DEBATE: Whether You are an “individual” as a nonresident alien not engaged in a “trade or business”

By ftsig-admin | March 25, 2025

EDITORIAL:

For an extended debate about whether there is such a thing as a CIVIL “non-person” or “non-individual”, see:

Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023, Section 20
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf

STATEMENT:

I cracked the code on “individual.” They are sneaky! The attempts to coverup confirm the schemes!

I found where a 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c) is an “individual.”

It’s implicit….very clever! They had to do it the way they did to hide what you and I know to be true.

Read the first sentence of 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a) very carefully. That’s the acceptance and duty to perform provision.

…every “individual” who IS (emphasis added) a citizen or resident of the “United States”^G….

That’s the U.S. person subclass….we established that.

But then you ask yourself, “Where is a “citizen” of the “United States”^P ever identified as an “individual“? It’s not—explicitly that is! It SEEMS to be only tied to persons with a duty to perform. But it’s not!

The answer is found in the definition of “individual” itself, right in 26 C.F.R §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii), when they define “Nonresident alien individual.”

It’s right there! The “citizen” of the “United States”^P who is NOT in the domestic subclass (and who is also clearly not an “alien individual,” and therefore not a resident alien) is embraced by that portion of the “Nonresident alien individual” definition that “…means persons described in sec. 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B), …” Said natural person who is a 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c) “citizen” IS a “nonresident alien” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) until he he elects himself into the domestic subclass. And therefore, he IS a “nonresident alien individual” until that election is made.

Ironically, the term “nonresident alien” actually includes a 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c) “citizen” of the “United States”^P — but only one who has not made the domestic election!

That was the only way they could do it while still masking the fact that the “citizen” of the “United States”^G is a subclass of the 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c) “citizen” of the “United States”^P. Brilliant! But we busted them!

They couldn’t give that up! That’s 99.99% of the scheme.

Therefore, there is zero infirmity with calling yourself an “individual.” The infirmity comes to the “individual” by being in the U.S. person subclass, or being a NRA individual with ECTI or NEC.

Those “individuals” fall under the statutory duty to perform provisions.

That obfuscation is WAAAY too complex to have occurred by accident.

They needed a term for a non-participating natural person without revealing that you can ACTUALLY NOT PARTICIPATE! That’s how they did it! They hid it in 26 C.F.R §1.1441-1 where no average American would even waste time looking! Remarkable!!!

That is actually logical proof that we are correct! 100%!

So, going back to 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a):

…every “individual” who IS a citizen or resident of the “United States”^G….

Could read…

… every “Nonresident alien individual” (remember, this term embraces a 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c) “citizen” who hasn’t made the domestic election) who IS a citizen or resident of the “United States”^G (implies the election has now been made) …. has the income tax imposed (aka, he is now an “individual” person with a duty to perform).

Do you see it?

OUR RESPONSE:

Problem is:

“nonresident alien” is not an election. Its a DEFAULT WITHOUT a U.S. person election. As I said be fore, its not privileged by itself and is a “DE-ELECTION”.
1040NR form itself does not USE the term “individual” to describe the filer. Therefore filing this form does NOT constitute an implied election to become an “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL”.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040nr.pdf
1040 form DOES use the term “individual” in the upper left corner: “U.S. individual.
Definition of “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) doesn’t define what a nonresident alien who is NOT an “Individual”.
26 U.S.C. §873(c) provides reasonable notice to those who are NOT privileged that taking deductions MAKES them privileged. Like U.S. person, they HAVE to give you notice if they are enforcing a DUTY.
So there IS a duty to perform for “nonresident alien INDIVIDUALS” in 26 U.S.C. §873 but NONE is imposed on a “nonresident alien” or even anyone who files a 1040NR UNTIL the elect privileged deductions, which are PUBLIC property.
WITHOUT notice like that in 26 U.S.C. §873 of how one BECOMES an “individual”, there can be no duty to perform.
Everything they CREATE they own. We already agreed to that. Things they DIDN’T create and don’t own cannot be defined. “nonresident alien” is never defined. “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL” is defined.
“individual” is not used to refer to the “citizen” defined in 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c) and therefore it is NOT privileged. When you hook “individual” to anything, its privileged. 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a) and (b) call it an “individual” so its privileged. You can’t have a duty to perform WITHOUT being either an “individual” or its PARENT, which is “person” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1).
The duty to perform can clearly be seen attached to the “trade or business” privilege by examining 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a), which EXCLUDES nonresident aliens NOT engaged in a “trade or business” in 26 U.S.C. §871(a) from liability. They are “non-persons”:
https://sedm.org/u-s-department-of-the-treasury-officially-recognizes-non-resident-non-persons-and-nontaxpayers/

The above is confirmed by 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) says those NOT engage in the privilege are a “foreign estate”.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Uggghhhhh…..you don’t see it!

Not everything they define is privileged or comes with an obligation.

OUR RESPONSE:

Yes it does. If I call you a whore but don’t enforce the consequences of it, have I damaged you if everyone ELSE TREATS you like a whore but I don’t because of what I called you?

THEIR RESPONSE:

You can arrive to the answer quite logically. You have to diagram it.

You will NEVER see it by just reading.

Is “citizen“ at 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c) a privileged status? No.

There is zero infirmity with the word “individual.” None.

OUR RESPONSE:

Everything they CREATE they own. We already agreed to that. Things they DIDN’T create and don’t own cannot be defined. “nonresident alien” is never defined. “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL” is defined.

THEIR RESPONSE:

So you think a “citizen” at 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c) is a person with a duty to perform?

OUR RESPONSE:

“individual” is not used to refer to the “citizen” defined in 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c) and therefore it is NOT privileged. When you hook “individual” to anything, its privileged. 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a) and (b) call it an “individual” so its privileged.

You can’t have a duty to perform WITHOUT being either an “individual” or its PARENT, which is “person” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1).

THEIR RESPONSE:

You have a blind spot on this one.

OUR RESPONSE:

You have a blind spot: Show me where:

The obligation to pay in 26 C.F.R §1.1-1 includes “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL” not connected to the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise. NO SUCH THING. All the NRAs listed there are in 26 U.S.C. §871(b) and 26 U.S.C. §877(b) and are connected to a trade or business.
Those NOT connected to the “trade or business” franchise get REASONABLE notice of how they acquire the PRIVILEGED status of “individual” and the obligation to PAY in 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a). 26 U.S.C. §873(c ) says you MUST be connected to the “trade or business” franchise to take deductions and be a “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL”.

This article explains the above.

Proof of Facts: U.S. Department of the Treasury OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZES “non-resident non-persons” and “nontaxpayers”!, SEDM
https://sedm.org/u-s-department-of-the-treasury-officially-recognizes-non-resident-non-persons-and-nontaxpayers/

And you can’t rebut it without proving the above. You CAN”T prove it and YOU KNOW IT.

And YES, there IS such a thing as a “nonresident alien” who is a “NON-PERSON”. Here it is:

Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf

TOUCHE!

Expanded the article to include the above:

THEIR RESPONSE:

Your pdf publications are not authoritative. No offense, but they are replete with errors on nearly every page. But that’s beside the point.

You are incorrectly assuming the duty attaches to being an individual when it is the individual that attaches to the duty.

The proof is literally in 26 C.F.R §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii).

You claim to be a “nonresident alien” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B). Well it’s right there in the definition.

Does that definition connect to ECTI or NEC? No it does not. So what’s the problem?

Regarding your points above:

26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a) is the acceptance and duty to perform provision—no argument there. A U.S. person always has a duty to perform once that status is elected. Again—no dispute there.

As it relates to an NRA. Where in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) is there a duty to perform? Rhetorical question—it’s not there.

Where is a duty to perform under 26 U.S.C. §871(b)? Oh! In the words of ”imposition of tax”! And when is it imposed? When the NRA individual IS ENGAGED IN A TRADE OR BUSINESS. What if the NRA individual is NOT engaged in a trade or business? Do you suppose he still has a duty to perform because he’s an individual? Hello!

Answer that then I will address your second point.

OUR RESPONSE:

Nothing you say is authoritative either. That’s just an excuse to avoid the evidence contained in them or the obligation to read or rebut them. But the evidence you provide from third parties that is admissible and part of your speech is. That’s the same approach we take to our publications. So either nothing you say is admissible and is irrelevant, or BOTH your statements and are publications are relevant.

This is clearly a chicken or egg first problem.

There is no SEPARATE definition for “nonresident alien”. 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) doesn’t define it EITHER. By ITSELF and absent the privileged word “individual” it is UNDEFINED.
I don’t claim to be a “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL” but a “nonresident alien NON-PERSON” because not attached to a privilege.
26 U.S.C. §873 gives me reasonable notice of HOW I BECOME a privileged “individual” because it HAS TO. The fact that I don’t take deductions and have no ECI income is proof that I’m not engaged in the main privilege, which is “trade or business”.
26 C.F.R §1.1441-1(c)(3) refers only to “foreign persons” in 26 C.F.R §1441-1(c), all of whom are aliens. The only NON-ALIENS are in 873. And its not even defined. Its DESCRIBED by what it is NOT, which is NOT a “U.S. person”.
The duty to perform is that in 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a) because it is an INDIVIDUAL like the “U.S. person” also listed by it, and NOT just a “nonresident alien” absent the word “individual”. Under Ejusdem generis, everyone there is privileged because they are ALL grouped together.
26 C.F.R §1.6012-1(b) talks about a “nonresident alien individual” not engaged in the privileged “trade or business” activity” but who still MIGHT have “gross income” under 26 U.S.C. §871(a). That gross income is a government payment made to an agent of the national government who became an agent by contracting to procure the right to RECEIVE the payment at some point. It lists FIRPTA as one source in 26 C.F.R §1.871-10, which 26 U.S.C. §864(c) also identifies as ECI, so they are STILL engaged in the privilege. NOTHING listed there is 26 U.S.C. §871(a) payments, so they aren’t receiving a privilege.
So once again, you don’t become an OBJECT of legislation without possessing or using a privilege of some kind, including the “individual” status.
The imposition of the tax in 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a) is not a duty, because it never uses the word “made liable”, but only “liable TO” that does NOT create an enforceable liability. So that to is NOT a duty even in the case of nonresident alien individuals UNTIL they volunteer for the status.
How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

More at:

Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception about the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf

Ask yourself: WHO exactly creates the “INDIVIDUAL”, given that we agree that the creator is the owner?

YOU DO, when you claim the status and accept/consent/elect THEIR definition. They can’t define anything unless they OWN everything it attaches to or affects adversely with ANY obligation. To accept THEIR definition, is to accept and consent to the quasi-contract. This is EXACTLY how it works with “U.S. person” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) as well.

What if I define the term “individual” and ALL terms on the 1040NR I file as NOT deriving from THEIR definitions? Now I become the Merchant and THEY are the buyer of my private property because I never elected to attach my private property to their CIVIL definitions and quasi-contract. YOU OWN YOURSELF. If it doesn’t work this way, then you DON’T own yourself and you are literally a SLAVE. You can’t have it both ways, dude.

EVERY act of CONTRACTNG has TWO creators. They create the definitions as the original merchant and owner of ONLY the definition. YOU replace the definitions as the owner of yourself and replace THEM as the Merchant and owner of the NEW definitions.

The ability to WRITE definitions ALWAYS originates in ABSOLUTE ownership of the PROPERTY affected by the definition.

THEIR RESPONSE:

If NRA is not a definition, you have no authority to claim you are one. It is a definition. It falls under 26 U.S.C. §7701 which is entitled DEFINITIONS. It’s defined in the negative. But it is a definition.

It is not a chicken and egg issue. Status ALWAYS comes before liability—ALWAYS.

You are very incorrect on this one.

No judge on earth would agree with you that 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) is not a definition.

And based on your logic, you cannot even claim NRA non-person status. Which is a 100% frivolous claim. You are a person because you are an individual.

You may not have a duty to perform. But you are an individual, thus you are a person.

The definitions are very logical. Conclusions are drawn from logical assembly and reason.

Status first. Liability second.

You’re assuming a liability imputes a status. Not possible in the code but through “curve fitting.”

Your very position has been deemed frivolous by the courts.

People claiming not to be a “person.”

OUR RESPONSE:

The ability to write definitions that impose CIVIL obligations against people or property you don’t own is THEFT. You essentially are saying its FRIVOLOUS to claim that theft is illegal. That’s absurd. Here’s proof of the THEFT:

https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

Obligations attach even to “individual” because once you adopt any status even MENTIONED in the I.R.C., now you have a duty to READ the damn thing and avoid the obligations that attach to it. Even if that duty is the ONLY duty in the code, its still an obligation to have to read 9,500 pages of what Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil called “gibberish”.

STEALING is a crime, and stealing my time by forcing me to read a code after PRESUMING without PROVING that I’m subject to it is THEFT.

THEIR RESPONSE:

That is based on an incorrect assumption.

The good news is, I believe this is the last point of contention that we have. I just need to keep working on it.

OUR RESPONSE:

The whole TITLE is nothing but a PRESUMPTION, and presumptions that impair constitutional rights or private property violate due process.

1 U.S.C. §204 says the entire TITLE is a “prima facie presumption“.

prima facie=presumption=violation of due process if I don’t accept or adopt the definition as applying to me.

THEIR RESPONSE:

That is whining. We are beyond that. We are big boys and are going to bust this thing open. But the BS positions need to be dispatched. You have some deep seated attitudes about law that will not die easily.

Constitutional citizenship and statutory citizenship. Remember that one?

OUR RESPONSE:

Section 8 of the above link entitled: “8. FACTUAL Burden of proof on those who want to DISPROVE this article”

You STILL can’t satisfy that burden or proof.

THEIR RESPONSE:

I can’t refute that which is already predicated on error.

OUR RESPONSE:

Cop out. You haven’t proven WHAT is in error.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Here’s one you won’t answer:

What comes first? Status or liability?

OUR RESPONSE:

You missed some steps:

Legislative definition of offer as a civil status as a MERCHANT.
Acceptance of the definition as a BUYER through ELECTION.
Catalog of Elections in the Internal Revenue Code, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/catalog-of-elections-in-the-internal-revenue-code/
Acquisition of the status by tacit procuration and formation of “quasi-contract”.
Duty to perform IF there is REAL consideration.

THEIR RESPONSE:

I agree with every word the IRS presents here. 100% correct on their part.

Notice they use the term “individual.”

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, IRS
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-arguments-section-i-a-to-c#contentionc3

OUR RESPONSE:

That article is a tautology, because it presupposes the party is a statutory “Taxpayer”. That article is refuted ad nauseum :

Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf

Notice what they did NOT say: Constitutional private human not engaged in a privilege is not a civil statutory “person”

See section 19.4 for rebuttal:

Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf

THEIR RESPONSE:

The Internal Revenue Code clearly defines “person” and sets forth WHICH persons are subject to federal taxes.

WHICH!!! Not ALL!

OUR RESPONSE:

All those “persons” are either privileged aliens or those non-aliens who make elections. IT does not and cannot address anyone else without committing identity theft.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Nonsense. The code clearly demonstrates otherwise, and I have successfully proved it in a $__MM real estate transaction.

This non-person position you have is based on fear and a deeply-rooted position you have maintained for decades. It’s time to let it go and level-up! C’mon dude!

It’s complete BS! And I’m on your side! You gotta be more sophisticated than this! I spelled it out precisely! There is no infirmity with being a “citizen” under 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(c), being an “individual” under 26 C.F.R §1.1441-1(c)(3), or being a “person” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1).

Remember….they use sets and subsets! The issue is whether or not you are the “citizen,” “individual,” or “person” with a duty to perform.

That’s the real issue. They still got you tripping over the “Gimme’s”!

Sets—subsets!

If they can get you to reject the set, they got you making a frivolous claim.

The real issue is the subset.

The “person” of 26 U.S.C. §6671 and 7343 are subsets of the “person” of 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1).

They follow this set-subset pattern.

OUR RESPONSE:

I’m not mentioned in there. Prove that:

I can acquire ANY civil statutory status without a domicile and without consent and without injuring anyone else. Here is proof they CAN’T
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf
Show me WHERE i got “reasonable notice” of how I became ANYTHING in the CIVIL code WITHOUT my consent and without them owning me as someone even affected by the definition without STEALING.
Prove to me that those who claim “nonresident alien” but “non-individual” status have an obligation mentioned in 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a). Everyone is listed there EXCEPT them.

Notice I’m not arguing that I’m not an “individual”. I’m simply defining all terms in all communications to exclude me from EVERYTHING in any enactment of congress CIVILLY. If I can’t do that, I don’t own myself and I’m a slave in violation of the thirteenth amendment. That slavery BEGINS with having to even read a code that I want nothing to do with. Justice is the right to be left ALONE. Being forced to read a code I don’t want to even worry about is compelled association and compelled quasi-contracting.

THEIR RESPONSE:

It’s “sovereign citizen”-esque. I want to be one side of the iron sharpens iron here and level up the argument to where it’s respectable—not rejected outright by EVERYBODY you will present that position to.

You’re still fighting their code when the escape hatches are everywhere. But you cannot make your own unless you want to be in the poor house.

OUR RESPONSE:

Everyone they can legislate for is a CUSTOMER of their civil statutory protection franchise called “domicile”. You want to force me to be a customer in the “social compact/contract”. Having to even READ that contract is proof you want to force me to be such a customer.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Lol. Nonsense. I’m trying to level up our game here.

OUR RESPONSE:

Everyone who would reject it is marketing a service I don’t want and forcing me to be a customer of a domicile/social compact I want nothing to do with.

If anyone BUT the government said you had to be party to a contract or claim a status under it, you would be yelling and screaming. Why do you apply different standards to government, which is supposed to be equal to everyone else under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment?

Your premise is that throwing them a bone and meeting the middle is somehow HONORABLE. That approach comes with a CURSE according to God himself.

Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]

“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.

“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]

The thing being BORROWED above is civil statutory privileges. You’re promoting being CURSED and mutinying against God.

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

THEIR RESPONSE:

I’m trying to help develop legal arguments for ALL READERS so they can apply them without having to risk being frivolous while also making a living.

OUR RESPONSE:

Defining all terms on your own correspondence to exclude you from civil jurisdiction has never been labeled as frivolous and it CAN’T be. That would violate the First Amendment.

You can walk like a duck and quack like a duck and sound like a duck by using their own words and forms, but defining those words to mean you are NOT a duck.

I define the words to mean I’m the ONLY merchant and the ONLY duck hunter and they are always a BUYER when dealing with me.

If they can hunt so can I. That’s the Sun Tzu proverb of war: Imitate your enemies tactics and use their own strength against them. The thing I’m SELLING is myself and my private, constitutionally protected private property. And if they won’t recognize that property, they are NO LONGER a government. This is because the ONLY reason they were created is to PROTECT PRIVATE property. That protection BEGINS with RECOGNIZING and ENFORCING rights that are private property.

I’m still waiting for answers to the above 3 questions. There are no premises there. Only questions about things we both already agree on, like

The requirement for reasonable notice,
The origin of CIVIL obligations being VOLUNTARY domicile, and
How it can ever be frivolous to define terms on forms to exclude you from civil jurisdiction without violating the first amendment and self-ownership.
How I can have a CIVIL STATUTORY obligation WITHOUT the phrase “liable for” in Subtitle A as someone who consents to NOTHING including any civil statuses they created and own. Its IMPOSSIBLE.

THEIR RESPONSE:

What three questions? You’ve posted so much stuff I can’t keep up with it all.

The IRC gives reasonable notice

Your domicile is irrelevant if you take on the franchise status. If you don’t then your status is defined as NON-franchise.

The real world deals with banks, brokerages, lenders, and title companies to name a few. You are not offering practical solutions for anyone with your non-person “stuff.”

The IRC mentions liable for all over the place.

OUR RESPONSE:

Here they are again:

I’m not mentioned in there. Prove that:

I can acquire ANY civil statutory status without a domicile and without consent and without injuring anyone else. Here is proof they CAN’T
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf
Show me WHERE i got “reasonable notice” of how I became ANYTHING in the CIVIL code WITHOUT my consent and without them owning me as someone even affected by the definition without STEALING.
Prove to me that those who claim “nonresident alien” but “non-individual” status have an obligation mentioned in 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a). Everyone is listed there EXCEPT them.

I refuse to allow any IRS or State revenue officer to call me or any client a “taxpayer”. Just because I may look like one or have the attributes of one does not necessarily make me one. To one IRS lady, and I have no reason to doubt that she fits this category, I use the following example. “Miss you have all of the equipment to be a whore, but that does not make you one by presumption.” Until it is proven by a preponderance of evidence I must assume you are a lady and you will be treated as such. Please have the same respect for me, and don’t slander my reputation and defame my character by calling me a whore for the government, which is what a “taxpayer” is.

[Eugene Pringle]

DITTO for “individual” or “person” because GOD calls people who adopt a CIVIL status that is GOVERNMENT property WHORES in Revelation:

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

So does the supreme court in essence:

https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/

THEIR RESPONSE:

You’re frankly being stubborn and a bit lazy here. If you work slowly and methodically through my original post, you will find I am correct.

You cannot identify one spot ANYWHERE in the IRC where a liability attaches to an “individual” by virtue of that status alone. The “individual” ALWAYS has some other excise taxable nexus that creates the 26 U.S.C. §6671 and 26 U.S.C. §7343 person. You’re rendering all of your brilliant work to the trash heap with this ridiculous and unsupportable position.

You’re whipping through the text and seeing what you want to see. For God’s sake, read through it critically and like a judge or engineer. It’s actually crystal clear and a thing of genius. Respect it for what it does and use the “outs” they give you.

OUR RESPONSE:

If I could do that without using their privileged public property, I absolutely would, my friend.

We both agree that anything they legislatively create is their property and “domestic”. But you apply different standards when dealing with “individual” or “person”. That’s hypocrisy. You can’t have it both ways and need to at least be consistent.
We both agree that every civil status has a domicile, including “individual” and that the status and the person FILLING the status are not synonymous. So the “individual” isn’t the same as the human voluntarily filling it.

I’m just trying to be consistent. Anything NOT consistent is irrational and a presumed LIE under the law of non-contradiction.

Your approach doesn’t satisfy the law of non-contradiction so it can’t be truth in its entirety.

Does an “individual” have a domicile in DC or not? And if it does, just like the U.S. person, then you have to volunteer for THAT also.

To “fill the cup like water” like the above video implies VOLUNTEERING for a fiction that is their property. You ANIMATE their STATUS and become their PUPPET. God says you can’t consent to borrow anything from them.

“My son, if sinners entice you,
Do not consent.
11 If they say, “Come with us,
Let us lie in wait to shed blood;
Let us lurk secretly for the innocent [the NONTAXPAYERS] without cause;”
[Prov. 1:10-11, Bible, NKJV]

“You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.”
[Deut 28:12, Bible, NKJV]

“many nations” meaning GOVERNMENTS. I’m lending my private property with conditions but I won’t borrow or use anything they created and therefore OWN

But if I define “individual” to exclude their property in all correspondence, then I’m not borrowing or using their property.

THEIR RESPONSE:

No. We do not agree. You are all over the place and not being methodical at all.

One thing I have learned in the past year—they are very effective and trick-f$&@ing everyone with sets and subsets. They do it with alien, citizen, person, individual, and they did it masterfully in the CTA with their “domestic” requirements for BOIR. They are still duping you. It is as obvious to me as the nose on my face and maybe it’s pride or fear, but you refuse to let go of these “golden calf” notions of your sovereignty.

The relief you want is in the code. But it ain’t happening for your readers and you with the scorched earth approach.

No. An “individual” is not always domiciled in DC. Some are…most are not.

OUR RESPONSE:

Does THE “Individual” in 26 C.F.R §1.1-1(a) have a domicile in dc or not? And if it doesn’t, what makes you believe a “U.S. person” does?

THEIR RESPONSE:

It may. But that is irrelevant.

You make more random, illogical jumps through the code than anyone I have met.

Be methodical.

OUR RESPONSE:

Its irrelevant to apply the SAME standard to all CIVIL statuses, including BOTH U.S. person and individual, which is DOMICILE? What are you smoking?

“It is a settled principle that every person [CIVIL statutory “person”, not human being] must have a domicile somewhere.3 The law permits no individual to be without a domicile,42 and an individual is never without a domicile somewhere.13 Domicile is a continuing thing, and from the moment a person is born he must, at all times, have a domicile .”

[28 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Domicile, §5 Necessity and Number (2003)]

THEIR RESPONSE:

You’re the one that always says the office and the officer are mutually exclusive. I agree. As a U.S. person, the officer’s domicile is IRRELEVANT. He can be domiciled in DC or Timbuktu. It doesn’t matter.

OUR RESPONSE:

But the OFFICE has a domicile in DC. Why not “individual” office as a fiction having a domicile in DC?

THEIR RESPONSE:

An individual can have a domicile in DC. And an individual can be in Texas. And an individual can be in California. So what?

An individual is the officer.

OUR RESPONSE:

You’re conflating the OFFICE with the OFFICER. I’m talking about the CIVIL STATUTORY OFFICE of “individual”, not the human volunteering for it who has a foreign domicile. This works EXACTLY the same as U.S. person.

EVERY civil status is a fiction, not just U.S. person

THEIR RESPONSE:

Ha! See! That’s why you’re confused. You think it’s a franchise status. It clearly is not. And that position renders everything that accompanies it as FRIVOLOUS!

OUR RESPONSE:

EVERYTHING they create is a privilege. Legislation itself is. Here is the PROOF:

“he obligation of one domiciled within a state to pay taxes there, arises from unilateral action of the state government in the exercise of the most plenary of sovereign powers, that to raise revenue to defray the expenses of government and to distribute its burdens equably among those who enjoy its benefits. Hence, domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are inseparable from the responsibility for sharing the costs of government. See Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U.S. 54, 58; Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 14, 17; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 498; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 50.”
[Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]

If ALL civil legislation is NOT a privilege, why would they make the statement above?

THEIR RESPOSNE:

Context: state tax

OUR RESPONSE:

So what. A state is just a mini fed.

THEIR RESPONSE:

No it is not. They are not remotely the same.

OUR RESPONSE:

“invoking the protection of its law” means LITIGATION. If you can invoke the status in litigation, you’re receiving a privilege of invoking their CIVIL STATUTORY protection.

Otherwise you would invoke the constitution and the common law.

Income taxes are RENT on the use of the PRIVILEGED civil statuses as PUBLIC property under the Public rights doctrine. This is true even WITHOUT a direct obligation attached to the status.

“But the Constitution, which guarantees rights and immunities to the citizen, likewise insures to him the privilege of having those rights and immunities judicially declared and protected when such judicial action is properly invoked.”
[Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]

PRIVILEGE, dude!

THEIR RESPONSE:

No argument there. And an individual may or may not have a duty to perform.

Simple question: If the NRA individual of 26 U.S.C. §871(b) is NOT engaged in a trade or business, would he still have a liability because he’s an “individual”?

Yes or No?

OUR RESPONSE:

He would have a liability to read and follow the code and prove he doesn’t so they don’t STEAL his property. That’s enough of a liability to still be an obligation and a slave to the status and the code that implements it.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Chicken shit answer.

Yes or no?

You’re one of the foremost experts on the planet. Yes or no?

OUR RESPONSE:

Chicken shit question. Is an obligation to read and follow CIVIL STATUTES and NOT the common law a liability?

Every citizen of the United States is supposed to know the law, and when a purchaser of one of these drafts began to make the inquiries necessary to ascertain the authority for their acceptance, he must have learned at once that, if received by Russell, [*683] Majors & Waddell, as payment, they were in violation of law, and if received as accommodation paper, they were evasions of this law, and without any shadow of authority.” 7 Wall. 666

[Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall (74 U.S. 169) 666 (1869):
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3197203062421109382]

And is the LOSS of the ability to INVOKE the common law and the constitution by the Public Rights Doctrine an obligation? YES!

THEIR RESPONSE:

26 U.S. Code § 871 – Tax on nonresident alien individuals

(b) Income connected with United States business—graduated rate of tax

(1) Imposition of tax

A nonresident alien individual engaged in trade or business within the United States during the taxable year shall be taxable as provided in section 1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1) or 55 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/55) on his taxable income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.

Does the individual still have a duty if NOT engaged in a trade or business?

Yes or No?

OUR RESPONSE:

Duty is the wrong word. Is he or she STILL PRIVATE and protected by the constitution? He can’t be protected by the constitution and the civil statutes at the SAME time under the Public Rights Doctrine. Its ONE or the OTHER. See:

Catalog of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrines, Litigation Tool #10.020, Section 5.3
https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/SCDoctrines.pdf

THEIR RESPONSE:

Fantasyland. Sovereign citizen stuff.

OUR RESPONSE:

A loss of rights represents an OBLIGATION. That obligation is to NOT invoke the constitution and to ONLY invoke the civil statutory compact and Private Membership Association congress wrote and created.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Frivolous. You’re trying to claim you are not subject to federal law. You are sir.

The question is how are you subject? These laws are legit.

OUR RESPONSE:

Every privilege destroys private rights and private property. That destruction PAYS for the privileges delivered. DUTIES owed to the national government are PUBLIC property that STARTED OUT as PRIVATE property and a private right. That loss of property represents a DUTY. The absence of a PRIVATE right is the logical equivalent of a PUBLIC duty.

THEIR RESPONSE:

The so-called “tax” is legit.

OUR RESPONSE:

Ipse dixit bullshit. Nothing is legit if those enforcing the obligation can’t prove that the property affected by the definitions was their property.

THEIR RESPONSE:

What is the privilege? There’s no privilege associated with simply being an “individual.” You have to go farther.

Nobody is enforcing squat if you do it correctly.

OUR RESPONSE:

NO. The inability to invoke the constitution and to cite only the statutes is an obligation that impairs private property, private rights, and the access to to the common law.

If you are an individual, the public rights doctrine says you CANNOT invoke the constitution or the bill of rights.

There is NO PRACTICAL difference between a CIVIL obligation and a loss of private property or private rights. The effect is the same.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Who needs to invoke the Constitution? What are you trying to do?

Submit a W-8BEN and leave the SSN off. Done.

Nothing else is needed.

OUR RESPONSE:

I’m simply saying the purpose of the constitution is to be LEFT ALONE. Olmstead v. United States. I’m not being left alone if I can’t invoke the fifth amendment and NOT statutes to exclude the government from using or benefitting from myself and my private property.

Anything NOT deriving from my consent to ACQUIRE ANY civil status is an injustice, according to the declaration of independence

Why do I have to agree I’m in their damn code to be left alone? Why not just “nonresident alien” instead of “individual”?

And I have to ALSO agree I’m a beneficial owner.

What’s wrong with simply saying I’m a “nonresident alien” protected only by the constitution and not civil statutory law because I don’t consent to occupy the fictional office of individual?

Having to invoke their privileged statuses instead of the constitution alone is not being left alone and therefore an injustice.

I don’t even mind being called a CONSTITUTIONAL person so I’m not saying I’m NOT an “individual”. But I get to define what the context is for the TYPE of individual that I am or want to be.

Every CIVIL obligation and CIVIL status implies its opposite, which is the inability to invoke anything NOT connected to it. That inability functions to destroy private rights and private property covered by OTHER than the statutes.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Well, if you’re a nonresident alien, then you are an “individual.” Read the definition. It’s not even a hard one.

OUR RESPONSE:

26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) is not a definition, but a description. A real definition implies a listing of all things and classes of things that are INCLUDED.

It only describes “nonresident alien INDIVDUAL”. not “nonresident alien”.

But “nonresident alien” without individual does appear in the code I believe.

THEIR RESPONSE:

You gotta be realistic dude. The globe is eyeballs deep in the code. You ain’t gonna get anything taking this approach you’re taking. And you may get an opportunity to duke this out in court soon. This “individual” thing is the last error holding you back from a win.

If you claim you’re not an “individual”, you’ll crash and burn!

OUR RESPONSE:

You didn’t read what I said earlier. I didn’t say what I’m NOT or that I’m not an individual. I just defined it as someone protected by the bill of rights only and who consents or elects to NOTHING.

That’s never been characterized as a frivolous position. And its my first amendment right to define what my own speech means.

THEIR RESPONSE:

One attribute of an “individual” is “…the person described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)….” Hello? Why the hell do you think they say it that way? It’s so damn obvious!

OUR RESPONSE:

Do I have the right to define what the words I use mean on a government form?

Yes or no.

If I don’t, then its not my speech, but that of the hearer who defines it FOR me. So I cease to be responsible for any consequences attached to it.

THEIR RESPONSE:

It is a pointless argument that accomplishes zero. It jeopardizes everything because it shows you don’t know the code well enough to present the correct and nuanced argument.

You are receiving a privileged government payment. You have no constitutional rights! Learn to use the code to win.

OUR RESPONSE:

That can only be true if the code creates an express liability. It doesn’t. The secretary creates the status as his property and offers it to you as a Merchant under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 and 5 U.S.C. §301. If you accept it, you got the job.

Here’s the process:

How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

Constitutional rights can only be lost AFTER you consent to be a buyer just like the u.s. person

THEIR RESPONSE:

You have a magnificent argument that could create an awesome win. But if you go in there under the notion that all persons and individuals in the IRC are equivalent, you will put yourself in a frivolous position.

Sets—subsets. Remember that!

It’s the individual and person with the duty. Not all of them have a duty. Just like not every “citizen” is a U.S. Person.

OUR RESPONSE:

That’s not my position either. Its bad enough that I have to even read their offer as a merchant. But to admit I’m a party to it by declaring my status under it in order to simply be left alone as justice requires is ridiculous.

When justice becomes a statutory privilege or statutory civil status, there is no justice.

https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf

THEIR RESPONSE:

Well…at least we got 99% of the way together.

I think this is the last disputed area. But I won’t concede this one. I know I’m correct on this.

OUR RESPONSE:

I don’t claim that the individual in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. §7343 and 26 U.S.C. §6671 are all equivalent. But I do take the position that NONE of them can claim constitutional protections because they are all privileges, public property, and creations of congress.

And that it is an affront to God to use Caesar’s property for anything because that produces a curse under Deut. 28:43-51.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Well, now you’re changing your tune.

But if the IRS drags you in, you ain’t gonna be able to use the Constitution.

OUR RESPONSE:

You can’t be correct as long as you believe that U.S. person is property and a creation of congress but individual is NOT

That’s insanity

THEIR RESPONSE:

It’s beyond easy to show that there is:

An individual; and
An individual with a duty

They are night and day.

Why not demonstrate that and embarrass everyone? Why claim “free man on the land” status and leave after a good sodomy session? Bend over!

OUR RESPONSE:

Everything they can do you can too. That’s the idea behind a government of delegated powers. If they can be a merchant, so can you. And if you’re the merchant, they get the sodomy session under rules of equity.

THEIR RESPONSE:

You just proved my point!

How can a “nonresident alien” individual be a creation of Congress when they are only taxed on ECTI or NEC? There is no office there.

OUR RESPONSE:

I already raised this point and you ignored it. The only NRA “individuals” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 and 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b) are connected to ECI. NEC is not. But even parts of 871(a) are eci, such as SS in 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(3) and 26 U.S.C. §864(c).

Anything in 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(1) is pure NEC with not ECI. And THAT party has NO LIABILITY and is not mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a), 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1, or even 26 U.S.C. §873 (c ). So they are a “non-person”

They aren’t connected to any privilege, so they DO NOT exist, are a “foreign estate”, and are “non-persons” because they are exclusively PRIVATE.

You’re NOT using my “preferred pronouns”, which are “nontaxpayer” and “non-person”. Shame on you.

https://sedm.org/my-preferred-pronouns/

The minute you recognize or cooperate with any power they claim to have that you don’t have, you’re worshipping a false idol. Religion, after all, is obedience to the dictates of a superior being. And they are superior by definition if they have powers you don’t also have under any system of law.

That, my friend, is a violation of the first four commandments of the ten commandments in Exodus 20. So you’re promoting idolatry, whether you want to admit it or not. The ONLY thing you can place above you or consent to is God, and NEVER any vain man, government, political ruler, or creation of government such as civil statutes.

THEIR RESPONSE:

If you were mistaken about this “individual” debate, would you like to correct it?

OUR RESPONSE:

Yes, absolutely. But the correction must:

Account for The preservation of private property and private rights, which exists independent of civil statutory law as a public right. That means applying the public rights doctrine to the final analysis.
Apply all the same concepts to “individual” as we apply to U.S. person and every other civil status, such as domicile.
Not involve tautologies like that IRS frivolous position on “taxpayer” not being an individual. Taxpayer is a franchise status too so of course people who claim PUBLIC taxpayer status are PUBLIC individuals and persons.
Acknowledge domicile and the civil code it implements, including “individual” as itself a privilege independent with ADDITIONAL duties associated with said privileges such as liability.

You are unable and unwilling to do the above. Truth cannot be compartmentalized like that. If it is, its not truth and doesn’t pass the law of non-contradiction.

THEIR RESPONSE:

You like supporting your position with the Bible.

[L]et your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.
— Matthew 5:37

Have the courage to answer Yes, No, or I don’t know. Nothing beyond that.

OUR RESPONSE:

Legal discovery involves BOTH admissions AND interrogatories. Not just admissions. Admissions are designed to evade the WHOLE truth

THEIR RESPONSE:

Yes. But not at the same time.

OUR RESPONSE:

I gave you interrogatories that you couldn’t answer.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Are you a “citizen” pursuant to 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(c)?

OUR RESPONSE:

Only if I want privileges. I don’t want privileges or the obligations that pay for them and I don’t want to be anything but LEFT ALONE, which is what justice itself is defined as. So no, not when I’m in court dealing with any matter involving the civil law. If I’m private, I don’t need stinking civil statutes at all. They are a vehicle for theft of private rights and private property

THEIR RESPONSE:

My examination is complete.

You really ought to remove the diagrams I sent you. They conflict with your positions and make a mockery of your site.

OUR RESPONSE:

A comprehensive approach deals with TWO audiences, not just one:

People who entertain privileges and are partially public and practice idolatry toward the government in the process. In other words, people who CONSENT to destroy the legal separation between public and private.
Those who don’t and want common law and constitutional protections ONLY and to be perfectly sanctified and separate from the social compact/contract and private membership association that is the civil law.

A “solution” that only offers one of the above makes a mockery of the bible, a mockery of justice itself, and can’t be truth because it doesn’t accommodate the WHOLE of the law. Truth cannot be compartmentalized like that. Ignoring the above is ignoring the absolute legal separation between church and state.

By your answer, you proved that like the democrats, you want to practice cancel culture against all those in item 2 above who don’t want to join the collective and donate their private property to it through the civil statutes. Ironically, sanctification is HALF of Christianity, so you want to cancel Christians. The other half is justification.

Truly sanctified Christians cannot borrow or use anything Caesar created or owns, including his club rules called civil statutes for his counterfeit church called the state. If they do, they invite a curse in Deut. 28:43-51.

1 Sam 8:7. If God is our CIVIL lawgiver, then Caesar CANNOT be. No man can serve two LEGAL masters. If you’re protected only by the common law and the bill of rights, you aren’t serving two masters or “lawgivers”. Isaiah 33:22

What God created and owns is PRIVATE. What Caesar created and owns is PUBLIC. Separation between church and state demands that these two things can NEVER be consensually connected or intermixed.
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

Rendering to Caesar means giving all public property such as PUBLIC civil statutes BACK to Caeser and never accepting use or benefit of it.

Every time you say “sovereign citizen bullshit”, what I’m really hearing is:

There is no private property or private rights.
God or his laws and constitutional rights are irrelevant when dealing with the government.
Caesar is my only lawgiver, because all property is PUBLIC and the collective is always and ONLY KING.
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/Collectivism.pdf
I want to be a friend of the world and be at war with God and the private rights He created and owns by claiming the civil status of “taxpayer”, “person”, “individual”, etc RATHER than ONLY a constitutional “person” in the bill of rights who is always and only a human being and never a fiction:

“Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship [and “citizenship”/domicile] with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [statutory “citizen” or “taxpayer” or “resident” or “inhabitant”] of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]

If God is the only sovereign and we represent him in faithful obedience to ONLY His laws and the organic but not civil statutory law, we are perfectly private, separate, sanctified, and foreign.
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf

Nice going as a Christian, dude!

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding [of statutes instead of God’s law and organic law]
6 In ALL YOUR WAYS [including in COURT and your dealings with the government] acknowledge Him,
And He [and ONLY he and the private property and private rights he created and owns] shall direct your paths.
[Prov 3:5-6, Bible, NKJV]

THEIR RESPONSE:

So, I asked this before when you were fighting the truths related to citizenship and nationality. So, I’ll ask this again….

Why all the statutes and regs on your site? Just create a brief, one page website that tells people….don’t get a SSN and don’t ever fill out government forms. Give them all the case law so they can fight banks, lenders, brokerages, title companies, and the company or human being they work for.

Why not just do that since that is your position? That’s a sincere question.

I mean, you’re wasting your time even presenting or discussing any statutes are you not?

OUR RESPONSE:

Thank you for your time so far.

Because the site has to target BOTH audiences, which together is EVERYONE.

People who entertain privileges and are partially public and practice idolatry toward the government in the process. In other words, people who CONSENT to destroy the legal separation between public and private.
Those who don’t and want common law and constitutional protections ONLY and to be perfectly sanctified and separate from the social compact/contract and private membership association that is the civil law.

Most people are in #1 above as you rightly point out, but there are people in #2 (ME included) and they too deserve a solution. We can’t compartmentalize the subject matter to IGNORE either one of those to remove them. That would be discrimination. God doesn’t discriminate. Everyone in His family is EQUAL.

And, whatever truths we publish must integrate ALL things TOGETHER in harmony. If there is no harmony or any dissonance at all, it can’t be truth. Truth is always consistent with ALL knowledge.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Ok. So since you are a free man on the land—eating locusts and wild honey…., I will direct my questions to some imaginary human being who will be interfacing the code and regs. Fair enough?

OUR RESPONSE:

Maddam: We’ve already established you’re a whore. Now we’re just negotiating price.

That’s what going down the road you propose implies.

At least be honest enough to admit it before going forward to help ONLY the slaves who became so by seeking privileged civil statuses on the federal plantation called United States^G.

Even “individuals” can be in United States^G

The whore label is not MY label. Its God’s, BTW. See:

Are You Playing the Harlot with the Government?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/are-you-playing-the-harlot/

THEIR RESPONSE:

Fine. Let’s examine a whore, shall we?

OUR RESPONSE:

Are we EVER going to examine how NOT to be a whore?

It’s pointless if we AREN’T because we have to harmonize both approaches at some point to address the ENTIRE audience of the site.

Leaving the second half of that task ONLY up to me seems irresponsible.

This is why you think I’m “all over the place”: Because EVERYTHING I talk about addresses BOTH sides out of necessity. A good lawyer is ALWAYS able to examine BOTH sides or MULTIPLE sides of an argument and consider those sides in their remedy.

THEIR RESPONSE:

I’m not interested in any sovereign citizen approaches. They are impractical and ineffective.

OUR RESPONSE:

Please accurately and completely define “sovereign citizen approaches”. No court ever has. See:

Government Corruption Opposition Movement (aka Sovereign citizen movement in government circles), Form #08.033
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/SovereignCitizenMovement.pdf

Do you mean “no private property, private rights, or constitutional protections” because they were traded for civil statutory PUBLIC privileges by an admitted whore? I guess you like whores.

Posted in Debate and Discovery