INTRODUCTION:

The main subject of this debate is SOVEREIGN POWER v. PROPRIETARY POWER. You can find an article how to discern the two below:

HOW TO: How to distinguish “sovereign power” from “proprietary power” in the context of taxation, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-how-to-distinguish-sovereign-power-from-proprietary-power-in-the-context-of-taxation/

If you would like to know how to apply this information to the filing of a 1040NR nonresident alien U.S. national, see:

Attachment to 1040NR Return for U.S. national filing as a “Nontaxpayer” and Private Party, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/attachment-to-1040nr-return-for-us-national-filing-as-a-nontaxpayer/

---

QUESTION 1:

Do you think the “U.S. citizen” election stateside is a valid franchise election or a misapplication of the 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(3) provision?

ANSWER 1:

26 U.S.C. §911(d)(3) is a valid sovereign function under Sixteenth Amendment, just like it was BEFORE the Sixteenth Amendment under ONLY Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Whereas stateside it is purely proprietary. And by proprietary, I mean acting as a Merchant offering federal privileges and PUBLIC property (including legislatively created civil statuses and the privileges they convey) to those who want it as Buyers as described below:

Property View of Income Taxation, Form #12.046
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf

In an INTERNATIONAL and SOVEREIGN capacity, however, NONE of the above presentation is relevant because foreign affairs is a plenary function of Congress that implies federal preemption to remove aliens from the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Recall that the U.S. Supreme Court refers to the income tax as a “sovereign power”:

Microsoft Copilot: How can I prove that “sovereign powers” of taxation under the constitution are limited to foreign affairs functions only?, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-how-can-i-prove-that-sovereign-powers-of-taxation-under-the-constitution-are-limited-to-foreign-affairs-functions-only/

NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! 26 U.S.C. §1 does not EXPRESSLY authorize it EITHER. The regulations under 26 U.S.C. §1 don’t permit it either. The Secretary can’t’ make it a GEOGRAPHICALLY INTERNAL tax ONLY in the case of U.S. nationals (American national) by adding the phrase “worldwide” to 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 either because that’s not what section 1 SAYS. So he unlawfully enlarged the statutes in doing so. But he DIDN’T enlarge the statutes if the “taxpayer” is a volunteer officer working for him within the treasury as permitted by 5 U.S.C. §301. Recall that this provision ONLY expressly authorizes him to write regulations that affect PERSONNEL and PROPERTY WITHIN the Treasury Department. It does NOT permit him to write regulations that affect:

1. Personnel or property OUTSIDE the Treasury Department but within the Executive Branch where he works.
2. Personnel or property within the Legislative or Judicial Branches of the government.
3. PRIVATE “nationals of the United States” domiciled or residing outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress who are standing on land protected by the Constitution and have made no elections or accepted no privileges that might give rise to the power to regulate or tax.

The separation of powers doesn’t permit GEOGRAPHICALLY INTERNAL taxation (within United States_P) and its a treasonous act to allow Congress or the IRS or to deceive people into consenting to a destruction of the separation of powers inadvertently. No one can unilaterally consent to destroy the CIVIL and constitutional separation of powers that is at the heart of the constitution:

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf

Every country in the world, however, permits a FOREIGN election to procure protection and it’s even in the Law of Nations. See:

The Law of Nations, Vattel
https://famguardian.org/Publications/LawOfNations/vattel.htm

Why should the U.S. be different? That’s why its POINTLESS and even frivolous to argue that 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) does NOT include Fourteenth Amendment U.S. nationals. It DOES.

So Jesus was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, wasn’t He?

Peter and His Master Pay Their Taxes
24 When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

25 He said, “Yes.”

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”

26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons [POLITICAL and not CIVIL citizens] are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”

[Matt. 17:24-27, Bible, NKJV]

So, to make this….ahem…. “legal” … they permit for volunteering INTO a “Treasury position”. This presentation proves that’s EXACTLY what is happening, in fact:

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

Note also that:

1. Courts cannot entertain PURELY political questions or matters.
2. The only matters they can hear CIVILLY are those involving ACTS of Congress.
3. If you are never anything MORE than a political citizen by virtue of BIRTH because you make no CIVIL election, including CIVIL citizen**+D, NO COURT can even hear the matter.
4. This is why in the famous case of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924), Cook, a U.S. national domiciled in Mexico at the time, had to make a civil “U.S. person” election by filing a 1040 form in order to even entertain a case in the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court HID this fact in their ruling.
5. By the U.S. Supreme Court HIDING Cook’s consent and election to transition from a POLITICAL citizen* to the CIVIL citizen**+D subclass, they:
   5.1. Hid the requirement for consent at the FOUNDATION of whether government is acting justly, per the Declaration of Independence.
   5.2. Created the false appearance that consent was unnecessary.
   5.3. Hid or avoided having to discuss the distinctions between POLITICAL and CIVIL citizens and how one transitions from the POLITICAL class in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) to the CIVIL subclass at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b).
   The above are further discussed in:
   Invisible Consent, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/invisible-consent/

---

QUESTION 2:

Ok….devil’s advocate here:

If a U.S. national can voluntarily Effectively Connect (EC) through a proprietary quasi-contract under 26 U.S.C. §871(b) as indicated by 26 U.S.C. §873(b)(3), then why couldn’t a “citizen” (candidate class at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)) do the same thing and become a “citizen*” who is “of the “United States^GOV” (geographical / federally preempted sense)?

That is, this avenue would not be under Sixteenth Amendment (as you point out), but a worldwide franchise system that works here and abroad.

I’m thinking that surely the architects of the system are relying on a legal mechanism OTHER than saying that “the whole country now works for the Sec. of the Treasury.”

ANSWER 2:

You’re a PROFESSIONAL agitator extraordinaire, bar none. I’ve frequently referred to you as a “devil’s advocate”. As a Christian, you also play a GREAT Devil!

The Constitution limits what the feds can do within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union. The Bill of Rights is the origin of PRIVATE property^PRI. In fact, it is the origin of the COMMON LAW in America according to the U.S. Supreme Court! And it attaches to PHYSICAL people standing on PHYSICAL land, and not to the STATUS of those people. In places where people are standing on land protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, nonconsensual taxation of “gross receipts” is a direct tax and a taking of PRIVATE propertyPRI. In other words.

BUT, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t apply EVERYWHERE or to ALL LAND everywhere in the WORLD. They don’t apply or limit government behavior in the following contexts:

1. People standing on land abroad.
2. People standing on ALL land within federal enclaves.
3. Among their own officers and employees.
4. Aliens physically residing anywhere in the country United States^P, who are INVOLUNTARILY removed from the protections of the constitution and the Bill of Rights UNLESS and UNTIL they naturalize. That’s the whole purpose of the presence test in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1).

ONLY in the above scenarios is the profit-based proprietary Merchant role even authorized as described below:

Property View of Income Taxation, Form #12.046
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf

The above commercial proprietary role can operate on ANYONE, including U.S. nationals, as long as they are geographically located in the above scenarios

But notice who is NOT in the above list: U.S. nationals born or naturalized in the COUNTRY United States^P, who have made no elections, and who must be LEFT ALONE as justice itself requires. The MAIN reason why THESE people have to consent to their taxation is that under the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, they ABSOLUTELY OWN themselves and their property until they consent to give either away. This was astutely pointed out by the following widely recognized authority:

“It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it [would be] in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which … are life, liberty, and property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”

[Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772; http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/father/quotes/2]

This fact is also established by the following documents on our site:

1. Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf
2. Enumeration of Unalienable Rights, Form #10.003-this includes the above Samuel Adams quote in the PREFACE.
   https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/EnumRights.pdf

To permit ANY other approach or to permit GEOGRAPHICALLY INTERNAL income taxation upon U.S. nationals would be a direct violation of the constitution, as correctly pointed out by the Founding Fathers:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

[James Madison. House of Representatives, February 7, 1792, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties]

_________________________________________________________________________________

It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars… But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? (Federalists #41)

[Federalist #41. Saturday, January 19, 1788, James Madison]

_______________________________________________________________________

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

That of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

[Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1020.htm and
http://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-opinion-on-national-bank-1791]

The states of the Union CANNOT be sovereign or independent as long as they could be made the target of the above COMMERCIAL INVASION by the national government motivated by MONEY. Nor would the separation of CIVIL powers mean anything at all if the above INVASION could lawfully be effected. Such a COMMERCIAL invasion would:

1. Violate Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution
Article 4: States Relations
Section 4. Obligations of United States to States

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

2. Create a criminal financial conflict of interest in every judge, or officer of the administrative state by giving them the power to decide whether they want to act in a PROPRIETARY capacity that benefits them PERSONALLY in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455 or whether to act in a CONSTITUTIONAL capacity under Article III. The law cannot contradict itself or permit, encourage, reward, or condone CRIMINAL activity of this sort.

A tax on FOREIGN AFFAIRS ONLY under Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, however, has NONE of the above constitutional and even criminal infirmities.

Besides that, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter of GEOGRAPHICALLY INTERNAL franchises:

But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor 471*471 any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.

[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 470-471 (1866);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2852002685220457827]

You will note that the phrase “trade or business” is EXACTLY and ONLY the subject of the excise taxable franchise found in the CURRENT Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A. This is exhaustively proven in:

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf

The ENTIRE BASIS of taxation upon U.S. nationals in 26 U.S.C. §871(b) and 26 U.S.C. §877(b) is ENTIRELY upon the above excise taxable “trade or business” documented above. AND, this is the ONLY scenario where they are indicated as owing a tax under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 or of filing a return under  26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b). Further, even some items in 26 U.S.C. §871(a) fall in this category, such as Social Security!

Note that EVEN Jesus agrees with us on this perspective. What did He say was the only lawful tax?

Peter and His Master Pay Their Taxes

24 When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

25 He said, “Yes.”

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers [ALIENS, meaning those who are foreign^P persons^PUB]?”

26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers [ALIENS].”

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons [POLITICAL and not CIVIL citizens] are free [SOVEREIGN]. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”

[Matt. 17:24-27, Bible, NKJV]

The phrase:

“Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth [cargo bay], you will find a piece of money [cargo, property]; take that and give it to them [the NATIONAL government] for Me and you.“

What Jesus is talking about above is a metaphor for excise taxation upon FOREIGN COMMERCE upon SHIPS (VESSELS). The VESSELS are represented by FISH. The fish opening their mouth is when the vessel pulls up, and opens its MOUTH (cargo bay), and unloads its belly (cargo) onto the beach. Taking a portion of the cargo is the ONLY lawful excuse tax, apparently, that RIGHTEOUS kings without a conflict of interest can use as a method to collect NATIONAL taxes to pay for NATIONAL defense (foreign affairs). Everyone ELSE GEOGRAPHICALLY internal to the COUNTRY United States^P they have to LEAVE ALONE as justice itself requires. We define “justice” as “the RIGHT, not PRIVILEGE, to be LEFT ALONE”. See:

What is “Justice?”, Form #05.050
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf

DUUUH! Don’t you believe Jesus, doubting Thomas?

CONCLUSION:

Below is one of our AI discovery questions that highlights what happens when judges are UNILATERALLY allowed to convert you from a POLITICAL citizen* to a CIVIL citizen**+D without your consent or election. This dialog can be viewed at:

PROOF OF FACTS: Income taxation of “nationals of the United States” within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state is NOT a “sovereign power”, FTSIG, Question 30
PROOF OF FACTS: Income taxation of “nationals of the United States” within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state is NOT a “sovereign power” – Foreign Tax Status Information Group (FTSIG)

---

---

QUESTION 3:

Man! You’re fired up! I think your answers are great at this point.

So, you would say that all the people and companies in this country are taxed ILLEGALLY? Likewise, you would say that if all the American people and companies file as a U.S. person, it’s not through a voluntary mechanism, but just flat-out illegal?

I just want to make sure I understand your position perfectly.

So even when Congress and the IRS Commissioner say we have a system of “voluntary compliance,” that too is false?

It applies to aliens and citizens abroad. And for them, it ain’t voluntary.

ANSWER 3:

Companies/fictions do not have the full protection of the bill of rights. They only have a subset. They have Fifth Amendment rights. Corporate franchises have NO rights.

Nearly all the mischief happens from domestic elections and incorporation. Those elections happen because the legal guild always promotes and protects its own services.

Some are held liable. IRC 3403 and 1461. The rest are volunteers. Uncle would say its all done through “comity” which they currently define as “willingness to grant a privilege”. If the consent isn’t informed, its constructive fraud. If they ALLOWED it to be informed, the whole system would implode:

Invisible Consent

So we’re really dealing with constructive fraud and identity theft:

Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

Identity theft is EXACTLY what the BIBLE says it is. See

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Family Guardian Fellowship
Section 5: A Biblical Example of Someone Who Fought the Corruption
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm#BIBLICAL_EXAMPLE_FIGHT

You gonna argue with God AGAIN?

---

QUESTION 4:

But you do concede for U.S. person “citizens” and EC’d U.S. nationals, they MAY legally volunteered….right?

ANSWER 4:

You can’t UNILATERALLY elect yourself into a franchise office working for the Secretary without even knowing that’s what it is. That’s just constructive FRAUD.

---

QUESTION 5:

This means that nearly every person and business in this country is filling out forms illegally.

ANSWER 5:

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

[George Orwell]

Prove where I’m wrong. There’s nothing at this point we disagree on that I’m aware of. You swallowed this huge elephant one bite at a time in agreement at each stage.

The point we just converged is the SAME point we started the journey with you at only about 1.5 years ago with few exceptions we are aware of. We haven’t changed. You have. And you gave us a better way to present it, but haven’t significantly changed our mind that we know of. You have, however, given me great symbology, conventions, feedback, and even debates to explain it. Teaching a 7 banana monkey has been invaluable in teaching us how to reach that audience. Thank you for your patience and dedication.

The W-8SUB I had when we connected is still the same, and it’s for U.S. nationals but not aliens.

W-8SUB, Form #04.231
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf

---

QUESTION 6:

What do you mean by “constructive fraud”? Clear, concise, comms are essential for safety in peacetime and lethality in wartime.

I do not believe the term “taxpayer” ALWAYS (there’s the word you hate to use) implies one is in “office.” “The functions of public office” is the general class the terms “includes” and “including” expand from. But not all taxpayers are an office. GE is not an “office.” “Microsoft” is not an office. They are “domestic” corporations by election (domestic SS-4 application)—an election that has REAL implications for all involved. It was designed to create a “tar baby”-like effect—sticking to all who touch it. And the tens of thousands of co-workers at my company are not in office. They are taxpayers because:

1. They elected a U.S. person status placing them in a federally preempted class (like the business they work for); and
2. They entered into a W-4 “agreement.”

When you update your cell phone, and the OS asks you to “accept” the “Terms of Use”, is that illegal if you hastily press “Accept”? Is it “constructive fraud”? I say “No.” It’s “voluntary compliance” through a quasi-contract.

I think it’s a quasi-contract (aka, voluntary compliance) when not under a sovereign power. For both:

1. A “citizen”; and
2. A NRA^50

I say the “domestic” election is what permits it.

I think it’s as simple, and as briefly presented as that.

ANSWER 6:

What you’re missing is that “proprietary” and “private” are synonymous under the constitution. Meaning, that it is EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL and not a classical “government” function. That’s the context for taxation of all U.S. nationals.

Office is a general legal term that applies to public and private. It has privileges and obligations. General Electric (GE) and Microsoft are instrumentalities of the government that granted their corporate charter instituted for a beneficial public purpose. Employee is an office, public or private because it has privileges and obligations. You don’t have to occupy a classical elected public office to serve in a trustee position or office.

There is no question that those who ask the government for anything should pay their way and thus IMPLICITLY volunteer to pay for what they ask for under principals of equity. That’s when and how the quasi-contract forms, and yes that’s what it is, in the case of all non-aliens (U.S. nationals).

On the other hand there is a limit to what a de jure “government” can offer and what you can consent to. The constitution expressly establishes that limit. Anything outside that limit is private business activity that should never be:

1. Portrayed as “governmental”.
2. Portrayed as “involuntary”.
3. Protected with sovereign immunity as a “sovereign power”.
4. A source of “government” revenue.
5. Called “domestic” or “foreign”.
6. Implemented with invisible consent or argue consent isn’t required.
7. Called a “sovereign power”.
8. Called a “quasi-contract”.
9. Used to pay for any aspect of what the constitution EXPRESSLY authorizes. The Federal Reserve is the best example of this, and its creation and existence is the most important reason behind why we even have a Sixteenth Amendment: To regulate the supply of fiat currency NOT authorized by the Constitution.

Doing any of the above would be fraud and create a Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde government and destroy the separation between public and private and the integrity of the government. And by fraud I mean pretending to be government but acting like a private company with a profit motive. I call that de facto. That’s where the fraud comes in.

Yes, private companies do the above all the time, but they don’t pretend to be a government when they are doing it. There is thus a limit on what you can consent to in a “governmental” sense. Making a profitable business out alienating rights that are supposed to be inalienable is NOT a governmental function. In fact, it is an ANTI-GOVERNMENT function and does the OPPOSITE of what governments are designed to do. And doing is surreptitiously and pretending it’s a sovereign power without making consent EXPLICIT and INFORMED is where the fraud starts.

The main purpose of the constitution is to protect private property. That protection BEGINS by never mixing public and private, doing only what the constitution expressly allows, and always keeping them separate:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

Comingling public and private, and using equivocation/deception to do so, and doing so to generate revenue to do things that aren’t in the constitution, and pretending to be a government while doing it is the main problem that I have. Anything done that way isn’t a lawful “quasi-contract”. It’s fraud. If they called it a contract, admitted they need your consent, and admitted they aren’t a government when doing it, and firewalling the activity into a private corporation, then it wouldn’t be fraud anymore. Then the word “quasi-contract” wouldn’t be necessary, and the constitution would no longer be violated.

De Facto Government Scam, form #05.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf

In other words, we want the GOVERNMENT to have clear, concise, safe coms that never inadvertently jeopardize the safety or security of private property without your knowledge or express consent. That’s NOT unreasonable, and it’s what the Declaration of Independence implies the purpose of government is:

“That to SECURE these [PRIVATE] rights, governments are instituted, deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the [CIVILLY] governed”.

[Declaration of Independence, 1776]

No consent is required for CRIMINAL government.

“Quasi-contract” as a term is a HORRIBLE term. It implies if you accept property from the government the government has no authority in the constitution to even offer you, then you have to prove a NEGATIVE to AVOID paying for it, which is:

1. You DIDN’T benefit.
2. There was a “failure of consideration”

And if you can’t, you’re guilty and owe a tax. That’s a completely dishonest way to do “business”. In essence, you’re bribing people to give up rights without admitting that’s what you’re doing, and implementing an unconscionable contract as the output of the process. A book on the subject calls it a FRAUD. So do we. More at:

Common Law and Equity Litigation**, SEDM
https://sedm.org/common-law-litigation

Clear HONEST communications with U.S. nationals in the 1040NR instructions would be:

1. If you are a U.S. national, anything geographically internal to the country is a voluntary commercial procurement process for a specific defined services you want and EXPRESSLY ask for.
2. We are acting in a non-governmental capacity in saying this.
3. What you pay for are services not authorized in the constitution.
4. We won’t charge you more than the cost of delivering the SPECIFIC service you ask for or spend the money on other things,
5. We will never bundle services you want with those you don’t want because that would be unjust enrichment and coercive in nature and make the government into a monopolistic purveyor of essential services.
6. We agree to be legally liable if we don’t deliver the service you paid for and won’t use sovereign immunity to avoid responsibility if we don’t deliver. Thus, we behave just like every OTHER private business when we are doing things the constitution doesn’t expressly authorize.
7. We won’t interfere with any OTHER actor offering the service because competition keeps us accountable and keeps the price for our services as low as possible.

CONCISE communications are impossible without basic honesty, humility, personal responsibility, and equality between the parties.

That’s what we call:

Civil services, SEDM
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.6._Civil_Service

We document the HONEST and CLEAR procurement process for voluntary “civil services” offered to U.S. nationals in:

Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/SGFArtOfConfed.pdf

---

QUESTION 7:

Anyway, I agree with every single thing you wrote. I think our difference lies between what you are calling “moral” and “just” and what I am referring to as “legal” while recognizing the immorality of it.

In a more extreme light, God calls abortion “illegal.” Our country calls it “legal.”

You clarified it nicely up above when you called it a private, commercial contract. That’s legal. It’s not moral in how it’s presented. But it is legal.

And my point is this: If you don’t clarify that difference better (as you just did above), and you are black and white or dogmatic about it (as you most often are), you are playing into the hands of the government by giving the “noob” “patriot community” the simpleton solution they want—“This shit is unconstitutional and illegal bro!!!” You’re actually helping the opposition when you take that approach.

You could expose it much more quickly by just laying out the different methods through which the government approaches it—through a mix of foreign affairs, and quasi-contracts to capture those with constitutional protections. Why take this “It’s illegal!” approach when it in fact is not?

Even taxing the “citizen” abroad under 911(d)(3) falls in the quasi-contract category and not the sovereign power category.

ANSWER 7:

Well said but not entirely true or accurate. Thank you for the feedback. It’s indeed rare that you agree with everything we write ever. But we are blessed by your critical eye regardless.

Yes, taxing U.S. nationals abroad is proprietorial. The constitution doesn’t expressly authorize protection abroad so it has to be proprietary. Those who want the protection have to make an election just like Cook did in Cook v. Tait by ASKING for the protection in filing the 1040 return like he did.

Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
https://ftsig.org/cook-v-tait-265-u-s-47-1924/

We did, however, list many things that are illegal:

1. COMISSIONS
   1.1. Judges treating purely political citizens who make no elections as CIVIL citizens without informing them their consent is required and ASK for or PROVE that consent. This violates the separation of powers and causes the judge to act in a POLITICAL capacity.
   1.2. Enforcing CIVIL obligations extraterritorially without evidence of EXPRESS informed consent or election in the presences of full reasonable notice.
   1.3. Calling CIVIL quasi-contractual activities a “sovereign power”.
   1.4. Letting judges CHOOSE whether to operate in a PROPRIETARY or SOVEREIGN capacity within the same proceeding. That’s a criminal violation. 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455.
   1.5. Interfering with common law remedies to force people into a privileged civil statutory remedy as a franchise officer.
2. OMISSIONS
   2.1. Refusing to recognize constitutionally protected purely private property and U.S. nationals who make no elections as “non-persons”. This violates the oath to support and defend private property, which is the main purpose of the constitution.
   2.2. Refusing to explain in IRS publications that taxation of U.S. nationals is VOLUNTARY and OPTIONAL.

Every public servant takes an oath. The purpose of that oath is to establish a fiduciary duty to the public. Fiduciary duty is the highest of all duties. Anyone can be prosecuted for committing a crime like those in item 1 above, but fiduciaries can be prosecuted for a FAILURE to do something in 2 above.

All of the above have in common criminal identity theft or criminal conflict of interest that gives rise to the identity theft:

Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

The result is THEFT of property through sophistry, which is ILLEGAL, the prevention of which is the main purpose of the constitution. That’s exactly what God calls it:

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Section 5, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

To refuse to acknowledge or openly criticize these clearly illegal activities, or to prosecute or complain about them legally for what they are makes me question your integrity or commitment to honesty and accountability in government and your faith as a Christian.

It’s mutiny against God to argue with His characterization.

---

QUESTION 8:

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’connor said

“Most judges have no clue how the federal income tax works.”

That said, you’re making some big presumptions yourself about why things are the way they are in our legal system.

1. Because they do not understand that the civil “citizen” of the “United States” contemplated in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30)(A) is a subset of all “citizens.” A simple one page website that explained that alone would collapse the system.
2. Because they don’t know about 1. above, they don’t recognize this.
3. The government is a sovereign. They proffer the quasi-contract. I agree with the government on this.

I’ll just conclude by saying, I believe the purpose of Sixteenth Amendment was to bring what you call “sovereign power” and “proprietary power” (quasi-contracts) under the same umbrella of constitutional taxation—a “trade or business” that “the Congress” may legislate for.

By taking the positions you do, you’re teaching your readers to whine and complain rather than take personal accountability for understanding how it works.

ANSWER 8:

That’s an astute and plausible observation about the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment. They should have written that into the Amendment, but that’s not what it says.

By taking the position we do, we’re teaching:

1. PROACTIVE personal responsibility in doing everything you can to do your part.
2. Personal responsibility to confront and prosecute public corruption. We give them all the tools they need to understand, explain, and prosecute #2.

You are clearly only interested in #1 above and ignore #2 because you are so risk averse. In doing so, you condone, contribute to, and protect #2.

All you seem to want to do is run from that responsibility. Since judges and government prosecutors do the same thing, we’re not surprised that you, as a financial beneficiary of the corruption, like the corrupt judges and prosecutors mentioned above, don’t want to confront it. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

This is a very good point to end this debate.

---

QUESTION 9:

lol. Harsh response. We’ll see how it all shakes out.

The truth is ALWAYS harsh. That’s why they hung Jesus and we’re supposed to do the same thing he did. You don’t want to, which is why you don’t seem to care about #2. You don’t like hanging on crosses and put #1, yourself, first always, in that category anyway.

That’s not it. I interact with hundreds and hundreds of people on this topic. I know how difficult it is to get people to understand. Like I said, I agree with your explanation (with a couple of exceptions). But I think your presentation of it greatly works in the government’s favor by taking a dogmatic approach without fully explaining it.

The result will be your readers actually creating more precedent for frivolous positions because they can’t read between the lines.

ANSWER 9:

They are all explained, but you don’t read or ignore the explanation. Take this, for example:

Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

An omission on your part doesn’t make us wrong. It makes you lazy.

---

QUESTION 10:

I think you’re taking an unnecessary “uphill climb” with the presentation.

When you claim the government’s “proprietary” quasi-contract approach is illegal and not a sovereign power, what do you think the NOOB takes away from that?

ANSWER 10:

That government is corrupt. Trump’s treatment and the COVID scam are proof of that. At this point, people trust used car salesmen more than they trust politicians or the government. That’s why voter participation is the lowest of any first world country.

What else is new?

Stop being an apologist for government corruption because you benefit from it. You’re protecting your retirement check. We should want any portion of a government payment we receive to come from any kind of corruption.

The bible says the wages of a harlot must not enter the treasury of a church. Your body is a church and a temple, according to Paul. The optics of that in your or my case are horrible. Grow up.

The audience for our website is not JUST noobs. We want to reach EVERYONE, and ESPECIALLY judges and lawyers who understand the law. How will THEY interpret it?

---

QUESTION 11:

Agree. But you gotta remember a couple of things. People have lives. And life happens. I (and the rest of the country) don’t have the luxury to sit at a computer terminal and study this stuff all day like you.

So, you have to be realistic. Ironically, your refusal to simplify is helping this go on much longer than need be. And you will not relinquish control over your desire to publish MORE and MORE every day, complicate, link, etc., etc.

That’s reality. Not laziness. That’s effective practicality—not demagoguery.

ANSWER 11:

That’s valid. And thank you for that perspective.

Being realistic about corruption is part of being practical.

We’re truly blessed to be able to examine the subject matter so deeply, and I have lots of people to thank for that. I believe its my divine calling.

HOWEVER, we’re NOT doing this:

1. To look like a genius (as you say). My name isn’t on anything and God gets all the glory.
2. To impress anyone because of the LENGTH or DEPTH. That is being done to reach the largest audience and to provide ai training materials and to defend the freedom community from sophist slanderer propaganda.

We don’t know anyone who would CHOOSE to do this. There is little money in it so you can’t say I’m doing it for the money. I was forced into this by chance and circumstance. Its quite a sacrifice. It ought to be a source of affirmation. Give us the benefit of the doubt. That’s what friends are supposed to do. Are you a real friend?

The foundation of Christianity is humility and thankfulness. The beginning of those is giving people the benefit of the doubt and being thankful for what they are doing unless and until they hurt you. I have never hurt you.

It ought to be enough to recognize that what we have done IN GOD”S NAME has never been done before and is a great service and empowerment to all humanity.

---

QUESTION 12:

Totally! We’ve done good work together. And it is obvious to me that God has brought our respective and “Ying & Yang” perspectives to arrive at the best solution here.

Again, I would have NEVER figured any of this out without you. But my strength lies in packaging and presentation. I also feel like there better ways to present certain aspects that, though not as dogmatic, are more tactical in their purpose.

ANSWER 12:

That’s the value you add. And its the essential sand that compels the oyster to produce the pearl. I am that oyster. And our collective work is the pearl.

The value we add is the depth and completeness so that the materials can:

1. Reach beyond the noobs to the architects and administrators of the scam before they get sucked in.
2. Make the materials useful at the litigation level instead of just the administrative level.
3. Defend against the diabolically detailed propaganda against what we are doing that steers people away.
4. Keep us out of harms way and not slandered. Everyone else has been jailed or slandered BUT US.

Every organ in the body is important and essential. You and your perspective are only one of many organs. That’s the Christian perspective.

Vive la difference!

It has been a pleasure producing the pearl, and thus to glorify and honor God in doing so. Please keep the sand coming, my friend.

“Not my will, but THINE be done, O lord.”

---

QUESTION 13:

What would you think of this presentation:

1. Sovereign Power
   a. Public Law (foreign affairs)
   b. Private Law (franchise)

That is something that I think is more accurate. Thoughts?

The part that makes me pause is saying “the government has no sovereign power to offer a franchise.” Clearly they do. And when they do, they operate under the Clearfield Doctrine.

ANSWER 13:

Horrible. The reasons are explained here:

Microsoft Copilot: How do you suggest improving our terminology relating to “civil status” in order to reduce the possibility of frivolous accusations?, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-how-do-you-suggest-improving-our-terminology-relating-to-civil-status-in-order-to-reduce-the-possibility-of-frivolous-accusations/

Judges throw ALL taxes into the PUBLIC RIGHTS category and thus equivocate and destroy the separation of powers.

You can’t call it sovereign power. That’s a unilateral label. EVERYONE has to be treated equally and in equity under private law and thus, is no longer a sovereign.

---

QUESTION 14:

OK. That makes complete sense to me.

ANSWER 14:

If I can’t approach the government in equity with my own franchises and do the same thing to them that they do to me because they are exercising alleged “sovereign power”, then we have a First Amendment violation and government is God when it operates in the private sector offering franchises.

---

QUESTION 15:

Ok. I see where you are going with this.

I think SDO is right. They aren’t violating rights on purpose. They just don’t understand!

Now, as I recall, these different laws when they appear in the Statutes at Large are identified as either “Public Law” or “Private Law.”

If you are correct, then those classifications should be evident in the original legislation, no?

ANSWER 15:

The Statutes At Large (SAL) was published from the beginning in TWO volumes: PUBLIC laws and PRIVATE laws.

When the I.R.C. was codified in 1939, it should have been published in the PRIVATE laws volume for that year. Instead, it was neither PUBLIC nor PRIVATE, but published as a SEPARATE volume 68A. They did that to hide what category it fits in.

Can you spell SCAM?

---

QUESTION 16:

What about Social Security?

ANSWER 16:

Can’t be offered in a state. Its FOREIGN to the constitution.

https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf

The ONLY context here is SOVEREIGN POWERS under the CONSTITUTION in relation to POLITICALLY foreign COUNTRIES, not CIVILLY foreign territories and possessions.

---

QUESTION 17:

That means that Social Security must be private law—not public. Is that the case? I don’t know. If they hide that too, then we know.

• Social Security Act (Public Law 74-271).
• Signed by FDR August 14, 1935.

Public Law. General Welfare. Sovereign Power…..

ANSWER 17:

PUBLIC law for WHO? Congress has TWO HATS according to Cohens v. Virginia? WHICH hat were they wearing at the time?

The constitution doesn’t authorize paying PUBLIC money to PRIVATE people. NEVER HAS. So its extraconstitutional and private law AS FAR AS THE STATES ARE CONCERNED.

---

QUESTION 18:

Not sure what that means. But you can see the problem there. A NOOB claims it’s a private franchise, and not a sovereign power. And then they get hit with “PUBLIC LAW 74-272.”

ANSWER 18:

The constitution doesn’t authorize paying PUBLIC money to PRIVATE people. NEVER HAS. So its extraconstitutional and private law AS FAR AS THE STATES ARE CONCERNED. AND there is no constitutional authority permitting a State of the Union to act AS IF it is one of the “territories” who are the proper subject of the Social Security Act in 42 U.S.C. 1301. That’s covered in Form #06.001 above.

---

QUESTION 19:

That’s super confusing. Nobody will get that right.

We have to be able to ensure that claiming Social Security is PRIVATE LAW will not land somebody in prison.

ANSWER 19:

Because that might include most people eventually, most of whom collection Social Security.

---

QUESTION 20:

I want you to be right. I’m on your side. And you have not made this comprehensible. What will a judge say?

SS says PUBLIC law. What else am I suppose to conclude?

ANSWER 20:

Judges say POLITICAL citizens are CIVIL citizens without consent but they do so illegally also.

If Social Security is in 871(a) and its for aliens only, does it matter?

---

QUESTION 21:

Agree. If you’re right, and you make me understand, believe me, I’ll say “You were right and I was wrong.”

I do not see Social Security as private law. In fact the SCOTUS said it provides for the general welfare. How are you going to refute that?

Heck yeah it matters!

Congress may spend money in aid of the “general welfare.” Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 297 U. S. 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640 (1937)

Sovereign Power

ANSWER 21:

In territories yes. Not in states. Simply because that’s what the Social Security Act actually SAYS

---

QUESTION 22:

Art. I, sec. 8 applies in the states. Not the territories.

ANSWER 22:

Q:Then why doesn’t 42 U.S.C. 1301 define “state” as constitutional states?
A: Because they have to volunteer for franchises as sovereigns.

---

QUESTION 23:

Please study SEDM’s book on the term “includes” and “including.”

It’s a national program.

ANSWER 23:

Its a national program operated as a federal program illegally by consent and comity and in violation of the separation of powers. AND:

1. It still violates the separation of powers between the constitutional states and the national government.
2. Abuse of “Includes” to expand the definition of “State” in 42 U.S.C. 1301 and 4 U.S.C. 110 without expressly listing them fails the reasonable notice requirement of the constitution. See:
   Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 18.2
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf

---

QUESTION 24:

Illegally? Or immorally?

I cannot get behind you in this nuance yet. Case law does not support your position.

ANSWER 24:

Behind me on what: 871 for aliens or 871 including Social Security for nationals only?

---

QUESTION 25:

Not that. We agree on that.

I think we disagree on the difference between Public Law and Private Law.

ANSWER 25:

That’s an area of GREAT equivocation. The Public Rights Doctrine is the center of it. You are right on that. It’s still a fuzzy area at this point. We need something left to explore together.

---

QUESTION 26:

Let me ask you this. Are there any areas of tax law that fall under “Public Law”? I submit they all do.

Here’s what AI said:

Public Law:

• Involves government/state.
• Regulates society (criminal, constitutional, administrative).
• Private Law:
• Involves individuals/entities.
• Governs disputes, contracts, property.

Think of public law like traffic rules (society-wide), private law like neighbor disputes.

So this would partly corroborate your position….

ANSWER 26:

Public law includes everything affecting PUBLIC property. Civil statuses are public property but they are voluntary for political citizens who don’t want them. Corruption happens when:

1. POLITICAL and CIVIL membership are equivocated,
2. Courts or administrative state refuse to distinguish the origin of their authority for INTERNAL jurisdiction as election to a civil status by a political citizen* for INTERNAL purposes.

The above two things DESTROY the separation between SOVEREIGN POWER and PROPRIETARY and make government literally into GOD. They also violate the separation of power.

---

QUESTION 27:

Look at all the Public Laws that went into IRC § 871…..

Private Laws in the SAL seem to go towards things like naming a bridge or a park after someone—like a fallen soldier, for example.

Now….you know what would clear this all up and make it correct?

It’s all public law (because it affects the public). But some fall under foreign affairs. While other franchise aspects fall under the Clearfield Doctrine. And all of it falls under the umbrella of 16A.

That’s a position I can support. And it’s a position your opposition would not and could not dispute.

ANSWER 27:

That’s also consistent with the Public Rights Doctrine so far.

---

QUESTION 28:

But if someone claims tax law is private law. “Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. And do not collect $200. Oh….and pay $5000 for a frivolous position.”

This would remove any differences I believe that remain.

It’s all public law (because it affects the public). But some fall under foreign affairs. While other franchise aspects fall under the Clearfield Doctrine. And all of it falls under the umbrella of 16A.

And….as you said…. The Public Rights Doctrine!

I’m with you on 99% of this stuff. There’s just something about your latest division of it that rings problematic to me. I addressed it above.

ANSWER 28:

I can support that. And so would the supreme court. But where does proprietary power fit into that to enforce the requirement for consent? Public rights don’t require consent and civil statuses are public property but they are voluntary for political citizens who don’t want them. Corruption happens when:

1. POLITICAL and CIVIL membership are equivocated,
2. Courts or administrative state refuse to distinguish the origin of their authority for INTERNAL jurisdiction as election to a civil status by a political citizen* for INTERNAL purposes.

The above two things DESTROY the separation between SOVEREIGN POWER and PROPRIETARY and make government literally into GOD. They also violate the separation of power.

---

QUESTION 29:

Well, we have found the consent elements. So we know they are there—albeit hidden.

Moral? NO! Illegal in God’s eyes? Yes. Illegal in a fallen world? No. Immoral in a fallen world? Irrelevant! Fuck You! Pay me!!

It makes sense they would use the Social Security as the legitimate, public welfare “on ramp” to bring in all the other voluntary franchise components that can then be handled collectively under the Public Rights Doctrine.

All of it—whether foreign affairs or voluntary franchise quasi-contracts—are legislated by “the Congress” and therefore can (and likely do) fall under the umbrella of Sixteenth Amendment. NOBODY would dispute they do. So why go there when it’s an assertion that cannot be proven? Plus, proving it is completely unnecessary!

We can demonstrate the following:

1. The income tax is constitutional
2. SS is constitutional
3. there are foreign affairs components to the tax
4. there are franchise components to the tax
5. they both appear under Public Law
6. there are consent mechanisms
7. there are opt-out mechanisms
8. they appear in the statutes and regs collectively
9. statutes & regs provide “reasonable notice” (not in God’s Kingdom, but in a fallen world)
10. all can (and most likely do) fall under Sixteenth Amendment

Which of our enemies would take a position contrary to any of that? None of them. They couldn’t afford to. See the wisdom in these positions?!

Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
— Matthew 5:25

By the way, if you read “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” Paul Warburg, a Rothschild lieutenant from Germany, told the Rockefellers at Jekyll Island that offering benefits was the on-ramp for getting folks enumerated. And enumeration, was a necessary predicate for WIDESPREAD taxation.

ANSWER 29:

That’s what Deut. 48:43-51 and this article also says is the predicate widespread taxation:

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

But that still doesn’t address:

1. What you are going to say to a court or the IRS that argues taxation of U.S. nationals is a “sovereign power” NOT REQUIRING YOUR CONSENT under the Public Rights Doctrine.
2. What you will do if they remove the NRA U.S. national offramp as they seem to slowly be attempting through administrative obfuscation.

QUESTION 30:

1. We have the pieces to that puzzle. It can be disproved.
2. I don’t think THEY will. They will let banks, brokerages, and businesses let the misunderstanding go widespread through Customer Identification Programs (CIPs), and soon, through AI interface. People who can’t afford litigation because they are hungry and concede before a court rules in their favor.

ANSWER 30:

For item 1 above, disproved effectively just the way it is here?

1. Attachment to 1040NR Return for U.S. national filing as a “Nontaxpayer” and Private Party, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/attachment-to-1040nr-return-for-us-national-filing-as-a-nontaxpayer/
2. HOW TO: Distinguishing “Taxpayer” v. “Nontaxpayer” for “nonresident aliens”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/how-to-distinguishing-taxpayer-v-nontaxpayer-for-nonresident-aliens/

They hid the exit door it a deep stack of doo doo! Needle in a hay stack. That filters out all but the smartest and most dedicated, sophists that they are.

QUESTION 31:

It starts with 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9). Then you show how Puerto Ricans are in “United States” but not the other. You have Great Cruz Bay, St. John v. Wheatley as precedent. You have 26 U.S.C. §2209. And you have United States v. Cruikshank. Then of course there’s 22 C.F.R. §51.1 and 26 U.S.C. §873(b)(3). T.D. 2313 is also helpful.

And then there’s _____ years worth of my tax transcripts and my assertion that the court cannot engage in questions of my political choices.

ANSWER 31:

But at the same time, there is no OFFICIAL court convergence because they NEVER acknowledge on the public record exactly when and how you consent, and its technically NOT a “sovereign power” for U.S. nationals. So they are LYING to call it a sovereign power, UNLESS they say:

1. PUBLIC LAW deals with PUBLIC PROPERTY.
2. Civil statuses we legislatively create are PUBLIC PROPERTY. These statuses, in the case of a U.S. national, include “U.S. person” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) and “nonresident alien^S individual^PUB” but not “nonresident alien” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(b), which is a description and not a definition.
3. If you ASK for or USE that public property by filling out a government form connecting yourself voluntarily to that public property called a “civil statutory status”, we have a SOVEREIGN but PROPRIETARY right to regulate the USE of that property like any other property owner. That is the ONLY sense in which this scenario is a “sovereign power”.
4. In this sense we can tax and regulate the commercial use of CIVIL STATUTORY STATUSES as PUBLIC property, we are exercising a PUBLIC RIGHT and PUBLIC LAW under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 and NOT Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. Meaning, the Public Interest Doctrine rather than the Public Rights Doctrine. They overlap somewhat.
5. You can do the same thing against us with YOUR private property because in doing this as an equal market participant implementing a private franchise everyone can do it. But keep that for a secret for us, will you?
6. Thus, we are running a “rent-an-identity” business as a private company in equity ONLY in the case of U.S. nationals, which includes EVERYONE born or naturalized in the COUNTRY United States*. Its the biggest scam in history but don’t let the word out.
7. Now get out of here. We do not permit IDIOTS and TRANSIENT foreigners and “non-resident non-persons” in our courtroom! And DON’T tell your friends about this carefully hidden exit door. You belong in an insane asylum for not wanting to join our “club”. If you do, we’ll break your knee caps like any mafia protecting its “turf”.
   Are you an “idiot”?, SEDM
   https://sedm.org/are-you-an-idiot-we-are/
8. Declaration of Independence and the mandatory requirement for consent BE DAMNED. We don’t have to tell you when and you consent, even though you figured it out ANYWAY. So we’re de facto rather than de jure, but don’t tell anyone. And we’ll slander you to make sure no one believes you anyway if you do. See:
   Invisible Consent, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/invisible-consent/

An HONEST judge or member of the administrative state would admit all the above. They would NOT, however:

1. Dismiss the jury from the room while these things are being discussed.
2. Say you aren’t allowed to talk about the law in the courtroom or let the jury read the law. When a judge has a conflict of interest, Thomas Jefferson said doing so is a NECESSITY.
3. Gaslight the speaker.
4. Try to CIVIL penalize or sanction them. This would be entertaining a political question for those who have not voluntarily elected a civil statutory status or citizen**+D status.
5. Find an imperfection to use as a red herring so as to avoid the rest of the issues.
6. Threaten plaintiff or respondent in chambers so there aren’t any witnesses.
7. Doctor the court record by intimidating the court reporter into editing it to remove the issues so they can’t be decided or appealed.
8. Make it unpublished.
9. Use equivocation in the ruling to protect or hide their own wrongdoing and then kick the can down the road to the appeals court so they don’t threaten their job by telling the truth on the public record.

All of the above a REALISTICALLY possible and likely scenarios for any third rail issue, and there are many. You don’t even want to address them because you might benefit commercially from not doing so like most judges.

The question is: Are there any honest judges or public servants LEFT who haven’t compromised their integrity by accepting a criminal bribe of public benefits in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208? And by the way, the above scenario is EXACTLY the theme of the following movie:

Jones Plantation Movie w/ Larken Rose, SEDM
https://sedm.org/jones-plantation-movie-w-larken-rose/

The above is EXACTLY the current and comprehensive position of this website. No need to change anything.

Now I think we have 100% convergence. All the pieces of the largest legal puzzle in the world fit together perfectly and harmoniously.

QUESTION 32:

So….to confirm and solidify points from today, do we agree that:

1. U.S. Gov is a sovereign
2. It functions as a sovereign
3. Taxing through foreign affairs is a sovereign power
4. Offering franchises is a sovereign power, but under the Clearfield Doctrine
5. Franchises are not constrained by geography
6. SS is a franchise (not constrained by geography)
7. “The Congress” has jurisdiction over the foregoing
8. Both types of taxation (sovereign & franchise) fall under the Public Rights Doctrine
9. 16A acts as an umbrella over both and serves as a powerful provision to shutdown those who cry “UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”
10. Reasonable notice is not given in God’s eyes
11. Reasonable notice is given in the eyes of the sinful architects
12. The whole scheme is fraud and “illegal” in God’s eyes
13. The whole scheme is constitutional and “legal” in the eyes of the sinful architects
14. Judges and DOJ attorneys don’t understand as much about this as we do

If we agree on the foregoing, then I believe we have reached full convergence

ANSWER 32:

Points of divergence:

1. U.S. Gov is a sovereign

It is mostly sovereign but can act in a purely private and commercial or or even ANTI-GOVERNMENTAL capacity. If they make a profitable business out of alienating rights that are unalienable, they are acting in an ANTI-GOVERNMENTAL capacity and must give reasonable notice of doing so and admit that’s what they are doing to give reasonable notice. And they must accept full responsibility for the consequences of doing so by waiving sovereign immunity. In the present case they HIDE the consent and protect private proprietary business activity unconstitutionally with sovereign immunity. Here’s is the result of doing that: Anarchy and lawlessness.

Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf

The above happens because of THIS, which is God’s Curse on those who allow it:

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Government, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

2. It functions as a sovereign

SOMETIMES it does. But when it makes a profitable business out of alienating rights called a franchise, it is doing the OPPOSITE of what governments are created to do and thus becomes a PRIVATE actor under the Clearfield Doctrine which must waive official, judicial, and sovereign immunity and enter the market place in equity with everyone ELSE.

4. Offering franchises is a sovereign power, but under the Clearfield Doctrine

A sovereign power is something government can exercise but not an individual human. That’s not the kind of franchise they have implemented because what they are doing as a proprietor ANYONE can and should be able to do as the absolute owner of themselves and their property. We use the government’s franchise tactics to create our own anti-franchise franchises to fight fire with fire and they claim we can’t do that.

Injury Defense Franchise, Form #06.027
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf

BULLSHIT! Whatever THEY can do to everyone everyone can do to them under the concept of equal treatment and equity that limit all franchises. Everyone owns property so everyone can implement franchises. McDonalds is an example. God says “governments” are JUST MEN, meaning EQUAL to YOU:

“Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.”
[Psalm 97:2, Bible, NKJV]

---

“The Lord has established His throne in heaven, And His kingdom rules over all.”
[Psalm 103:19, Bible, NKJV]

---

“Mercy and truth preserve the king, And by lovingkindness he upholds his throne.”
[Prov. 20:28, Bible, NKJV]

---

“Arise, O God, judge the earth; For You [God] shall inherit all nations [and governments of nations].“

[Psalm 82:8, Bible, NKJV]

---

“Behold, the nations [and governments and politicians of the nations] are as a drop in the bucket, and are counted as the small dust on the scales.” 

[Isaiah 40:15, Bible, NKJV]

---

“All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’”

[Daniel 4:35, Bible, NKJV]

---

“All nations [and governments] before Him [God] are as nothing, and they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless.” 

[Isaiah 40:17, Bible, NKJV]

---

“He [God] brings the princes [and Kings and Presidents] to nothing; He makes the judges of the earth useless.”

[Isaiah 40:23, Bible, NKJV]

---

“Indeed they [the governments and the men who make them up in relation to God] are all worthless; their works are nothing; their molded images [and their bureaus and agencies and usurious “codes” that are not law] are wind [and vanity] and confusion.” 

[Isaiah 41:29, Bible, NKJV]

5. Franchises are not constrained by geography

Constitutionally, they MUST be constrained by geography to be truly “governmental” and limit themselves to the people in the country. Congress exercises TWO SPECIES of legislative power per SCOTUS in Cohens v. VA. Franchises are limited to areas within the exclusive CIVIL jurisdiction of Congress and may not be offered in states because not expressly authorized by the constitution. If they are, its a violation of the separation of powers that cannot be ratified or extended by consent or comity. That’s the conclusion of this document:

Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf

They are only NON-GEOGRAPHCAL when they are purely private and not constrained by civil domicile. You can’t have it both ways.

6. Social Security is a franchise (not constrained by geography)

It is constrained by geography and the statutory definitions in 42 U.S.C. 1301 confirm that. Courts unlawfully violate that and in so doing, exercise unconstitutional extraterritorial power as documented in section 15.2:

https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm#15_GEOGRAPHICAL_DEFINITIONS_AND_CONVENTIONS

All franchises are contracts, but if they are governmental, they have to be implemented with CIVIL law. If the statutes that implement them are not predicated on domicile which is voluntary, and they are purely contractual and consensual, they are no longer a “sovereign power”, Rather, they are de facto function implemented by a de facto government private actor PRETENDING to be a government.

De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf

8. Both types of taxation (sovereign & franchise) fall under the Public Rights Doctrine

Only sovereign taxation does. Equivocation makes PROPRIETARY power LOOK like sovereign power, but the origin is no longer 1:8:1 as a sovereign power but 4:3:2. You can’t have it both ways: Claim to be a government but never surrender official, judicial, or sovereign immunity to enter into purely consensual and contractual franchises removed from the governmental domicile anchor.

IN CONCLUSION:

There are TWO types of membership:

1. POLITICAL
2. CIVIL.

The First Amendment guarantees you the right to not JOIN or receive the BENEFITS of membership in EITHER of the above groups. That is why the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. 1401 define political membership AT BIRTH: After birth you can abandon it if you want. Someone who doesn’t want to join EITHER group is also accounted for by the First Amendment as described below:

Government Form Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Attachment-Prevents All Civil Status Elections, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/government-form-religious-freedom-restoration-act-attachment-prevents-all-civil-status-elections/

Domicile is the CIVIL CLUB umbrella synonymous with CIVIL membership. All truly governmental and sovereign franchises must fall under the CIVIL membership umbrella. If domicile is not a precondition of participation or CIVIL enforcement:

1. Its no longer governmental but purely private and proprietary business activity.
2. Identity theft has occurred if they won’t give you full notice and acknowledge your right to not consent:
   Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf
3. Government is not operating in a de jure or sovereign mode, but a de facto mode.

Equivocating the two types of VOLUNTARY membership or FORCING civil membership upon non-consenting parties is a violation of the separation of powers and a criminal act that results in identity theft. If a judge does it, here is the result:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty.”

[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/SpiritOfLaws/sol-02.htm]

---

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].

There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”

[. . .]

In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”

[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, 1758, Book XI, Section 6;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]

YOU also can’t do it with your consent either, because that violates the separation of powers also.

I can’t take anyone seriously on this subject who doesn’t deal with all of the above and reconcile them to make them coherent with the larger picture just described. Oversimplification of the subject matter will only lead to GREAT trouble for those who gloss over these critical issues.

We only look irrational, dogmatic, and frivolous to you at this point because you lack understanding of the above truths. Anything looks that way among the presumptuous, the arrogant, the unteachable, and among victims of Dunning-Kruger Effect. Your ignorance of this subject matter only protects the corruption just described and perpetuates more Dunning-Kruger. Its why the system never gets better.

---

QUESTION 33:

Regarding 6. above—did you know SS is made available to foreign nationals in the geography of their own nation? For example, German nationals working at the BX on Ramstein AB, Germany, can, and do earn SS credits.

https://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/germany.html

It appears you agree with every point I listed above. It just took you 1000 words to say it while appearing argumentative in the process.

The government is the government. It can act as a sovereign and do things an individual may not do. Or—as a sovereign, it may proffer franchises under the Clearfield Doctrine. SS is one such program. It’s constitutional and falls under the Public Rights Doctrine. That is reality. To say it doesn’t is to not accept reality.

https://www.ssa.gov/international/documents/ssa2490bk.pdf

Your wife can make you dinner, rub your back, and perform….ahem….other pleasurable tasks. Or….she can bust your balls, spend your money, and nag you and be argumentative. In either role, she’s your wife and there is a protocol for dealing with her regardless of her role. Because she is your wife, you cannot and may not resolve differences with her AS IF she was one of your male buddies. The same goes for Uncle. That’s reality. No amount of claiming it’s unjust will change that. You gotta use its process. Why? Because it is the sovereign. It’s the sinful men within in it that are the problem.

I surmise you agreed with all other points I made.

ANSWER 33:

This isn’t about whether the female you sleep with every night is your wife, but:

1. Whether she is ACTING like a wife.
2. How to recognize when she is outside the boundaries defined only by God for what a wife is expected to do.
3. What to do and say when she is ACTING outside those boundaries.
4. Whether you have enough honesty and integrity to speak truthfully about her and her conduct when she is outside the role God defined both in court, and among your friends.

Same thing with the government. In this case, “sovereign power” is only governmental during involuntary CIVIL (not criminal) enforcement when it acts geographically externally against aliens. People born or naturalized in the country have unalienable rights. If they implement a fiat currency system, make everyone internal into surety for public debt and to regulate the supply of currency through taxation, they are outside the roles defined by organic law. There are lots of ways to do that, and they are all proprietary, de facto, and not de jure.

Under the Public Rights Doctrine, courts claim:

1. ALL taxation fits in that category. Even de facto proprietary taxation of U.S. nationals.
2. They don’t need your consent to enforce.
3. They have a right to determine status and don’t need your consent.
4. The first amendment and the bill of rights are irrelevant.
5. Political or civil membership are irrelevant because you have NEITHER as an non-resident alien.
6. They have “sovereign immunity” and can’t be sued. Sovereign immunity cannot lawfully protect PRIVATE activity.

INTERNAL taxation does not fit the above model in the case of U.S. nationals ONLY. So there is a disconnect if the Public Rights Doctrine is applied geographically INTERNALLY to U.S. nationals ONLY.

---

QUESTION 34:

I would generally agree. But would you agree that the system is what it is because the people in government are also confused? I would say yes.

Question: If the government is acting in its private role as a commercial franchisor, in your mind, how would a legal dispute between you and the government in that role be resolved?

It cannot be state court.

Do you surmise you could go straight to claims court and skip administrative procedure?

Because if you are right (and I think you are—it’s just that your explanation is confusing), then you should be able to skip the APA and sue Uncle just like you can sue Walmart.

ANSWER 34:

The only answer I am aware of for when they step out of the de jure role, enforce internally, and ignore consent is:

1. To use private property as your weapon against them to create obligations just like they do with implied consent and the U.S. person identity.
2. Implement your own anti-franchise as a Merchant offering YOUR property in a proprietorial mode. Fight fire with fire.
   https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf
3. In the anti-franchise, specify the choice of law as OUTSIDE their corrupt forum anyplace you choose.
4. In the absence of doing the above, proceed under the Bill of Rights.
   4.1. Use the common law and equity as an EQUAL against an equitable market participant pretending to be a government.
   4.2. Do not invoke the franchise contract terms in your litigation. But you can’t do this if you use THEIR definitions on government forms. The use of their definitions on their forms implies an implied acceptance of their contract terms under the U.C.C. NEVER use their definitions. That’s what this does and that’s why its included in the 1040NR attachment we just worked together on:
   https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf

The U.S. Supreme Court has TWO modes it can operate:

1. As an appeals court for CIVIL franchises using the Certiorari Act that Taft drafted and got approved.
2. Under original jurisdiction for purely constitutional/private/proprietorial and NOT statutory issues.

Nearly all people invoke #1 above in tax litigation. If you as a U.S. national never voluntarily adopt a status^PUB, that’s the wrong forum and #2 applies. I’ve never seen a published opinion on a tax issue that falls in #2. THAT is the problem. SCOTUS is are HIDING something to minimize their workload. Sandra Day O’Connor would know ALL about that, wouldn’t she?

If you can NEVER approach the government in equity or common law or purely under the Bill of Rights, then:

1. The constitution has been effectively repealed by judicial fiat.
2. You and your property become STATE/PUBLIC property exclusively. You need permission from the state to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.
3. You are a SLAVE literally for all intents and purposes:
   What is a Slave?, SEDM
   https://sedm.org/what-is-a-slave/
4. The government is PURELY de facto.
5. There is no de jure government.
6. Liberty in any sense of the word is completely impossible according to Montesquieu.
7. There is COMPLETE anarchy and evil, as documented in:
   Your Irresponsible, lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf
8. Government has LITERALLY become a God that insists you join their private membership association to invoke any of their services. The First Amendment has been violated:
   Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf

If you think any of the above is acceptable as long as you get your REFUND, then you’re rearranging deck chairs on the sinking Titanic AND you have literally become an ENEMY of God in every meaningful way:

“Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?  Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [“citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, “inhabitant”, or “subject” under a king or political ruler] of the world [or any man-made kingdom other than God’s Kingdom] makes himself an enemy of God. “
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]

It’s NOT about you. It’s NEVER been about you. This battle belongs to the LORD, not you. You don’t even own YOURSELF under His law. He created you and all of existence. He owns it ALL. You are but a humble trustee. Anything more than that is VANITY.

“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God].   For if you serve their gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]

“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world [the obligations and concerns of the world]. “
[James 1:27, Bible, NKJV]

“You shall have no other gods [including political rulers, governments, or Earthly laws] before Me [or My commandments].”
[Exodus 20:3, Bible, NKJV]

You cannot, by consent or election, give away property as a Trustee that the trust indenture, the Bible, never expressly authorizes. That would be a breach of fiduciary duty. This scenario is precisely described in the following:

Government Form Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Attachment-Prevents All Civil Status Elections, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/government-form-religious-freedom-restoration-act-attachment-prevents-all-civil-status-elections/