the us before filing this, so many miss the domicile aspect when it comes to jurisdiction it seems.
I'm fairly sure that we've been through this before, but...

For the purposes of jurisdiction, domicile is a question of fact that is determined by the finder of fact. (By the way, that's true in most of the world, not just the USA.) You can declare your domicile to be anywhere in the world. You can declare your domicile to be Mars. but nobody is under any obligation to accept your declaration of domicile as determinative. Your declaration is just evidence of your domicile, nothing more.

So, in this case, let's assume that Joe makes some sort of declaration that he is domiciled in Greece, and then attempts to renounce his citizenship. Joe will still need to demonstrate that he has the intent to relinquish all of the rights and benefits of US citizenship before his renunciation can be accepted. That, in turn, means that he has to demonstrate that he has the intent to permanently leave the USA (because residence in the USA is one of the rights and benefits). To demonstrate intent to depart, he'll need to demonstrate that he has some plan to live somewhere else. Being domiciled in Greece is a big step in that direction, but there is no obligation that anyone accept his declaration as being decisive. It is evidence of his domicile. But if he has no home in Greece and no legal right to reside in Greece, his domicile is not Greece, and nobody is going to agree that his domicile is Greece.

In Kauffman's case, he declared that he intended to immediately depart the country. But he had no legal right to leave his state of residence, and - as a stateless person - no right to enter any other state. It's irrelevant whether or not he declared that he was domiciled outside the USA, because the facts would clearly demonstrate that - whatever he might declare - he was, as a matter of fact, domiciled in the USA.
Even if one follows the more conventional route to renunciation, by visiting the US embassy or consulate in a foreign country, doesn't he/she still need to prove that they have citizenship somewhere?

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5670
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#22

Post by Maybenaut » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:02 pm

He's doing it all wrong. Apparently all he has to do to lose his citizenship is just stand on the street in front of Trump Tower and light on American flag on fire.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8432
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#23

Post by Northland10 » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:23 pm

Just some guy wrote:Not wearing my seatbelt is a statutory revenue generating law.
As a revenue generating law, it is not working great. It collects no revenue from me. Have you considered denying the government revenue by actually wearing your seatbelt? It is much easier then trying to find some loophole that declares you are not subject to a law, and it may well save your life later on.

Now, if the government was only interested in collecting revenue, since it is less revenue I have to make up for in taxes, I think I'm okay with that. The only problem is that the increasing use of seatbelts means they collect less in revenue. It probably makes up for it in reduced insurance rates and other costs used to pay for injuries and fatalities caused by a lack of wearing a seatbelt.

Why you are considering trying to renounce, consider the following. Can visiting aliens or undocumented aliens be fined for not wearing a seatbelt in states where it is the law?
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Helvetica
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:30 pm
Location: Near the Salish Sea

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#24

Post by Helvetica » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:28 pm

Maybenaut wrote:He's doing it all wrong. Apparently all he has to do to lose his citizenship is just stand on the street in front of Trump Tower and light on American flag on fire.
:coffeescreen:

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16900
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Anyone know what happend to this guys

#25

Post by Suranis » Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:07 pm

I thought the standard way to go about this is to leave the US, go to a US embassy, and go through a process of renouncing your US citizenship. But I guess the problem then is the US gets to decide whether or not to allow you back in. And that is not guaranteed. As those at the Fogbow meetup in Baltimore will verify, I was delayed by a whole 24 hours becasue US immigration refused to allow me through, and questioned me for an hour before clearing me to fly on the next flight. As a non US citizen I have no automatic right to enter the USA.

And the next day the same woman sent me to be questioned again.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”