DEBATE: An “individual” is just a human being or natural person in the code and not a privileged fictional entity
FALSE STATEMENT:
An “individual” is just a human being or natural person in the code and not a privileged fictional entity.
REBUTTAL:
Anything Congress legislatively creates they own.
“All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation… The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission;”.
[McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 429 (1819); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9272959520166823796]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“These general rules are well settled:
(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431-433; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212.
(2) That, where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35.
Still, the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374; United States v. Laughlin, 249 U.S. 440. “
A statutory definition is PROOF that they created it and therefore own it.
1. While it is true there is no statutory definition of “individual” in the I.R.C., there IS one in the regs at 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) which betrays that it doesn’t include EVERYONE. Thus, the default common law definition of “individual” can’t possibly apply.
2. 26 U.S.C. §911(d) comes closest to clarifying that “individual” does not include an American national by preceding it with “qualified individual”.
3. So as a bare minimum the following cite betrays that some kind of public property or government privilege MUST be involved if there is an ability to tax.
”The “Government” is an abstraction, and its possession of property largely constructive. Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself the Government, but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed, as we have held.”
[United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 U.S. 174, 187-88 (1944)]
4. An American national is not called an INDIVIDUAL UNTIL they pursue a privilege, as found in 26 U.S.C. §873, so this confirms our hypothesis. The purpose of this provision, by the way, is to give REASONABLE NOTICE of EXACTLY HOW you become an “individual”, we think.
5. Government wants everyone to believe they are subject to the code, so they won’t recognize that a privilege is necessary before people can be controlled. This is explained in:
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf
6. Under the common law, you own yourself. The implication is that you have a right to EXCLUDE any and all others, including governments, from controlling or using you or your services. That right to exclude is effected by REFUSING to pursue the privilege of “individual” status.
“No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. As well said by Judge Cooley: ‘The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity; to be let alone.’ Cooley, Torts, 29.”
[Union Pac Ry Co v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 35 L.Ed. 734 (1891)]
Therefore, I do NOT believe that your approach to “individual” can be correct. I seek evidence that rebuts the above and until I see it, I won’t change my position.
You have a very high burden of proof in overcoming ALL the above. Up until now, we have tried and found NO WAY to overcome that burden of proof. But we are still willing to entertain the idea that I might be wrong on this subject.
Anything your propose to satisfy the above burden or proof must be consistent with EVERYTHING we currently agree on or it can’t be true. In other words, it must satisfy “the law of non-contradiction”. Real truth cannot conflict with itself.
If you can’t satisfy the above burden of proof, we are entitled to PRESUME you are simply mistaken.
Q.E.D. (Quod Erat Demonstrandum)
THEIR REBUTTAL:
1. Congress did not write the definition of “individual”—Treasury did—to clarify congressional intent. Treasury also wrote the definition of “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)—a pool you and I are in. There is no infirmity associated with being a “citizen” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) just like there is no infirmity being an “individual” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3).
You agree you’re a “citizen” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)….(or are you backsliding on that again?). And if you are a 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) “citizen” then you know that said “citizen” can be an NRA under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B).
Your statement: “Thus, the default definition common law definition of “individual” can’t possibly apply.” Is an erroneous conclusion based upon an errant premise.
2. Your statement re: 26 U.S.C. §911(d) proves the point. But again, you are greatly misleading your students by referencing an “American national.” You are leading them right into a nonsensical argument because nationality is NOT the issue. What you need to be re-enforcing is that the “citizen” abroad of 26 U.S.C. §911(d) is in the “U.S. person” subclass contemplated in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A), 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b) (legal notice), and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) (acceptance & duty). That “citizen” is the subclass with a duty drawn from the pool of 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) comes with no legal infirmity by itself even though it was defined by Treasury in an effort to provide clarity on what Congress legislated. And thank God they did, otherwise you would have no way of proving the “U.S. person” tax status doesn’t apply to you.
3. No argument there! We are 1000% in agreement. But there is no privilege imputed by simply defining the cast of characters who *COULD* incite a liability *IF* a privilege was enjoyed.
I agree, the “individual” of 26 U.S.C. §871 and 26 U.S.C. §877 *WOULD* have a liability *IF* connected to a trade or business. But if not, then no tax or duty is otherwise imposed upon said “individual.”
The “individual” of 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) is just a term to lay the groundwork to establish the pool of *PEOPLE* that *COULD* have a tax or duty imposed. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) establishes the candidate pool.
26 U.S.C. §871, 26 U.S.C. §877, and 26 U.S.C. §873 present instances where people from the pool of candidates incur a liability or duty.
Set—subset. The pattern is used throughout the IRC. Understanding that is the key to busting open the code!
4. Again, starting with American national (political status) is a nonsensical position. The issue is citizenship and the subclass of “citizen” who has made the domestic election. Using 26 U.S.C. §873 as your reasoning is putting the cart in front of the horse. Liability for a NRA begins in 26 U.S.C. §871 & 26 U.S.C. §877. We need only examine 26 U.S.C. §871. Would said NRA “individual” have a duty if he was *NOT* connected to a trade or business? Of course not. If the “individual” *IS* engaged in a trade or business, the tax is imposed. If *NOT* then show me where the “individual” has a duty. The IRC is silent on that because there is no duty. The 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) definition of “individual” merely breaks down the two classes of natural persons that are individuals:
a. Aliens
b. The person described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)….which includes you and I.
Are you not described by 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)? Are you not a “citizen” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)?
I suspect you have backslid into claiming you are not a “citizen” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). Have you?
5. Everyone is subject to the code—100%! Whether or not you incur a liability is a completely different matter. But you are SUBJECT, just like some Chinaman in Beijing is!
The courts use the words person and individual. I understand there are classes and subclasses of those “terms” in the IRC.
Claiming to not be a “person” (and thus, “individual”) has been struck down as frivolous by the courts. You have taken similar-type positions THAT NOT A SINGLE JURIST would agree with. And positions that have no value anyway but to render your entire argument, and thus, decades of work as moot. Because if you make only one frivolous claim, then it’s ALL frivolous despite having the rest of your legal argument being 99.99% sound.
Remember: Sets—subsets.
Yes, the NRA “individual” of 26 U.S.C. §871, 26 U.S.C. §873, and 26 U.S.C. §877 would have a liability.
But there is no liability imputed to the 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) “individual.”
Is the 18 year old Chinaman who picks rice in his village an “alien” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i)? The answer is YES! Therefore he is an “individual” under that reg.
Has he incurred a liability under 26 U.S.C. §871, 26 U.S.C. §873, or 26 U.S.C. §877? No.
OUR RESPONSE:
1. You’re mistaken. The common law only applies where CIVIL statutes DO NOT apply under the Public Rights Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court and the following.
“The words “privileges” and “immunities,” like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. “
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]
2. and 3: The ability to define implies PROPERTY ownership of all persons or property that could be AFFECTED by the definition. Thus, “individual” is not a a human being, but a fiction to which rights (property) attach or even CAN attach. It is a CONDUIT to transmit PUBLIC property. Those who REJECT any and all benefit of PUBLIC property exercise their right of self-ownership by rejecting any and all civil statutory statuses that could impute or transmit a LOSS of private property or private rights or the conversion of either to PUBLIC property or PUBLIC rights under the Public Rights Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is an exercise of the “right to exclude” aspect of ownership.
The common law and the Bill of Rights are sufficient to adjudicate every dispute involving those who are NOT members of the collective called “citizens”, “residents”, “individuals”, and “persons” and those who are not. When dealings between those who ARE members and are NOT members are involved, it is compelled association in violation of the First Amendment to COMPEL membership in the collective as “individuals” and “persons” against those who do not WANT to be members. Self-ownership implies the right to determine the laws and or law SYSTEM that protects the God given private rights you have that were not legislatively created or owned by the government.
| Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010 https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf |
4. Per the First Amendment, I have an unalienable right not to contract or associate with the collective, or to participate legally or politically in any aspect of their CIVIL affairs as someone who exercises my absolute ownership of myself by excluding or denying them of the ability to write rules for club members to regulate or tax their behavior.
EXACTLY where in Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877) does it say that the COLLECTIVE can write CIVIL rules for NON-MEMBERS? It mentions the ability to legislate ONLY in the context of CIVIL citizens, not POLITICAL citizens.
5. To suggest that EVERYONE is subject to the CIVIL code is to assert that there is no PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights, that there is no de jure government that protects ONLY those rights, and therefore, that the constitution or the Bill of Rights are IRRELEVANT! All just CIVIL powers derive from the CONSENT of the governed. Exactly WHERE is the consent to be taxed or regulated generated if NOT by domcile or civil association absent duress?
I choose NOT to civilly associate because by doing so, ALL LIMITS upon the behavior or government are ELIMINATED. See:
| Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf |
Every road you want to go down leads to a destruction of the separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE at the HEART of the constitution and the trading of PRIVATE rights in exchange for PUBLIC privileges. That road ALWAYS leads to government anarchy because you substitute GOD as your lawgiver for GOVERNMENT. The two are always in constant competition with each other for you affection, allegiance, and obedience in an act of idolatry.
The Bible says my body is a temple. 1 Cor. 3:17. How is separation of chuch and state even realistically POSSIBLE if I hand control of that temple over to Caesar by pursuing privileges associated with ANY civil statutory status?
| Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf |
Certainly, God deserves more than just lip service to His sovereignty effected by chasing privileges of Caesar.
“Many seek the ruler’s favor, But justice for man comes from [ONLY the LAWS of] the Lord.”
[Prov. 29:26, Bible, NKJV]
“(For the Lord is our[ONLY] Judge, The Lord is our [ONLY] Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us);”
[Isaiah 33:22, Bible, NKJV]
“For there is no AUTHORITY except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”
[Romans 13:1, Bible, NKJV]
The civil code is just a delegation of authority order for CLUB MEMBERS of the civil social compact. The Bible is a delegation of authority order for those who REJECT the civil social compact. All you seem interested in doing is abandoning your trustee delegation of authority order, the Bible, and replacing it with Caesars civil code delegation order. God’s delegation order is described in:
| Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007 https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf |
What you propose is lawlessness under the laws of the Lord, just like the Israelites did in 1 Sam. 8 when they rejected God as their king and ONLY CIVIL “lawgiver”.
“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers [the secular, man/government worshipping STATE]. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?”
[2 Cor. 6:14, Bible, NKJV]
“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 [CIVIL “citizen” ,”taxpayer”, “resident”, “individual”, “person”, or “inhabitant”] of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]
The income tax is a franchise that rents out property STOLEN from God. He owns everything and we are just his trustees who can’t abandon the trust position to chase after government CIVIL idols.
I don’t HAVE to claim I’m NOT a CIVIL “person” or “individual”. All I have to do is define all terms in all correspondence I send them as NOT being defined in statutory context but instead with definitions I create and therefore own. I don’t have to play their game. You can’t prove a NEGATIVE anyway, which is what you are doing when you say you are NOT something such as a “person” or “individual”. That’s why everyone who does this LOSES, as you correctly point out.
This is a PROPERTY/CREATOR war, not a WORD war. Then I simply invoke the following to SHIFT the burden of proof to them that I BOTH ASKED for their property AND accepted the BENEFIT of it and thereby incurred a CIVIL/FRANCHISE obligation:
| How to Reject All Privileges in a Tax Return Filing, FTSIG https://ftsig.org/how-to-reject-all-privileges-in-a-tax-return-filing/ |
Here is proof that CIVIL STATUTES are PRIVILEGES and PUBLIC RIGHTS, not PRIVATE rights:
“The 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]
Notice the word “benefits” above. You took their BAIT of privileged property they CREATED and therefore OWN in the form of CIVIL “individual”. Bend over! They are the PREDATOR, you are the PREYED:
“‘For among My people are found wicked men;
They lie in wait as one who sets snares;
They set a trap;
They catch men.
27 As a cage is full of birds,
So their houses are full of deceit.
Therefore they have become great and grown rich.
28 They have grown fat, they are sleek;
Yes, they [f]surpass the deeds of the wicked;
They do not plead the cause,
The cause of the fatherless;
Yet they prosper,
And the right of the needy they do not defend.
29 Shall I not punish them for these things?’ says the Lord.
‘Shall I not avenge Myself on such a nation as this?’”[Jer. 5:26-29, Bible, NKJV]
God says you can’t ask government or civil rulers for ANYTHING, including the expensive ability to even ADJUDICATE whether you have a right to be left alone using privileged civil statutes. Justice is the right to be left alone. The minute justice becomes a CIVIL privilege, it CEASES to be justice as defined. See:
| What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050, Section 5.3 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf |
If you ask them for ANY PUBLIC property, God says He will CURSE you in Deut. 28:43-51:
| How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Family Guardian Fellowship https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm |
Whatever you propose as a rebuttal MUST be entirely in harmony with the WHOLE of scripture or it can’t be truth. Doing otherwise makes us a Christian in name only.
I think this subject is MUCH DEEPER than you ever imagined. Oversimplyifying it to appeal only to the secular world and ignore scripture is just as bad as the sophistry of the slave masters in the District of Criminals.
“Do not judge according to appearance [of vain Pharisees in statutes], but judge with righteous judgment.”
[John 7:24, Bible, NKJV]
“In all your ways [and ESPECIALLY in court] acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.”
[Prov. 3:6, Bible, NKJV]
THEIR RESPONSE:
Two inquiries before I respond to all you have written:
1. Define “common law”?
2. Are you a “citizen” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)? Yes or No?
Be brief.
OUR RESPONSE:
1. That field of law which encompasses EQUITY and actions under the English System of Common law in existence at the time the constitution was adopted. More at:
| Rebutted False Arguments About the Common Law, Form #08.025 https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf |
I won’t retype everything in the above because you think its not authoritative, but there is plenty of court admissible definitions in section 4 of the above.
2. If there is no benefit or advantage I want to the status and no infirmity to claiming the status, and the First Amendment says I don’t HAVE to, why claim it? The only reason to claim it is the pursuit of privileges and inviting judges to EQUIVOCATE me into an obligation I do not seek.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Give me an example of a piece of “common law.”
Are you a U.S. citizen under Fourteenth Amendment?
OUR RESPONSE:
The only thing that I have personal knowledge of is when and where I was born. Everything beyond that point would be answered by a competent attorney witness as follows:
“Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion or compelled pursuit of a privilege or both.”
THEIR RESPONSE:
Man….old Sovereign Citizen nonsense.
Do your members cite franchise statutes in your Form 8275 included with the 1040NR filings? For example, 26 U.S.C. §6041 or 26 U.S.C. §871?
Is citing those statutes a “common law” remedy?
OUR RESPONSE:
It is a common law remedy because the terms are defined by me and not the code. Anything that invokes a BENEFIT or privilege is not a common law remedy. Claiming the benefit of a political status in the civil code is a privilege.
The privilege is the ability to even invoke the status in court, and not just whether ADDITIONAL privileges attach.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Where are you required to claim the benefit of your nationality in the IRC?
OUR RESPONSE:
No one can require you to do anything CIVILLY that you don’t first consent to directly or indirectly. Obligations and privileges attach to CIVIL statuses and even POLITICAL statuses. When you claim the civil status, the obligations come along for the ride as the GOVERNMENT PROPERTY that they rightfully are.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Well, then that’s the only thing you need on the FTSIG website. A single page with those two sentences. Nothing else is required—not case law, statutes, regs….nothing else.
Apparently, you think there is some stigma attached to the status of “citizen” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
You flip flopped back to your old self.
OUR RESPONSE:
You have to meet people where they are and where they START from. That’s why Jesus had to pay us a visit. And THEN you have to draw them along to where they NEED TO BE with metaphors, aphorisms, statutes, case law, the Bible, etc. They start mainly with a knowledge of statutes that are OPTIONAL. You start their education by showing them WHY they currently have obligations, what those are, and how they were created. They MUST understand how they consented to REMOVE the consent or assent.
You, on the other hand, want to start every discussion with the presumption that they already consented in at least some manner. An act of birth is not an act of consent.
THEIR RESPONSE:
And if 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) is problematic, then it’s the same as 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b) and (a). All are privileges…right?
Since they were created by Treasury…..
OUR RESPONSE:
You’re only considering ONE context: Title 26. Every act of political or legal association causes a surrender of rights as Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877) indicates.
Why must I join ANYTHING or be PRESUMED to join anything, or invite others to make such presumptions because of the words I use to describe myself? Claiming POLITICAL “citizen” status inevitably invites false claims that you are a CIVIL citizen and puts you into the position of proving the negative that you ARE NOT a CIVIL citizen, for instance.
I’m a 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) “citizen.” I have zero problem asserting that in court.
OUR RESPONSE:
You aren’t the only one in the audience for the website. So what? Those who want a more “sanctified life” may want more separation.
Anyone who claims anything MORE than that they are a man or woman and when and where they were born in court is an IDIOT who is bending over in front of a den of thieves.
This isn’t about YOU or pleasing you or any vain man. It’s about pleasing GOD. This is about OBJECTIVE truth that never contradicts itself or the Bible.
Any other approach declares war on those who want a sanctified life. Effecting such a war is how the Sovereign Citizen moniker got started to begin with. Justice isn’t a privilege. It means the right to be LEFT alone without pursuing a CIVIL privilege. The minute it becomes a privilege is the minute it becomes INJUSTICE.
Come on. You KNOW this, dude. And now you’re acting as an apologist for those effecting that war by insisting that I MUST have SOME kind of membership that destroys natural rights, whether CIVIL or POLITICAL. Real objective natural justice is not something you should have to PROCURE by claiming or “admitting” (Yes or No) EITHER a CIVIL or a POLITICAL status. REAL natural justice is supposed to be FREE. It operates upon PEOPLE, not CIVIL “persons”. It’s not some ARTIFICIAL CIVIL FICTIONAL construct.
Being FORCED to join any group so they will leave me alone is the WORST form of INJUSTICE and a violation of the First Amendment. That’s what the story of Babylon, the first city described in the Bible, was REALLY about.
THEIR RESPONSE:
I’m after the truth. You waffle when I ask direct questions. Just answer Yes or No. Either you have confidence in your position or you don’t.
Believe me….you will not find a single person to implement your approach successfully. Not one. It’s not conducive to how the system works. People with money want real solutions. People with no money frankly don’t care.
OUR RESPONSE:
Every question about status must have a “none of the above, do not seek to associate” option. Yes or No questions about privileged civil franchises avoid that option and results in compelled association in violation of the First Amendment.
If I can define “No” as none of the above, I can cooperate, but that leads to equivocation and ambiguity I seek to avoid and gives you license to abuse me.
“None of the above”=LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE AS JUSTICE REQUIRES! And don’t CHARGE me to LEAVE ME ALONE because it costs you NOTHING to leave me alone. That’s a mafia in operation demanding a BRIBE to procure the privilege of being left alone. This sort of approach is the very BASIS of the SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001 itself. You obviously haven’t read that agreement or you wouldn’t even BEGIN to go down this silly road.
The compelled association game you’re playing right now is the SAME one that banks play when opening an account to induct you into the CIVIL domicile protection franchise and Private Membership Association (PMA) called the CIVIL statutory law. They say you need TWO or THREE forms of ID, one of which ALWAYS involves a CIVIL domicile and therefore a PRIVILEGED FRANCHISE election.
It’s not waffling to simply respond to every question with:
LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. I don’t want your club benefits. If I hurt someone, show me the proof and I’ll reimburse them for the damage. The burden of proof in doing so is on YOU, not me. And, if you can’t prove an injury as standing demands, then I have a right to charge for my services. Here’s the contract to procure those services. I’m making an offer and continuing beyond this point to demand my participation is an acceptance on your part.
That’s the approach below:
| Proof of Claim: Your Main Defense Against Government Greed and Corruption, Form #09.073 https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ProofOfClaim.pdf |
If I can’t pursue the above approach, then I’m just a damn SLAVE! And the civil code and the government that created it OWNS ME LITERALLY at that point. You can’t collect what you say I owe anyway without standing to sue and proving an injury, and beyond that point, civil statutes aren’t necessary anyway. The injury determines the judgment. Why are you avoiding that burden of proof to obtain that which you haven’t EARNED? The only thing a common law court can lawfully deal with are contracts or obligations you consented to or damages from an involuntary injury. Anything more than that is an injustice and usurpation.
The common law HAD to be invented PRECISELY because government MUST give you a way to avoid ALL privileges and benefits. Its a maxim of law that you have that right.
“Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum. He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.”
Hominum caus jus constitutum est. Law is established for the benefit of man.
Injuria propria non cadet in beneficium facientis. One’s own wrong shall not benefit the person doing it.
Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.
Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est. A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
Privatum incommodum publico bono peusatur. Private inconvenience is made up for by public benefit.
Privilegium est beneficium personale et extinguitur cum person. A privilege is a personal benefit and dies with the person. 3 Buls. 8.
Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.
Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto. Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; https://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
What could be plainer? What you are proposing is nothing but sophistry to STEAL that PRIVATE and NATURAL right by forcing a Yes or No answer.
You’re acting more like a PREDATOR than a friend right now because of that. That predation is the FOUNDATION of all the corruption in the legal profession right now, in fact, because the foundation of it is the love of money, or the government privileges that deliver it or the PROPERTY it represents.
The fact that you are a political citizen does NOT mean you HAVE to invoke it for a civil or legal purpose. The ability to invoke it is a privilege in court, even if no ADDITIONAL privileges attach. If you can’t even own your IDENTITY by denying to all others the commercial use of it, is it even logically possible to own yourself or have PRIVATE property at all? And if it ISN’T possible, why the HELL do we even NEED a Bill of Rights? You’re just state property beyond that point anyway. Below is what the courts and the law, had to say about this, and they AGREE with me.
| Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008 https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf |
To seek ANYTHING that Congress “created or organized”, INCLUDING BOTH POLITICAL statuses and CIVIL statuses or the entire civil code, is unavoidably a privilege and domestic in its effects on either PEOPLE or PROPERTY or both. Those who claim POLITICAL “CITIZEN” status waive their foreign sovereign immunity and become DOMESTIC per 28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3). This provision isn’t in Title 26, but it’s STILL relevant to whether privileges attach and is an UNINTENDED consequence of declaring a POLITICAL status. The Law of Nations states that all citizens abroad are AGENTS of the country they were born in.
The Law of Nations, Book II: Of a Nation Considered in Her Relation to Other States
§ 81. The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.
Even the property of the individuals is, in the aggregate, to be considered as the property of the nation, with respect to other states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her citizens, because it constitutes a part of the sum total of her riches, and augments her power. She is interested in that property by her obligation to protect all her members. In short, it cannot be otherwise, since nations act and treat together as bodies in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only one whole, one single person, — all their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person. And this is to true, that each political society may, if it pleases, establish within itself a community of goods, as Campanella did in his republic of the sun. Others will not inquire what it does in this respect: its domestic regulations make no change in its rights with respect to foreigners nor in the manner in which they ought to consider the aggregate of its property, in what way soever it is possessed.
[The Law of Nations, Vattel, Book II, Section 81;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/LawOfNations/vattel_02.htm#§ 81. The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.]
Why even BEGIN to go down that road by asking for ANYTHING they created, whether it’s a POLITICAL or a CIVIL status? You can’t answer that, can you? Its a third rail issue to admit HOW you or your property became domestic.
Welcome to the Matrix, Neo. I’m Morpheus.
You have wasted 15 LONG YEARS trying to figure out the distinctions between POLITICAL and CIVIL citizens and how to dispel the false presumption that you are a CIVIL citizen. You wouldn’t have to do ANY of that if you would just STOP calling yourself ANYTHING in any civil statute, and replace the definitions on forms you submit with something YOU created and therefore OWN. Keep it SIMPLE, Stupid (K.I.S.S.). Unless, of course, you want to play what I call “pseudo intellectual” who becomes an expert on how to minimize damage from claiming ANY civil statutory status whatsoever. What a waste of time and a vain pursuit. I gave that up the statutory approach 15 years ago because it was a suicidal approach but you continued after that because you stopped reading our materials. You thought you had a “silver bullet” statutory loophole so you abandoned learning and progress about the world BEYOND vain franchise statutes. The bigger world is property, franchises, and bribing people to give up natural rights in exchange for privileges, and the common law.
When you play by ANY of their rules, my friend, you will ALWAYS LOSE. He who writes the rules or the definitions ALWAYS wins. The matrix we are living in is thousands of years old. The common law only came about late in the game in 1215. The common law wasn’t CREATED by statute and therefore can’t be REPEALED or IGNORED by statute. No stinking CIVIL statutes are even necessary to protect PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights, in fact. The U.S Supreme Court has even acknowledged this by saying the Bill of Rights are “self-executing” and need no stinking statutes.
“The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, “Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States.” Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal’s threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, “provide[s] safeguards to be enforced by the courts, and not to be exercised by the Legislature”); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it “was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens”). As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.
[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]
The reason for the above statement is that CIVIL STATUTES protect ONLY PUBLIC property while the Bill of Rights protect only PRIVATE property that cannot be taxed or regulated. You therefore have to convert either YOURSELF or your PROPERTY from PRIVATE to PUBLIC by consent and making an ELECTION before they can tax or regulate it. That process of conversion is described in:
| Property View of Income Taxation, Form #12.046 https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf |
THEIR RESPONSE:
You never gave me an example of “common law.” I presume you’re referring to case law?
I hear all the “patriot types” refer to the “common law.” But I have never had anyone show me a “common law” reference or authority—much less demonstrate success in a legal dispute—ever.
OUR RESPONSE:
The entire Jurisdictionary course which I think you took was about common law and not statute law.
1. Sue the person who injured you and essentially stole your property.
2. Prove the damages and prove standing.
3. Get a judgment.
Here is a book on common law actions with sample pleadings:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7gk-AAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage
Why would anyone write a book how do it if you can’t do it?
Why don’t you think that the Jursdictionary course is NOT common law?
Here is an entire page of resources for common law and equity actions
| Hot Issues: Common law and Equity Litigation**, SEDM https://sedm.org/common-law-litigation/ |
You need a member subscription to pursue it, unfortunately, and you don’t have it.
THEIR RESPONSE:
I don’t understand why you didn’t orient FTSIG.ORG 100% around those remedies.
We sure have wasted a lot of time hashing out citizenship, nationality, tax status, and liability.
It hasn’t been a waste for me. I do a lot of banking and borrow a lot of money and invest a lot of money!
Banks, lenders, and title companies don’t “do common law.” They deal with the code and regs.
What are your thoughts on the Meta AI statement re: Common Law?
In the United States, common law is still alive and well, but its role has evolved over time. While it’s not entirely possible to prosecute cases using only common law, I’ll explain why.
Historically, common law referred to the body of law developed through judicial decisions, customs, and traditions, rather than through statutes or regulations. In the US, common law was inherited from England and played a significant role in shaping American law.
However, in the early 20th century, there was a shift towards codification, where laws were systematically written down and enacted as statutes. This process continued throughout the 20th century, and today, many areas of law are governed by statutes and regulations.
Now, here’s the important part:
While common law is still recognized and applied in many areas, such as:
1. Contract law
2. Tort law (e.g., negligence, defamation)
3. Property law
It’s generally not possible to prosecute cases solely under common law. Here’s why:
1. *Statutory law takes precedence*: In areas where statutes or regulations govern, they override common law. Prosecutors must rely on statutory law when bringing charges.
2. *Criminal law is largely statutory*: Most crimes are defined by statutes, which outline the elements of the offense, penalties, and procedures. Common law crimes, like common law felonies, are largely a relic of the past.
3. *Procedural rules govern prosecutions*: Court procedures, evidence rules, and other regulatory frameworks govern how cases are prosecuted. These rules often override common law principles.
In summary, while common law remains an essential part of American jurisprudence, it’s not possible to prosecute cases solely under common law. Statutory law, regulatory frameworks, and procedural rules have become the primary governing forces in modern American law.
OUR RESPONSE:
1: I have a problem with that. It only takes precedence if civil privileges are sought and accepted, such as domicile. Otherwise it would be a Fifth Amendment taking.
The CIVIL law is just a substitute for common law among those who want the government to civilly govern them, instead of governing and supporting themselves. It’s a Private Membership Association (PMA) for irresponsible collectivists. See:
| There are only TWO types of governments: Responsible Individualism and Collectivism, SEDM https://sedm.org/there-are-only-two-types-of-governments-responsible-individualism-and-collectivism/ |
THEIR RESPONSE:
META AI:
In theory, a person can attempt to defend themselves against the government using a common law approach, even if they are not engaged in any codified privilege or franchise. However, the success of such an approach is highly uncertain and often unlikely.
Here’s why:
1. *Common law vs. statutory law*: Common law is based on judicial decisions, customs, and traditions. In contrast, statutory law is created by legislative bodies and often supersedes common law. In modern times, statutory law tends to dominate, making it challenging to rely solely on common law.
2. *Government immunity*: Governments often enjoy sovereign immunity, which protects them from lawsuits and liability. This can limit the effectiveness of a common law approach.
3. *Procedural hurdles*: Courts often require plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing a common law claim. This can be a significant obstacle, especially if the administrative process is complex or biased.
4. *Judicial discretion*: Judges have significant discretion when interpreting common law. If a judge is unsympathetic to a common law argument, they may choose to disregard or limit its application.
5. *Lack of precedent*: If there is no clear precedent for a common law claim, it may be difficult to persuade a court to adopt a favorable interpretation.
That being said, there are some examples of successful common law defenses against government actions, such as:
1. *Property rights cases*: In some instances, property owners have successfully used common law arguments to defend their property rights against government takings or regulations.
2. *Tort claims*: Common law tort claims, such as negligence or trespass, can be used to hold government officials or entities liable for damages.
To increase the chances of success, it’s essential to:
1. *Consult with an experienced attorney*: Familiarity with common law principles and procedures is crucial.
2. *Conduct thorough research*: Gather relevant case law, statutes, and historical context to support your argument.
3. *Prepare for procedural challenges*: Anticipate and address potential procedural hurdles, such as exhaustion of administrative remedies.
In conclusion, while a common law approach can be used to defend against government actions, its success depends on various factors, including the specific circumstances, judicial discretion, and the effectiveness of the legal argument.
OUR RESPONSE:
I talked about government immunity earlier and showed that it only pertains to those who claim POLITICAL or CIVIL citizen status, Not to private humans. 28 U.S.C. §1603(a).
THEIR RESPONSE:
I think it would be much more satisfying to hand them their ass in their own court using their own statutes and regs because they don’t understand them, though they think they do.
Well….28 U.S.C. §1603(a) is a statute.
OUR RESPONSE:
I only use the CIVIL statutes to prove that I’m not subject to them and who IS subject to them, which is always and only domestic people inside U.S. inc.
And I don’t argue about statutory CRIMINAL law. Its legit and doesn’t require consent.
But 28 U.S.C. §1603 defines how you LOSE common law protections and foreign status. Duuh. They have to give you reasonable notice of how and when they can do that, don’t they?
THEIR RESPONSE:
“Foreign states” are foreign nations under federal law. The states in their political sense are not foreign v. the Feds.
OUR RESPONSE:
How can you say the U.S. Inc is a foreign corporation with respect to a state and not say the state must also be legislatively but not constitutionally/politically foreign. Nonsense.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Notice in 28 U.S.C. §1603(c) it says all territory *subject* to. That doesn’t mean jurisdiction *does* exist. It means it potentially exists.
Civilly, yes. Politically, no.
OUR RESPONSE:
You have to JOIN the club to be subject to the rules, whether politically or civilly. Everyone outside is a transient foreigner who at least starts out with common law and bill of rights protection only.
The club rules are the social compact and contract. All members are contractors or “quasi-contractors”.
THEIR RESPONSE:
This is precisely why completely understanding citizenship, nationality, and civil status, not to mention the political sense and the geographical sense is ANYTHING but a waste of time.
OUR RESPONSE:
It’s helpful, but its only the bottom rung of the huge ladder.
The next rung is property. The 3rd rung is franchises. The fourth rung is the common law.
THEIR RESPONSE:
It only takes one frivolous position to sink the whole battleship.
OUR RESPONSE:
You’re progressing nicely, my friend. But we had to start with where you were at and slowly move up the ladder.
Most attorneys never leave the civil statute ladder. It’s too profitable and they LOVE money.
THEIR RESPONSE:
I will not be pursuing a common law remedy.
Unless…of course I can defend a private business entity and trust through the common law.
OUR RESPONSE:
Its not private if its subject to the civil law. Its a domestic state entity “created or organized” by its owner and creator, the government.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Can a homeowner not pay ad valorem property tax?
I’ve heard there’s a way….
OUR RESPONSE:
Here’s a book about that:
| Opting Out of Property Tax, Form #14.023 https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/OptingOutOfPropertyTax.pdf |
Well, I think you might have just graduated from the No Thanks IRS FRANCHISE CIVIL statute jail. He HATES anyone who brings up private or common law remedies. By doing so, he’s merely a recruiter for public officer taxpayer volunteers who receive no real benefit or pay.
| Your Rights as a Nontaxpayer, Publication 1a, Form #08.008 https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NontaxpayerBOR.pdf |
He even thinks there is no harm to claiming “taxpayer” status just like you think there is no harm to claiming “individual” status or any political status.
He’s doing this because it simplifies his business enough to make it scalable and manageable, at the expense of the security and private rights of his clients. A horrible tradeoff. So we’re a black sheep to him and proud of it.
But he HAS really caught on and even emulated my property approach. He loves it, even though technically its based on the common law. Ironic, huh?
THEIR RESPONSE:
Have you concluded my presentation renders the correct answer?
No infirmity with simply being an “individual” under the regs, but rather, being an “ individual” with ECI or NEC income?
OUR RESPONSE:
Context, as you know, is IMPORTANT.
- The premise of your question is those SEEKING privileges and benefits of the protection of the civil law for themselves or their property by seeking EITHER a POLITICAL status and a CIVIL status.
- This context is not everyone, but what God calls Harlots.
https://sedm.org/are-you-playing-the-harlot/ - Among Harlots who don’t exercise their First Amendment right to ABANDON that profession, the question that you are then asking is: Are there ADDITIONAL infirmities ADDED to the DISADVANTAGES of the civil law generally?
https://sedm.org/Forms/02-Affidavits/AffOfDuress-Tax.pdf - The answer is YES, because you still:
4.1. Must read and understand EVERY statute out of the 9500 pages of the IRC and 20K pages of the regs that might affect the obligations or privileges of a civil statutory fictional “individual”.
4.2. Must needlessly take endless hours to avoid all the obligations attached to those who are “individuals” AND “nonresident aliens”.
4.3. Waive constitutional protections under the Public Rights Doctrine of the U.S. supreme court by accepting the civil privilege and consent to the I.R.C. franchise contract as a “taxpayer” and one “subject”. - Its bad enough that the government steals from you by renting you property it STOLE from God using a franchise. Worst yet , you are now asking me to SANCTION the theft and kidnapping by admitting that I have a status under the hostage agreement and franchise.
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/TheRealSocialCompact.pdf
If you don’t think any of the above is an infirmity, you need to see a SHRINK and seek biblical counseling, my friend! Its called the Stockholm Syndrome and the tactics that produce it are described below from a secular and a biblical perspective:
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm
BEND OVER!
Madaam, we’ve already agreed you’re a whore. Now we’re just negotiating price!
When God refers to the most despicable human in a FEMALE body, He calls it a “harlot”. A despicable human in a MALE body is called a “tax collector”. AND, scripture always connects the the word “tax collector” and “sinners” TOGETHER with the word “and”. See: Matt. 9:10, Matt. 9:11, Matt. 11:9, Mark 2:15, Mark 2:16, Luke 5:30, Luke 7:34, Luke 15:1.