South Dakota cracking down on "escapees"

Nah. They impeached the attorney general who ran over and killed that homeless guy.

I don’t think this changes anything if you’re just a company driver. I had a box in Deadwood and took a weeks vacation there every year. You only needed three pieces of mail with your name on it for a drivers license. This wouldn’t cover hazmat so if you want to do this you’d have to drop your hazmat.

Residency without voting rights is completely legal. There is a huge push by liberal non profits to try to flip low population conservative states so I suspect those people are the mystery voters.

 

Will you please explain how paying into the state unemployment fund and state income tax is somehow linked to having the ability to vote within a particular jurisdiction?

 

One point of clarification. It has never been legal to use a PO box as a domicile address. You have to use what the post office considers a full street legal address so this usually means a private mailbox rental service as opposed to the United States Postal Service Box Rentals. You can verify the address info with the post office. Lots of people have gotten into legal issues by not understanding this distinction. Also when establishing a Domicile state you should setup other accounts like library card, voter registration, gym membership, etc. All of these help to confer that you make use of places within the state. The point about the LLC is pretty much bullet proof in the courts, if you establish an LLC or any form of Corporation and your pay is handled thru it then you should be good to go as far as the tax issue. If your pay is coming from a business that is established in another state and you are using a PO box you will fail in court. I have spent extensive time going deep into this issue. Most people think of Texas or South Dakota for domicile but another great option to consider is Wyoming.

 

The video took the meat and potatoes of the story and put them in a blender which created a monstrosity of miscommunication.

As I understand it, SB 139 changes the residency requirements to make it less easy for non- residents to establish and maintain residency, which invalidates their voting status.

Separately, SD revenue department had been notifying RVers that if the RVer does not work for a SD company then the RVer must file taxes with the state in which their company is located. Basically SD doesn't want to be on the hook for unemployment of remote workers who have never paid into the program.

Neither of these seems unreasonable to me.