On Why You MUST Define Franchise “words of art” on all Government Forms and How to Do It

1. Introduction

This site seeks to PROTECT your FOREIGN and private status. The way it does this is to AVOID DOMESTIC status. The definition of “domestic” states that an act of USING SOMEONE else’s definition, which by the way is PUBLIC PROPERTY in the case of the government, is what literally MAKES you “domestic” in relation to them:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(4)Domestic

The term “domestic” when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States [federal corporation, not geography] or under the law of the United States or of any State unless, in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides otherwise by regulations.

Why is this so? Because:

1. The CREATOR of a thing is the grantor and the owner of the thing. This follows the Biblical model where God CREATED the Universe and therefore OWNS it. See:
   Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm
2. The ONLY thing that Congress CREATES is laws. It does this through “legislation”.
3. The laws themselves represent and convey a PROPERTY interest and therefore THEMSELVES are property.
4. The PROPERTY interest attaches to the CIVIL STATUSES and LEGAL STATUSES in the laws they enact, such as “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, etc.
5. The DEFINITION section of a law is where the status is literally CREATED and therefore GRANTED by its creator as an OFFER of property to all those who want to USE it.
6. Legislation is often called a “Bill” because it has a COST. The COST are the obligations attached to the CIVIL STATUSES or LEGAL STATUSES of those who avail themselves of the PRIVILEGES attached to the status they VOLUNTARILY adopt.

The U.S. Supreme Court alluded to the above in declaring that CIVIL DOMICILE is the basis of taxation:

“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. The Federal Constitution imposes on the states no particular modes of taxation, and apart from the specific grant to the federal government of the exclusive 280*280 power to levy certain limited classes of taxes and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, it leaves the states unrestricted in their power to tax those domiciled within them, so long as the tax imposed is upon property within the state or on privileges enjoyed there, and is not so palpably arbitrary or unreasonable as to infringe the Fourteenth Amendment. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, supra.

[Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]

So we have a “pay-to-play” system in which:

1. The CIVIL LAW acts as “club rules” for a PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION (PMA). See:
   https://sedm.org/self-family-church-and-local-self-governance/#2._Private_Membership_Associations
2. VOLUNTARILY joining the “club” is called DOMICILE. “residence” is a SYNONYM for domicile in the above and has nothing to do with mere physical presence in a place in the case of American Nationals.
   2.1. American Nationals are NONRESIDENTS EVERYWHERE per the presence text in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b), so they must make an ELECTION to become LEGALLY but not PHYSICALLY present in “the State” as an OFFICER of the state before the laws of the state can apply.
   2.2. This is NOT true, however, in the case of ALIENS. They are privileged and “RESIDENT” anywhere and EVERYWHERE in the country that they physically are.
3. Once you join the club, you are eligible to exercise the PRIVILEGE of VOTING and serving on JURY duty. And YES, these are PRIVILEGES, not RIGHTS.
4. “Taxes’ are owed by all those who VOLUNTARILY join the club. They are “club dues”.
5. Taxes are measured on “profit”, and participation in “the State”, which is the name of the club, are allegedly what PRODUCES the PROFIT or “benefit”. The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a tax on “income”, which is defined by the supreme court as PROFIT, not ALL EARNINGS or any kind of PROPERTY at all. To tax PROPERTY would be to STEAL IT!

If you don’t want to enjoy “the privileges of residence within the state [the “club”] and the attendant right [PRIVILEGE, not RIGHT because nonmembers can’t do so] to invoke the protection of its [CIVIL] laws” then you can become FOREIGN and a NONRESIDENT. Any American National can do this. They can’t FORCE you to join the PMA Club called “the State” and if they do, they are violating the First Amendment right of freedom from compelled association and the right to NOT contract with that CLUB by not joining it. This is proven in the following:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

Throughout our site, we say you should NEVER produce evidence that you consent to acquire a franchise privilege, “benefit”, or civil status. All these things have DOMICILE as a prerequisite and should be avoided. This includes but is not limited to:

1. “taxpayer”
2. “person”
3. “resident”
4. “citizen”
5. “United States”
6. “State”
7. “individual”

The problem is, if you have had money unlawfully withheld as a nontaxpayer, you MUST fill out a tax return in order to get it back, and thereby BY DEFAULT refer to yourself as a privileged “taxpayer” on the tax return form. This creates a WHOLE new problem, because we say that an act of filling out government forms is ALWAYS a method of CONTRACTING with the government that must be done VERY carefully to avoid all contracts as documented in:

Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidingTrapsGovForms.pdf

The above course is inspired by the idea that every interaction is an act of contracting:

1. The person OFFERING their property or services is always the Merchant under U.C.C. §2-104(1).
2. The person BUYING the property or services is the Buyer under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a).
3. The Merchant always dictates the terms under which he is she is willing to sell in an offer or contract provided to the Buyer.
4. The offer of the Merchant requires some evidence of an ACCEPTANCE on the part of the Buyer to form an enforceable contract. U.C.C. §2-606. That acceptance can take any of the following forms:
   4.1. A handshake.
   4.2. A verbal (parole) agreement.
   4.3. Submission of a form, such as a government form, identifying themself as a BUYER accepting the terms, which in this case is a statutory “taxpayer”, “person”, “U.S. person”, “nonresident alien”, etc.
   4.4. Simply paying the bill sent using the tear-off stub provided.

The above process and how to approach it properly is documented in:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5-3-5.5
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

So how might one get their unlawfully withhold private property back without contracting with or consenting to anything the government offers under the terms documented in their FRANCHISE agreement, which in this case is the Internal Revenue Code? Some options include:

1. Saying what you are NOT, such as a STATUTORY “taxpayer“. This puts you into the unfortunate position of proving a NEGATIVE, which is nearly impossible.
2. Not defining terms on the form and letting the recipient PRESUME whatever definition they want. This is dangerous, because they will always PRESUME it has its statutory meaning, and thus that you are enfranchised.
3. Using your own form that doesn’t invoke the statutory terms, which is usually rejected or ignored and thus you don’t get the refund.

None of the above ever really work. The solution lies in doing what LOOKS the same as what everyone else does but actually accomplishes the goal of getting your money back without acquiring a privileged civil status of STATUTORY “taxpayer”. The way you do this much more successfully is the following:

1. Use the standard form 1040NR.
2. Include a MANDATORY attachment referenced in the address block of the form that includes the address and can’t be separated.
3. Define franchise terms on the form such as “taxpayer” as follows:
   
   “Taxpayer” means someone protected by the constitution and not subject to any civil statute, and who is asking for a return of UNLAWFULLY withheld and incorrectly reported earnings that are and always have been absolutely owned and thus controlled by me. This definition applies to ALL filings with the IRS, past, present, and future, regardless if attached or not.”
4. Using small print in the attachment so they are unlikely to read it but it still applies (just like THEIR forms and publications do).
5. If they don’t like the definition, it still applies even on a future refiling, because it defines all FUTURE meanings of the term on every filing with the government, even if not explicitly attached.

2. Practical Application: Submitting government forms

In the attachment, use the following language:

The following limitations apply to all perjury statements contained on any government form signed by the Protected Party and all information verified by such perjury statements:

1. None of the terms PREPRINTED on any attached GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED forms therefore:
   1.1. Are to be construed or interpreted by the Protected Party, Government Actor, or RECIPIENT in a CIVIL STATUTORY context.
   1.2. Are to be used to enforce any CIVIL STATUTORY or QUASI-CRIMINAL obligation upon the SUBMITTER. By “quasi-criminal”, we mean a PENAL provision that has a predicate civil statutory status, such as “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, “individual”, etc that owes an obligation to do something CIVIL in nature. An example is the definition of “person” found in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343. For an explanation of how the quasi-criminal SCAM works, see:
   Withdrawal of Plea-Federal, Litigation Tool #03.007
   https://sedm.org/product/withdrawal-of-plea-federal-litigation-tool-03-007/
   1.3. Are to be used or construed as an act of “election”, political association, or consent in any form which might give rise to rights on the part of the Recipient. This includes, but is not limited to any of the following statutory civil statuses:
   1.3.1. “Person”
   1.3.2. “Individual”
   1.3.3. “Taxpayer”
   1.3.4. “Citizen”.
   1.3.5. “U.S. citizen”.
   1.3.6. “U.S. resident”.

2. The only legal context and choice of law in which the statements of the Protected Party may be interpreted is the common law, the Constitution (Bill of Rights), and the criminal law (not penal or quasi-criminal) of the place he or she was physically standing on at the time the form was filled out.
3. All RIGHTS RESERVED: U.C.C. §1-308; https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308.
4. The perjury statement on any attached government form(s) verifies ONLY information ADDED to the form, and not information PREPRINTED on the form by the government. If the government isn’t accountable for preprinted information, then under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment, neither can I be, and it would be STUPID of me to surrender my equality in relation to any government in court, since it would in effect create an unconstitutional civil religion in violation of the First Amendment to do so.
5. This statement does not INVALIDATE or limit the perjury statement, but merely controls the SPECIFIC information that is verified under penalty of perjury on the PREPRINTED form and USE and legal CONTEXT of the information provided. As you probably know, CONTEXT of words is EVERTHING in the legal field: CONSTITUTION v. STATUTORY.

The above restrictions on perjury statements and information on the forms you submit comes from the following:

1. Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027, Section 5.1
   https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf
2. Avoiding Traps in Government Forms, Form #12.023, p. 109
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidingTrapsGovForms.pdf

3. Result of Defining Terms on All Government Forms You Submit

By taking the above approach:

1. You prevent them from PRESUMING the STATUTORY context for the term.
2. You prevent having to argue or debate with them about the meaning of terms. If they do, they are interfering with your First Amendment right to communicate and the right to define the meaning of the communications that is part of it.
3. You protect your PRIVATE status and the protections of the constitution that enforce it.
4. You relieve yourself from the burden or proving a negative, which is that you are NOT a statutory “taxpayer”.
5. You do NOT manifest consent to acquire a civil status that would cause a conversion of the owner from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
6. You LOOK like everyone else (by using the SAME forms OTHERS use) without actually BEING like everyone else.
7. You FORCE the CREATOR of the civil franchise status to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the OWNERSHIP they claim to have and the right to use it as their SOURCE of control over you. The CREATOR is always the OWNER, and you can’t OWN anything without taking RESPONSIBILITY for it. OWNERSHIP and RESPONSIBILITY always go together and should NEVER be separated or INJUSTICE will prevail. Click here for details.
8. You make it IMPOSSIBLE for them to make YOU responsible for THEIR creations, offices, and property. Thus, you avoid becoming SURETY for anything, because the bible FORBIDS surety in Prov. 6:1, Prov. 11:15, Prov. 17:18, Prov. 20:16, Prov. 22:26, Prov. 27:13.
9. They can’t argue with you or change your definition, because THEY say on their website and the courts agree that you can’t trust ANYTHING they say, print, or write. See:
   Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
10. Therefore, you HAVE to do it this way, because you can’t trust THEIR definitions, and you need a legally actionable DEFINITION of the terms before anything on the form becomes legally actionable. in court in the case of a dispute. Presumptions about the meaning of terms in court are a violation of due process of law and make the judge unconstitutionally into a “legislator”.

4. Example forms that implement this technique

A 1040NR tax return form attachment that does the above is listed below:

1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf

The above form uses the following language relating to this article:

12. Definitions

Your irresponsible approach to “customer service” and communication have forced me to define EVERYTHING in the context of our interactions, because your own publications (See I.R.M. 4.10.7.2.7) and the courts have held that no one should trust anything the government says or writes or prints (see Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud below for proof).  Thus, I am FORCED to define all the words in our interactions in an actionable, court-admissible manner so that they are not abused or misinterpreted to injure me or needlessly benefit you based on unconstitutional presumptions.  By defining all words on this and all government forms I may submit (including the attached 1040NR), in the context of all communications, I then become the Creator and therefore the owner of these terms so that I can regulate, limit, and control their commercial use by you and limit any benefit or property interest you can derive from them.  An act of DEFINING words is an act of CREATION.  Definitions, in fact, are how rights are legislatively created.  See U.S. v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328 (1919).  As the absolute owner of myself and all my property, I therefore have the right to dictate all definitions that might adversely impact or affect me or my property.  This is exactly what you do to the legally ignorant and innocent by abusing words of art that you created and defined in order to deceive and enslave them.

[1040-NR Attachment, Form #09.077, Section 12; SOURCE: https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf]

Another form that accomplishes the above for ANY tax form is the following:

Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf

REMEMBER: The CREATOR of a thing is always the OWNER.
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm

5. Why the law must permit you to do this

When you are creating a form, you are the owner and creator of the terms on the form and by submitting it, you are in fact CREATING rights against yourself. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court says about those who CREATE rights against themselves, which includes you:

“The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents. Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must at a minimum arise “between the government and others.” Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 451, 49 S.Ct., at 413. In contrast, “the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined,” Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 51, 52 S.Ct., at 292, is a matter of private rights. Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U.S. 442, 450, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1261, 1266, n. 7, 51 L.Ed.2d. 464 (1977); Crowell v. Benson, supra, 285 U.S., at 50-51, 52 S.Ct., at 292. See also Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 894, 917-918 (1930).FN24 Private-rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power.”

[. . .]

Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell’s and Raddatz’ recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right [a “privilege” or “public right” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress’ power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress’ power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.

[Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]

---

“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. “

[United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328 (1919)]

As the CREATOR of the rights against yourself resulting from the perjury statement you sign on a government form, you have a right to LIMIT those rights with the definitions you provide as the original OWNER of those rights, just like when Uncle Sam uses the same technique in the process of LEGISLATIVELY creating rights against itself. All governments derive their authority from powers delegated by the sovereign people. You can’t delegate a power to a government that you yourself don’t have. If the government can limit or control rights it conveys against itself, then so can you. No one other than the OWNER of the right can make rules for the relinquishment of the right or LIMIT those rights by redefining the terms you define yourself and if they DO, they are STEALING, because RIGHTS are property. See:

Authorities on Rights as PROPERTY, SEDM
https://sedm.org/authorities-on-rights-as-property/