This coming from the guy that proclaims impeachment requires a separate "Federal Court" decision outside a Senate vote.  At least I provide references.



Which does NOT mean I'm wrong now, does it?

 It very specifically does.  You said the Senate does not decide and the decision goes to a Federal Court.  That is wrong.  You can try to manipulate your way out of this, but you made your stance clear.  



Eyore, what, exactly, do the letters "LLC" stand for? Specifically, what does the "C" stand for?

Another LIE?

 According the the IRS, and literally every LLC in the US:

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liabili...

https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/llc-vs-inc-understanding-the...

 The US courts, State of Wyoming, and the EPA acknowledge the Rancher was never a Corporation, not S-or C-Corp.  You are the lone human insisting this to be the case, which makes sense because you lied about it and now are trying to find ways to make it true.

 Maybe you can 6-Sigma this into being 100% correct.

You're still resurrecting OLD conversations, I see. And YOU know d@mned well that the "C" stands for "Corporation". You're lying again... or still.

 No it doesn't.   How are you going to dodge the empirical evidence provided this time?

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liabili...

Specifically, a domestic LLC with at least two members is classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes unless it files Form 8832 and affirmatively elects to be treated as a corporation.

 https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+an+LLC+a+Corporation%3F&oq=Is+an+LLC+a+Cor...

 Let me guess, you will call all this "FAKE MAGA" websites so you can justify not looking at them, then you can continue to affirm "C" stands for Corporation.  You just want your lie that he was a "Corporation" to be true so now are trying to find any way you can to make that true.  Thankfully for the Rancher the US courts use actual documents and acknowledge he was never a Corporation, as agreed upon by all parties in the lawsuit.  They must all be wrong.



And, I never said impeachment relies on a Federal Court decision. You very well know that, liar. My intent was to say that if impeachment leads to a Senate trial, and that results in NOT removing a President, he is still open to federal court proceedings. He most certainly IS.

 Thats not what you said.  I do agree that a POTUS that is not impeached can be Federally prosecuted.

Oh, yes. You restate the obvious. In case you don't have much reading comprehension, that says, specifically, "for income tax purposes."  What about in the event of a lawsuit? THEN, it's suddenly a corporation, to protect the personal finances of the owners.

 Incorrect.  Companies are not Corporations even in legal dispute, the protections are similar, but protections are not capable in and of themselves of altering an LLC to an Incorporated entity - according to the referenced Harvard Law School interpretation.  The situation you specifically state where the Rancher is a "Corporation" is a lawsuit, and the Federal Government, State of Wyoming and the EPA all agree he was not a Corporation.  They must all be wrong, are you a lawyer?


It was originally CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation", and the distinction is a moot point."  

 As you have said: Proof or its a lie.  LLC started in Wyoming in 1977, specifically and only as "Company".  This is what I am talking about, you just make sh!t up.  

 These morons at Harvard Law School have it all wrong:
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/08/29/a-new-understanding-of-the-history...

Full paper:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3441083https://papers.ssr...

https://wyomingllcattorney.com/About/Invention-of-LLC-Wyoming-History
https://volpeconsulting-accounting.com/blog/history-of-the-llc/

 
 Simple, provide reference that "LLC" specifically "originally" was CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation" and not the S or C-Corp that actual corporations have, that the Rancher did not have.  You might have had to carry a PLLC, like most physicians, which would have "Corporation" in the framework.  It's a PLLC for that reason.

 The Rancher was not incorporated, you made that up.  

 The first "LLC" and following framework including the IRS national adoption Revenue Ruling 88-76 were not CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation", you made that up.  

Being British but born on a US military base, I actually have both a US birth certificate and a British registration of birth (same thing), but neither of those are acceptable for anything in the US
Go figure
More is not better.. (my US birth certificate says place of birth is England)
SH!T!
I have an obscure military form that has been accepted by SSI and MVD, College, health insurance, etc..
If Trump gets around to it before dying or impeachment I expect to be sent away

 WTF does this have to do with birthright citizenship?

 Needles claims I am lying about the information I provided in this thread.  This obviously led to the list of lies Needles has presented on this forum.  In that process I was sure he would fabricate more, in which he did:

"It was originally CALLED "Limited Liability Corporation" - not true.  Especially in Wyoming as that has never been a legally accepted term according to Chief Deputy Attorney General Ryan Schelhaas.

What about in the event of a lawsuit? THEN, it's suddenly a corporation - not true.  Harvard Law School examined this concept this in detail.

Ranchers are always corporations - not true.  Doesn't even need an explanation to know this is false.


 While this has nothing to do with birthright citizenship, the thread itself evolved to show while Needles accuses of others of lying, he quickly resorts to lying in order to defend his statements.  See the above examples as evidence.

 If you are going to jump in a thread accusing others of lying, at least try to not lie while doing it.  

 Needles also asked multiple questions unrelated to the topic, which leads one to believe he intends to, and is ok with, communicating off-topic.  Given he is digging a deeper hole of verifiable duplicity, it makes sense he is now acting like he wasn't involved in the off-topic exchange.




 

You ARE lying.

Serowbot wrote on 12/09/25 at 10:58:23:


Were your parents both US citizens or was one British?
Regardless, you don’t seriously believe there is even the remotest possibility of that happening , do you?

And by the way, looks like Britain wised up.

British Nationality Act 1981: This Act, effective January 1, 1983, established modern British citizenship, meaning children born in the UK after this date to a parent who is a British citizen or "settled" (had permanent residency) in the UK would generally be British.

Parental Status: If one parent was a British citizen or had settled status (like under the EU Settlement Scheme) by the child's birth, the child would likely be British.

SOFA: The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and UK manages military personnel's presence, but the fundamental British nationality laws still apply for citizenship claims.