Site Symbology for Political Terms “United States”, “State”

By ftsig-admin | February 19, 2025

Throughout this site, we consistently employ the following symbology conventions for political terms. We emphasize that according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the POLITICAL sense is the PRINCIPAL sense of all words used in the constitution.

In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit, which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country.

[. . .]

But it is also used in its geographical sense, as in the clauses which require that a representative in Congress shall be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen, and that the trial of crimes shall be held within the State where committed.

And there are instances in which the principal sense of the word seems to be that primary one to which we have adverted, of a people or political community, as distinguished from a government.

[Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 721 (1869);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096]

HOWEVER, in CIVIL statutes RATHER than the constitution, the PRINCIPAL sense is the CIVIL sense. While is is true that income taxation is a “political matter” according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340, 345 (1954), the actual ENFORCEMENT and IMPLEMENTATION of it requires CIVIL STATUTES which acquire the “force of law” in the case of U.S. nationals ONLY through DOMICILE, which is voluntary. DOMICILE, in turn, is the method of CONSENTING to JOIN the political group SUBJECT to the tax in question called “the State”.

1. “United States”

  1. United StatesP: Political/nation.
  2. United States50: 50 bodies politic. No USPI. Private and foreign and constitutionally protected.
  3. United StatesG: 50 States + DC in their geographical senses. DomesticG locality with respect to United StatesJ
  4. United StatesJ: All federal property, offices, agents, contracts, etc. Federal supremacy applies. USPI involved.

NOTES:

United StatesG is the geography that includes the 50 states in the following cases:

  1. Elections: Involve federal preemption originating in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 and NOT Article 1, Section 8: When you elect to receive federal privileges, meaning PUBLIC property, you surrender the protections of Article 1, Section 8 in favor of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 as a result of the Minimum Contacts Doctrine, the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine, and the Public Rights Doctrines of the U.S. Supreme Court.
    1.1. American nationals or aliens filing the 1040NR as “nonresident aliens” and “effectively connecting” by election as described in 26 U.S.C. §864(c). Congress by default doesn’t have civil jurisdiction over your property in a state so you have to make an election to CREATE that jurisdiction by your consent.
    1.2. American nationals or aliens filing the 1040 and making the “U.S. person” election under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) and thereby making their earnings taxable worldwide. American nationals and aliens have to MISREPRESENT their domicile or residence as being within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress to do so. Both should be filing the 1040NR. We conclude this from a careful reading of the following:
    U.S. v. Goelet, 232 U.S. 293 (1914) and U.S. v. Bennett, 232 U.S. 299 (1914), FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/u-s-v-goelet-232-u-s-293-1914-and-u-s-v-bennett-232-u-s-299-1914/
    In addition, aliens should be filing the 1040NR PLUS the Form 8840 to make a closer connection election in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(2)(C)(i) and 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2.
  2. Privileged Alien Commerce within the COUNTRY United States*:
    2.1. Connected with the privileges of alienage by virtue of the foreign affairs functions of Congress under Article, 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
    2.2. Relates to aliens abroad NOT protected by the constitution.
    2.3. This too is a type of election, because the choice by an alien residing abroad to do business in our country automatically comes with international obligations enforced by the Law of Nations. These international obligations CANNOT and DO NOT apply within the country to nationals of that country.

The origin of item 1 above is explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in:

“It may be admitted that the reserved [PRIVATE, constitutional] rights of the States [as well as the People under the 10th Amendment], such as the right to pass laws, to give effect to laws through executive action, to administer justice through the courts, and to employ all necessary agencies for legitimate purposes of state [or even SELF] government, are not proper subjects of the taxing power of Congress. But it cannot be admitted that franchises [which are privileged PUBLIC property] granted by a State are necessarily exempt from taxation; for franchises are property, often very valuable and productive property; and when not conferred for the purpose of giving effect to some reserved power of a State, seem to be as properly objects of taxation as any other property.”

[Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 155-56 (1911) (citing Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533) (emphasis added); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17853944152368373401

The origin of item 2 above is described by the U.S. Supreme Court below. Notice the phrase “implied license”, which is synonymous with “privilege”. The origin of the word “foreign” in this ruling is the constitution and being POLITICALLY foreign, not CIVILLY foreign. This is because the constitution is a political document while civil statutes are CIVIL in nature and acquire the force of law by choosing a voluntary domicile within their venue:

The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption ‘from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found’ were stated as follows: ‘When private individuals of one nation [states of the Unions are “nations” under the law of nations] spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it.  The implied license, therefore, under which they enter, can never be construed to grant such exemption.’ 7 Cranch, 144.

In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction, rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war; and that the implied license, under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants, for purposes of business or pleasure, can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See, also, Carlisle v. U.S. (1872) 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877) 95 U.S. 210; Wildenhus’ Case (1887) 120 U.S. 1, 7 Sup.Ct. 385; Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. (1889) 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604, 9 Sup.Ct. 623.

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765]

All elections in item 1 above relating to American nationals or aliens residing on land protected by the Constitution in the 50 states are MISTAKEN because of the Fifth Amendment and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine and the fact that those rights are UNALIENABLE in relation to a real, de jure government. See:

USPI thru Changing the Status of Your PROPERTY to Domestic
Section 3: Consequences of making ALL government payments PUBLIC property AFTER they are received without your consent or permission
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/uspi-thru-domestic-source/#3._Consequences

United StatesG is what we call the VIRTUAL United StatesG. It is used in the following cases, which invoke federal supremacy under the Supremacy clause in Article VI, Clause 2 and cause federal law to preempt state law:

  1. Federal subject matters enumerated in Constitution Article 1, Section 8.
  2. Federal property control under Constitution Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 within the states of the Union, such as the “U.S. person” status found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).

Thus, United StatesG is a physical place where USPI CAUSES federal preemption and a change in the choice of law governing specified property. Choice of law is further discussed in:

Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

United StatesG is the relevant locality when discussing United StatesJ. When Subject Matter Jurisdiction is in play, StateG is 100% irrelevant. The most clear explanation of this fact is found in the following court case:

“From the viewpoint of the Virgin Islands, citizens of the United States residing in the Virgin Islands must be considered as resident aliens, and citizens of the United States not residing in the Virgin Islands must be treated as nonresident aliens. With respect to the tax status of citizens of the United States who are residents of the Virgin Islands see Rev.Rul. 60-291, 1960-2 C.B. 407. With respect to the tax on nonresident alien individuals see section 871 of the Code.”

[Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d. 301 (1974); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18118242110028613875]

If we substitute United States for the Virgin Islands and vice versa, it would read as follows:

From the viewpoint of the United States, citizens [read domiciliaries not NATIONALS] of the Virgin Islands residing in the United States must be considered as resident aliens, and citizens of the Virgin Islands not residing in the United States must be treated as nonresident aliens. With respect to the tax status of citizens of the Virgin Islands who are residents of the United States see xxxxxxx. With respect to the tax on nonresident alien individuals see section 871 of the Code.

This is very helpful (not to mention authoritative) in explaining the purpose of the geographical sense and explaining who a “citizen” of the United StatesJ is—a political “citizen” who, through election, falls within the “domestic” taxing jurisdiction of the United StatesG. We had NEVER seen the geographical sense called a “taxing jurisdiction.” before reading this case. We assumed it was, but that was pure speculation. Now we have something authoritative.

Furthermore, since the term “domestic” refers to both the governmental source of the franchise (domestic SMJ) and the United StatesG (domestic taxing jurisdiction), we can conclude that my depiction of United StatesG as a singular “red” entity, rather than a collection of 51 jurisdictions, is indeed correct. If it was regarded as a collection of 51 jurisdictions, you could not relate the term “domestic” to it.

Since we know that United StatesG is in fact a domestic taxing jurisdiction under federal law, then ANY other component making up the “domestic” United StatesG is distinct and therefore foreign—proving that tax status, whether foreign or domestic, is an election. We searched of the words “taxing jurisdiction” and found several references to the “taxing jurisdiction” of Montana, Oklahoma, New York, and Connecticut—just to name a few. This too proves that when it comes to CIVIL/DOMICILED persons (natural and juristic), tax status can be foreign or domestic through election.

Ultimately, all federal franchises must be implemented in United StatesG using civil statuses domiciled in the District of Columbia (seat of government per 4 U.S.C. §72) but occupied by volunteers with a foreign domicile. Domicile of the franchisee is irrelevant once the OFFICE and the OFFICER become consensually connected. That legal connection between the OFFICE and the OFFICER the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “quasi-contract” in Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935). The OFFICER then becomes “clothed with a public interest” at that point. This consensual legal connection is why we say that the OFFICER becomes a “resident agent” for the office.

The virtual United StatesG is the applicable locality in issues that involve United StatesJ. StateG is in play in areas of local jurisdiction and StateSMJ. But as soon as United StatesJ is at issue…THE STATE BECOMES IRRELEVANT (in that context), and the applicable locality is now United StatesG.

Which geographical entity is “in play” is a function of which laws are in play:

  1. Federal law – United StatesG
  2. State law – StateG

Both exist simultaneously. But only one is active at any given time FOR A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE or a SPECIFIC activity that is subject to regulation or taxation.

It’s errant to call United StatesG a Local Jurisdiction (LJ) because that, we believe, would serve to destroy the separation of powers. But it does exist to provide a method of contrast with respect to preemption. The jurisdiction at issue is SMJ—not Local Jurisdiction, like the District of Columbia.

None of these nuances are ever going to be shared in statutory definitions or even court rulings. They are hidden to protect mainly “third rail issues” that might explain how the system works and truly empower you the reader. The statute writers want to confuse, confound, and subjugate the reader, not empower them.

In United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that PRIVATE property under the Fifth Amendment is not only a Federal Question, but a matter of LOCAL law and not federal law. This is proof that United StatesG can’t include states of the Union or recognize their laws WITHOUT your consent and election. This is because United StatesG deals ONLY with PUBLIC property, not PRIVATE property. It is also synonymous with what the courts call a “taxing jurisdiction” in Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d. 301 (1974); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18118242110028613875. It is a “public property domain” that is part of what the Causby court called “the public domain”.

See the delicate interplay between PUBLIC and PRIVATE? If its FOREIGN and PRIVATE and protected by the constitution, local law governs. If its PUBLIC and DOMESTIC, federal subject matter governs choice of law. What switches the choice of law is:

  1. Your consent or election to convert the property from PRIVATE to PUBLIC and
  2. The Public Rights Doctrine of U.S. Supreme Court that it triggers, and
  3. Federal supremacy that excludes state law beyond that point.

All the above processes involve the laws of property and are governed by WHO the owner of the affected property is at each step: PRIVATE (you) or PUBLIC (government). This is proof that United StatesG is distinct from the jurisdictions of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Lastly, another way of describing federal preemption is as follows:

You as the owner of yourself determine the “choice of law”. When you consent to something, you create jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction changes the law that applies to the scenario in which you are consenting. This is just like when you write a contract. The owner of the property being sold typically writes the contract. All good contracts, like all good franchises, dictate the “choice of law” applying to any dispute under that contract.

You might then describe this site essentially as “government contracting 101”. Choice of law is described in:

Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

For those who are curious, federal supremacy/preemption is discussed in:

Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer, Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45825

If you would like a set of tests you can use to determine the context of the term “United States” in any statute, see:

HOW TO: Techniques for discerning the context for statutory “United States” as either United StatesG (Geographical) or United StatesJ (Legal), FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-techniques-for-discerning-the-context-for-statutory-united-states/

2. “State”

  1. StateP (political/state)
  2. StateG (geographical extent of body politic)
  3. StateJ (state government, property, offices, agents, contracts, etc.)

3. Relationship of the above terms to each other

For a detailed exposition of how all the above terms relate to each other, see:

INTERNAL and EXTERNAL, DOMESTIC and FOREIGN terms, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/internal-and-external-domestic-and-foreign-terms/

4. Important Note about United StatesJ

  1. Since the government is just a collection of offices and property, and since offices ARE property, then government is just PUBLIC PROPERTY.
  2. The U.S. Supreme Court calls the collection of PUBLIC PROPERTY that IS “the government” by the name “the national domain” in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 389 (1857).
  3. Whether you call it PUBLIC PROPERTY or “government”, it’s therefore the SAME THING.
  4. The constitution is just a trust indenture that manages this PUBLIC PROPERTY.
    4.1. The ORIGINAL beneficiaries of the trust are “we the people and our posterity”.
    4.2. The CURRENT LIVING beneficiaries are called “the STATE”, which is sovereign.
    4.3. The GRANTORS are “We the People” in states of the Union at the time the union was formed.
    4.4. The CORPUS is “the national domain”.
    4.5. The trust creates a corporation called “the body corporate” that all trustees serve within.
  5. The trustees within the “body corporate” are broken into THREE groups:
    5.1. Executive
    5.2. Legislative
    5.3. Judicial
  6. The TRUSTEES are the OFFICERS filling the OFFICES within the “body corporate”.
  7. The property MANAGED by the trustees are called “PUBLIC PROPERTY” or the “public domain”.
  8. If you volunteer for ANY civil statutory status such as “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, etc. you JOIN the trustees within the body corporate within the Executive Branch, whether you realize it or not.
  9. Equivocation surrounding the use of United StatesP and United StatesG are used to deceive and recruit more volunteer SLAVES like you.

IMPORTANT: There is NO WAY TO AVOID becoming synonymous with “the government” if you:

  1. Donate your property to the public by connecting it VOLUNTARILY to the SSN/TIN “franchise mark” or
  2. Volunteer to become surety for a civil status that IS public property in order to seek privileges, benefits, or public property controlled or received by the status. Examples of such a civil statuses are CIVIL statutory “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, “person”, etc.

Ironically, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 389 (1857) mentioned above was about slaves as PROPERTY, which is EXACTLY what you effectively BECOME by adopting ANY CIVIL STATUTORY STATUS or pursuing any government privilege. WATCH OUT! For more on how these mechanisms work, see:

  1. Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
    https://sedm.org/LibertyU/GovFranchises.pdf
  2. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

Franchises, in fact, are the MAIN method of implementing SOCIALISM in an otherwise free society. The consequences of doing so are that government becomes a pagan deity and everyone becomes SERFS as described in:

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf

The U.S. Supreme Court further described the scenario of the government owning everything in the following case:

Most modern legislation upon this subject has been directed (1) to the requirement that every citizen shall disclose the amount of his property subject to taxation and shall contribute in proportion to such amount; and (2) to the voidance of double taxation. As said by Adam Smith in his “Wealth of Nations,” Book V., Ch. 2, Pt. 2, “the subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. The expense of Government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interest in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called equality or inequality of taxation.“

[Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 US 194, 203 (1905); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14163786757633929654]

The owner of the “great estate” above is the GOVERNMENT. They describe the NATION as a “great nation” but its individual members as mere CHATTEL. You’re just a TENANT on the King’s land who has to pay rent. After all, absolute ownership implies the RIGHT TO EXCLUDE. If you were the absolute owner of your PRIVATE property, you would have the ability to exercise the right to EXCLUDE the government from using or benefiting from it. Instead, the court effectively says you have to RENT it from them above as a tenant on the slave plantation. Your ownership is only an “equitable interest” but the REAL owner is the government. You’re just a slave or “sharecropper”. That plantation is described in:

  1. The Jones Plantation Film
    https://jonesplantationfilm.com
  2. The Jones Plantation
    https://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk
  3. The Real Matrix
    https://sedm.org/media/the-real-matrix/

VELCOME TO AMERIKA, COMMUNIST PLANTATION SLAVE COMRADE! Communism, after all, consists of socialism plus propaganda. The government owns EVERYTHING and legal propaganda by the legal profession keeps you on the plantation. That propaganda is exhaustively described in:

Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said about the current sad state of affairs. He says basically that if you TRUST anything government says, a cage is reserved fro your on the government plantation:

“It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights… Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
[Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388]

For the MOST ACCURATE description of what it means to be a SLAVE from a CIVIL perspective by virtue of adopting a CIVIL STATUS crafted by the very IMPLEMENTERS of that system of slavery, the state of Virginia just before the Civil War, see:

What it Means to be a Slave from a Civil Perspective, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/CivilStatus-Bailey%20v.%20Poindexter_s%20Ex_r_%2055%20Va.%20132-Slave%20civil%20status.pdf

There are REMARKABLE similarities between the way most Americans live today and the way SLAVES lived back then. The slave mongers are the JUDGES who ENFORCE the legalized slavery against the legally ignorant and uninformed. If you say in court “I never consented and the Declaration of Independence says my consent is mandatory”, the judge gets the whip out. A more sophisticated understanding of law is mandatory to make him put the whip away. AND, the government slave mongers have made SURE you will NEVER acquire that legal knowledge in public school or even in LAW SCHOOL! VERY, VERY few lawyers we have ever met are aware of what is on this website. To even ADMIT that they knew any of this information would constitute an admission that they have been engaging in malpractice for nearly all of their legal career!

NOW do you understand why we say that the “citizen of the United StatesJ” mentioned on the opening page is SYNONYMOUS with the FOLLOWING “citizen”?

“A federal corporation operating within a state is considered a domestic corporation rather than a foreign corporation.  The United StatesJ government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” 
[19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §883 (2003)]

“A foreign corporation is one that derives its existence solely from the laws of another state, government, or country, and the term is used indiscriminately, sometimes in statutes, to designate either a corporation created by or under the laws of another state or a corporation created by or under the laws of a foreign country.”

“A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only.”
[19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §886 (2003)]

Posted in Definitions and tagged