Deletion of Citizen of the several states

Comment: as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: Colonel Warden's keep amounts to "keep because it says stuff. To justify an article on a controversy the ''controversy'' itself has to be important as justified by third party reliable sources. The proponents for keeping have offered '''no correctly cited sources''' supporting the claims maid in the article or the importance of its topic. Per  we cannot keep it. Man bd and Famspear, you guys have the patience of Job. I don't know where or why people dig up such garbage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Even if you accept that the use of this term in this context is a Hoax (which I do not stipulate), some hoaxes are still notable if they receive independent coverage. My concern here is that the facts of the article amount to a synthesis of the various court cases and analyses presented, and not an overview of the independent sources listed. We can say that "Court case X read as follows:", but not that "Court case X read as follows, which means that...". There is interpretation here, which is outside the bounds of . I must note, though, that the author of the article has put together an extremely well-written piece, with extensive research and finely-worded information - but, unfortunately, I don't think there is a place for this article in this form. I also note that the debate below is absolutely fascinating, but serves only to confirm the presence of synthesis in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: If it ''were'' actually used by the courts with a meaning distinct from "citizens of the states", it might be notable term.  But the commentary is, as noted, completely false |original tax protester rhetoric; in fact, almost every word other than direct quotes from court decisions is incorrect.  The lead is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen_of_the_several_states&oldid=196246687 now approximately correct.  But if the lead were the only thing to be kept, it would fall under #DICT| (legal) DICT.  &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: as . Articles on Wikipedia should ''not'' find theories and cite primary sources to support them, but instead write ''about'' theories and cite secondary sources by reliable publishers for those theories. This article clearly does the former though, it does some reasoning - mainly using various court findings as primary sources - to show something (I must admit, I couldn't really follow). A valid encyclopedic article would instead summarize the results of the theory and cite secondary sources for them. Seeing how the author of the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen_of_the_several_states&oldid=196246687 first paragraph (which does have encyclopedic style and could lead to an article) gave up and initiated this AfD, I doubt such sources exist. If they are found, a new article about the topic can be created any time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)