DEBATE: State Income Taxes under Buck Act Do not include States of the Union

By ftsig-admin | March 3, 2026

INTRODUCTION:

This debate tests the applicability of the separation of powers doctrine to the concept of state income taxation. The separation of powers is described in detail in:

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

The debate concludes that:

  1. The separation of powers can be violated for the purposes of taxation geographically INTERNAL teo the United States* as a country in the case of nonresident alien parties abroad as a sovereign power.
  2. The separation of powers can NOT violated for for the purposes of income taxation geographically INTERNAL to the United States* as a country in the case of American nationals protected by the Constitution, EVEN by election, because it would destroy the separation of powers.
  3. The purpose of the separation of powers is to protect the private rights of HUMAN beings, and encompasses BOTH:
    3.1. Separation of powers BETWEEN the three branches of government AND
    3.2. Separation of civil legislative powers between the states in the Constitution and the national government.
  4. The Constitutioal separation of powers does NOT apply to territories and possessions.
  5. Where the separation between the states and the national government applies, there can be no CIVIL jurisdictional layering. In other words:
    5.1. Federal preemption can’t operate upon human beings even by election.
    5.2. Civil jurisdiction in thecase of U.S. nationals is based on voluntary domicile.
    5.3. Since you can only have one domicile, then you can only be civilly subject to EITHER the constituitional State you are in or the national government but never both.
  6. All of the inferences above are consistent with the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine, which forbids conditioning a surrender of any constitutional right upon receipt of a government privilege:
    Microsoft Copilot: Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine applied to Federal and State Income Taxation, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine-applied-to-federal-and-state-income-taxation/

The subject of this debate is a continuation of the following article:

FAQ: Doesn’t the constitution allow anyone to consent to anything through “comity” just like many other countries in the world can?, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/faq-does-the-constitution-allows-anyone-to-consent-to-anything-through-comity-just-like-many-other-countries-in-the-world-can/

US 1:

There can be no preemption that destroys the civil separation between state and federal for anything other than 1:8:3. 4 U.S.C. 110(d) is the proof.

You’re advocating treason to suggest otherwise.

THEM 1:

I do not agree with you on 4 U.S.C. 110(d).

US 2:

But you can’t prove how the separation of powers can remain intact. Its a class and constitutional states are in the class in 4 U.S.C. 110(d), “includes” or otherwise.

THEM 2:

If you think 4 U.S.C. 110(d) only embraces the Palmyra Atoll and the territories, I do not agree.

US 3:

Show me where the CLASS is noticed that includes constitutional states.

THEM 3:

It’s NOT the “states.” It’s the “United States.” It’s a totally different jurisdiction.

Miramar NAS is not in California. It’s in the United States. Colloquially, we say it’s in California. But that’s how they trick everybody.

US 4:

But its been ceded under 48 U.S.C. 3111 and 3112 and there is no overlap of civil jurisdiction regarding the cession

THEM 4:

My post office down the road is in the United States. Remember, we’re referring to a jurisdiction referred to as a “geography.” But it’s not literally dirt on the ground they are referring to.

US 5:

That’s seldom true. I don’t believe land to build all post offices is ceded. Some buildings are rented

THEM 5:

Well, you are right about that. It’s a contract. But docks, forts, arsenals, magazines, etc.

The “geographical sense” doesn’t refer to the literal dirt and rocks. But rather the physical scope of authority within the nation. As opposed to abroad.

And the only straightforward authority we have on that is Great Cruz Bay, St. John v. Wheatley.

US 6:

YOU’RE WRONG, dude!

THEM 6:

No, I don’t think so. First, Puerto Rico is not a possession, it’s a territory. And the only Territory we have today is Palmyra Atoll, but it’s unorganized.

The states tax everybody else via their U.S. person elections.

What they are saying, is the state can levy a tax on incomes derived in a federal area within the confines of said state. That’s what Howard v. Commissioner elaborated on.

US 7:

  1. civil jurisdictions can’t overlap because of the separation of powers.
  2. Franchises applicable to nationals are implemented ON TOP of domicile within the exclusive jurisdiction of congress, they do not operate exclusively by contract.
  3. When the national government operates purely by contract, its a private proprietorial mode and not government mode.

THEM 7:

1. They don’t overlap.

2. Wrong. i.e., Form W-4

3. In principle, yes. But you still can’t just go to equity court unless you’re completely unencumbered.

And i think by overlap you really mean active at the same time.

US 8:

2. Wrong. W-4 is not purely by contract. Its civil law built on domicile. Acting as a resident agent for an office domiciled in DC is the equivalent of acting purely by contract.

THEM 8:

The “On” and “Off” both exist simultaneously on my light switch. But only one position has authority at any given time.

Oh, I see what you mean on 2. Yes, I agree.

US 9:

Because property can have only one absolute owner at a time. DUUH.

But remote offices by consent that are domiciled outside of the officers domcile are a malicious destruction of the separation of powers in the case of those not lawfully elected or appointed.

THEM 9:

Agree. Sorry, I’m writing this while putting out a fire and defending my home.

Where else would a “federal enclave” be, but inside one of the 50 States? You would not have a “federal enclave” in a Territory or possession. Why? Because they are already under the sovereignty of the United States. Dude….this is like Kindergarten level stuff here. C’mon man!!

Presenting the truth is challenging enough. Why lose all credibility over 4 U.S.C. 110(d) when it has zero impact on anything to concede the point that the 50 States are clearly intended and within the context of the Buck Act.

It violates the absurdity cannon of construction to interpret that congress can legislatively destroy the separation of powers.

What do you think you are achieving with the position you take wrt 4 U.S.C. 110(d)? What benefit does your position yield?

It doesn’t do that.

US 10:

Territories and possessions also have federal enclaves.

The advantage gained is the preservation of private rights mandated by the constitution and the prevention of federal commerical invasion in violation of Article 4, Section 4

THEM 10:

Actually, you’re correct. Bases.

US 11:

If state civil tax law applies inside of an enclave, the jurisdictions overlap and separation is destroyed.

State nor feds cannot consent to destroy the separation. Its there EXCLUSIVELY to protect private rights.

THEM 11:

The enclave is there as a guest of the State.

US 12:

See:

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

THEM 12:

Where else would a “federal enclave” be, but inside one of the 50 States? You would not have a “federal enclave” in a Territory or possession. Why? Because they are already under the sovereignty of the United States. Dude….this is like Kindergarten level stuff here. C’mon man!!

Presenting the truth is challenging enough. Why lose all credibility over 4 U.S.C. 110(d) when it has zero impact on anything to concede the point that the 50 States are clearly intended and within the context of the Buck Act.

US 13:

It violates the absurdity cannon of construction to interpret that congress can legislatively destroy the separation of powers.

THEM 13:

What do you think you are achieving with the position you take wrt 4 U.S.C. 110(d)? What benefit does your position yield?

It doesn’t do that.

US 14:

Territories and possessions also have federal enclaves.

The advantage gained is the preservation of private rights mandated by the constitution and the prevention of federal commerical invasion in violation of Article 4, Section 4

THEM 14:

Actually, you’re correct. Bases.

US 15:

If state civil tax law applies inside of an enclave, the jurisdictions overlap and separation is destroyed.

State nor feds cannot consent to destroy the separation. Its there EXCLUSIVELY to protect private rights.

THEM 15:

The enclave is there as a guest of the State.

US 16:

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

It creates a conflict of interest and allegiance. No man can serve two masters. 28 U.S.C. 208, 28 U.S.C. 144, 28 U.S.C. 455. Crime is the result.

The individual they are taxing is a VOLUNTEER if they are a national, so its constitutional. If they won’t acknowledge them as volunteers, its unconstitutional.

And, there is NO definition of “State” anywhere that expressly includes constitutional states. 4 U.S.C. 110(d) is the best example of that

“includes” can’t add them without defining a class that includes them. Fails reasonable notice. People cannot add them by consent because that would make them legislators

Congress cannot INTEND by any legislation to destroy the separation of powers. There definition of State is proof they didn’t have that intention AI didn’t even address the separation of powers so its suspect. AI is not a spokesperson for what congress intends. Too subjective

The written law and the rules of construction are the ONLY method of resolution. And they are both on my side.

Howard v. Commissioner also can’t unilaterally consent on behalf of the feds either. They aren’t a political branch and can’t speak for what congress intended.

THEM 16:

Separation of powers is between the coordinate branches of government. This is not a Separation of Powers issue. It’s a Federalism issue. I think you’re wrong on this one. Don’t bring it up if you have to litigate.

US 17:

“The leading Framers of our Constitution viewed the principle of separation of powers as the central guarantee of a just government. James Madison put it this way:  “No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.”  The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed.1961).”

[Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991)]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

“In Europe, the Executive is almost synonymous with the Sovereign power of a State; and, generally, includes legislative and judicial authority. When, therefore, writers speak of the sovereign, it is not necessarily in exclusion of the judiciary; and it will often be found, that when the Executive affords a remedy for any wrong, it is nothing more than by an exercise of its judicial authority. Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force, or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact. In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people. It was entrusted by them, as far as was necessary for the purpose of forming a good government, to the Federal Convention; and the Convention executed their trust, by effectually separating the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive powers; which, in the contemplation of our Constitution, are each a branch of the sovereignty. The well-being of the whole depends upon keeping each department within its limits. In the State government, several instances have occurred where a legislative act, has been rendered inoperative by a judicial decision, that it was unconstitutional; and even under the Federal government the judges, for the same reason, have refused to execute an act of Congress. FN* When, in short, either branch of the government usurps that part of the sovereignty, which the Constitution assigns to another branch, liberty ends, and tyranny commences.”

[The Betsey, 3 U.S. 6 (1794)]

_________________________________________________________________________________________

“We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, “[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority “was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991)  (internal quotation marks omitted). “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Ibid. “ 

[U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

“The people of the United States, by their Constitution, have affirmed a division of internal governmental powers between the federal government and the governments of the several states-committing to the first its powers by express grant and necessary implication; to the latter, or [301 U.S. 548, 611]   to the people, by reservation, ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.’ The Constitution thus affirms the complete supremacy and independence of the state within the field of its powers. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 295 , 56 S.Ct. 855, 865. The federal government has no more authority to invade that field than the state has to invade the exclusive field of national governmental powers; for, in the oft-repeated words of this court in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, ‘the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.’ The necessity of preserving each from every form of illegitimate intrusion or interference on the part of the other is so imperative as to require this court, when its judicial power is properly invoked, to view with a careful and discriminating eye any legislation challenged as constituting such an intrusion or interference. See South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 , 26 S.Ct. 110, 4 Ann.Cas. 737.”

[Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)]

Congress can’t consent to violate the separation of powers. AI didn’t mention it so its suspect.

And it creates a criminal financial conflict of interest and allegiance. Congress cannot consent to CRIME.

There IS no separation of powers constitutionally between the national government and its territories and possessions so 4 U.S.C. 110(d) doesn’t mention it.

THEM 17:

I think we would be well-served to stick to mainstream legal principles, and not wander off into “patriot mythology land.” Now, as it relates to what we reveal in the IRC, that’s not a departure from any mainstream legal principles, but rather, a rigorous application of them to reveal the truth about how the tax actually operates. We have utilized sound legal doctrines and case law to reveal the mystery of the intentionally obfuscated wording to reveal the truth. We need to stick to that, or else you risk your life’s work. You invite discredit and certain defeat.

US 18:

The principle stands that CIVIL preemption can’t operate on anything other than aliens or their property within a constitutional state. Stop pretending otherwise and you will do well. Nationals are nonresidents EVERYWHERE in the world so United StatesG is irrelevant to them, even with an election that destroys separation of powers illegally.

Functionally, the system doesn’t operate purely by contract, but by civil statutes tied to a status that has a domicile its own. Claiming that status and its domicile or making the officer or the office synonymous functionally destroys the separation of powers. And, its fraud to claim to have a domicile or represent a domicile in a place you physically are NOT.

THEM 18:

Well, the Buck Act deals with the State taxing folks who work in federal enclaves. So, you contend the State is violating the Feds here?

US 19:

SCOTUS is condoning the violation in HOward. They have no authority to do that and are legislating to do that. THEY are the violators. ALL the corruption is in the courts. The statutes are fine:

  1. Microsoft Copilot: Origin of domicile and authority of courts to use it, FTSIG-judges COMPELLING domicile, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-origin-of-domicile-and-authority-of-courts-to-use-it/
  2. 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-judges equivocating POLITICAL and CIVIL citizenship to make everyone an involuntary and illegal “taxpayer”
    https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-income-taxation-of-nationals-of-the-united-states-within-the-exclusive-jurisdiction-of-a-constitutional-state-is-not-a-sovereign-power/
  3. PROOF OF FACTS: Involuntary civil statutory obligations are a product of Judicial Corruption of Republican Principles, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-involuntary-civil-statutory-obligations-are-a-product-of-judicial-corruption-of-republican-principles/
  4. PROOF OF FACTS: Courts admit they don’t give a damn about protecting your private rights or property, which is the ONLY purpose of establishing government to begin with, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-courts-admit-they-dont-give-a-damn-about-protecting-your-private-rights-or-property-which-is-the-only-purpose-of-establishing-government-to-begin-with/
  5. Microsoft Copilot: Judicial conspiracy to censor or interfere with common law/private/foreign rights, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-judicial-conspiracy-to-censor-or-interfere-with-common-law-private-foreign-rights/
  6. Microsoft Copilot: When did the word “private” transition from absolute ownership under the common law to usufructary ownership under civil statutes?, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-when-did-the-word-private-transition-from-absolute-ownership-under-the-common-law-to-usufructary-ownership-under-civil-statutes/

THEM 19:

Well, the Buck Act deals with the State taxing folks who work in federal enclaves. So, you contend the State is violating the Feds here?

US 20:

Buck act doesn’t apply to constitutional states. Constitutional states are conspiring with SCOTUS to destroy the separation of powers.

THEM 20:

Oh. Now I understand!

US 21:

ALL the corruption is in the courts as TJ predicted. The above is the proof.

THEM 21:

I don’t disagree these courts are corrupt. But the concept behind the Buck Act makes sense to me.

US 22:

Prove that constitutional states are in the class specified in 4 U.S.C. 110. You can’t. So it applies to the territories and possessions only. NO reasonable notice for any other interpretation.

Or do you only obey the rules of construction when it benefits your perspective?

This is important and can’t be avoided. What if someone says:

United StatesG can’t ALWAYS be a geography both BOTH residents AND citizens because:

  1. nationals are nonresidents EVERWHERE under 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1).
  2. There is no provision that MAKES them “resident” anywhere AFTER an election.
  3. If the officer and the status have different domiciles and are treated as synonymous, then identity theft and misrepresenting domicile/fraud has occurred.
  4. So the only way it would be lawful is if:
    4.1. The officer and the status have the same domicile, which is in the federal zone only in the case of nationals and the geography is limited to 4 U.S.C. 110(d) if the party is in a state.
    4.2. Or its a tax on aliens with no constitutional rights who are nonresident.
  5. Any other approach violates the separation of powers.

Thus, its more reasonable to assume that the tax is on the government (domestic) which is nongeographical and internal to the government ONLY.

How are you going to rebut that? This is a HUGE hole in our/your current approach.

YOU CAN’T dude!

So my answer is to say “of the United States” means the man or propertyPUB BEHIND the curtain and not the geographical curtain. Then it always works and is consistent with the idea of domestic. Your approach treating it as geographical only works for aliens and never nationals because of the presence test.

Just posted:

FRIVOLOUS SUBJECT: There is such thing as a “citizen of the United StatesG” on this website, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/frivolous-subject-there-is-such-thing-as-a-citizen-of-the-united-statesg-on-this-website/

THEM 22:

Likewise, prove the territories and possessions are embraced by the term “United States” so defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9). You can’t. Yet, there they are in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c).

So, why can I expand the term “United States” to embrace the territories and possessions when the states and the District of Colombia are the only things articulated in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9)?

I can do it because the permitted enlargement (through the term “includes”) of the things articulated is driven by the greater context. The territories and possessions are in the same POLITICAL class as the states and D.C. And that’s why they make their appearance in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) even though they are not EXPRESSLY STATED (as you like to say).

That’s just how it works.

US 23:

Just added:

Process to “Invisibly” join the Matrix: Electing a CIVIL STATUTORY STATUS
Section 2: Consent Creates the “Person” and results in a SUBCLASS Election in the case of Nonresident Aliens
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/process-to-invisibly-join-the-matrix-electing-a-civil-statutory-status/

NOPE.

  1. I.R.C. Subtitle A is the franchise.
  2. 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(a) deliberately omits territories and possessions in 871(a) and 877(a) because its not part of the franchise, even though they can be constitutionally taxed under Constitution 1:8:3 as a sovereign power.
  3. People in these localities are volunteers because there is no liability statute like there is with withholding agents in 26 U.S.C. 1461 and employers in 26 U.S.C. 3403 so they are outside the franchise unless they volunteer.
  4. When they volunteer, they are violating the separation of powers and misrepresenting their domicile by representing an office in D.C. that is domiciled in a place they are not domiciled. Treating the officer and the office synonymously is the cause of this conundrum.

So NO, you can’t add territories and possessions to 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) either, which is exactly why they aren’t listed and can’t be listed in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(10) either. SO, they have to use the plural “States” but violate the reasonable notice requirements by not listing territories and possessions as being within them.

SCAM. And worst yet, you are defending it without even realizing its a scam so you can make a judge think you’re on his side.

THEM 23:

You’re wrong about that. I brought you up to speed on this matter over the course of MONTHS—and you didn’t want to budge. Tell me why 8 U.S.C. § 1402 is addressed in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c). I’m afraid you still don’t really understand citizenship, nationality, includes, including, and what the “political sense” is and why it’s foundational and critical to success in this endeavor.

If you think the territories and possessions are not part of the term “United States” in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9), you are woefully mistaken. Not in the geographical sense, but in the political/ principle sense. Remember, 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) says “WHEN USED.”

Which begs the question: “What sense is it used in WHEN IT’S NOT USED in its geographical sense?”

Answer:

  1. Political sense (very rarely) (see 1.1-1(c) & § 2209); and
  2. Governmental sense (very rarely) (see § 3121(b)(7)(B)(i).

Jurisdiction is layered:

  1. City.
  2. County.
  3. State.
  4. Federal

Each one adds to the previous layer but doesn’t preempt it.

I asked AI about this layering and it said it was not a product of preemption or supremacy, but just additive civil layering, where layer above add to those below.

US 24:

The problem though is if such layering is happening, it still cannot violate the separation of powers because state and federal can’t overlap in constitutional states except for aliens under the foreign affairs functions of Congress in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

4 U.S.C. 110(d) is proof of that.

Domicile is the bottom layer for U.s. nationals. Since you can only have ONE domicile at a time and “residence” only applies to aliens per 26 C.F.R. 1.871-2, then you can’t have multiple layers in a national sense. But for aliens you can because foreign affairs is involved.

Within a constitutional state, there can be layering because there is not separation of powers within a state. NOT so for layers external to the state such as federal, at least in the case of American nationals.

But even the intra-state layering can’t happen without consent, because domicile is voluntary and is NOT a statutory construct, but a JUDICIAL one not even authorized by the constitution and therefore EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL. See:

Microsoft Copilot: Origin of domicile and authority of courts to use it, FTSIG-judges COMPELLING domicile
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-origin-of-domicile-and-authority-of-courts-to-use-it/

THEM 24:

Agree. Preemption was probably not the best method to articulate the concept. And that is what led me to engage AI in this issue. I’m really having trouble articulating what the purpose of the term “United States” is in its geographical sense. But you’ll notice AI did as well. At first it said it represented a collection of 51 jurisdictions. But then it shifted gears.

This issue is ground zero for our assertion that we are NRAs. If this cannot be properly articulated in court, all is lost. Likewise, to say the income tax is a franchise is not quite accurate. So, we really need to figure out how to best articulate this stuff.

I do not care to engage in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) with you anymore. We have to agree to disagree. You’ll have to take that up with courts. I think you’re mistaken.

So, in a single sentence, tell me, as if I was a judge, why you think you’re not a “citizen” of the “United StatesG“.

US 25:

  1. I’m not a “citizen” of the “United StatesG” in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(a) and (b) for the purposes of income taxation, your honor, because:
    1.1. It’s never defined, just like nonresident alien is never defined.
    1.2. It comes with obligations and slavery is unconstitutional so I must be a volunteer.
    1.3. You can’t owe obligations to a geography but you can to a legal entity like a corporation.
    1.4. There is no liability statute (like there are for withholding agents in 26 U.S.C. 1461 and employers in 26 U.S.C. 3403) so claiming the status is the METHOD of volunteering. Otherwise, the absurdity cannon excludes me from involuntarily being one.
    1.5. Since it’s legislatively created and owned by Congress, I have a right to refuse it as public property that comes with strings attached. If I don’t, then I’m a slave, because self-ownership BEGINS with the right to excluded any and all others from using or benefitting from me or my property.
    1.6. It’s unreasonable and an impossible burden of proof to expect me to prove a NEGATIVE, which is that I am NOT a thing that literally has no defintion.
    1.7. More at:
    FRIVOLOUS SUBJECT: There is such thing as a “citizen of the United StatesG” on this website, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/frivolous-subject-there-is-such-thing-as-a-citizen-of-the-united-statesg-on-this-website/
  2. Agree on WHAT?

THEM 25:

Yes. But as succinctly as you possibly can—I know it’s hard for you! Tell me what “United States” in its geographical sense represents.

Is it a collection of 51 distinct jurisdictions? Or is it a single taxing jurisdiction like the 3d. Circuit said in Great Cruz Bay. And if it’s the latter, and you’re physically within it, why does it not embrace you?

BE CONCISE! No numbered lists!

US 26:

That last link is B.S. Are you telling me a resident alien is to be regarded as a “resident of the government.” That’s a ridiculous interpretation.

RES=thing
IDENT=Identified.

See:

Authorities on “res”, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/res.htm

Obligations attach to the res by election. The res is property, and the government is nothing but property, So it can only mean THE GOVERNMENT.

What is “Government”?, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/special-language/what-is-government/

And, in fact,that’s exactly what SCOTUS said the tax was on in Downes v. Bidwell: The GOVERNMENT and NOT a geography.

“In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under Art. I, sec. 8, giving to Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, imposts and excises,” which “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States.“
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9926302819023946834]

The constitution is a TRUST indenture and the ONLY thing a trust consists of is PROPERTY managed by TRUSTEES, who in the case of government are called public officers.

A resident of the United States is just an agent who manages the res attached to the office he or she occupies by election. That election was made under 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1).

DUUUH!

For most people, including yourself, the truth can be stranger than fiction. Or should say stranger than THE fiction called “res-ident”.

You’re the ridiculous one. The truth is staring you in the face and you refuse to see it exactly as it is using only legal terminology to describe it. Instead, you keep insisting on PRESUMPTIONS about what it means that you can’t prove.

“There is nothing so powerful as truth, and often nothing so strange [foreign or alien]”

[Daniel Webster]

THEM 26:

Then what is the purpose of the geographical sense, and where, if ever, is it deployed?

US 27:

See:

FTSIG Opening page, section 2.1
https://ftsig.org/#2.1._Geographical

We still have some minor kinks to work out.

  1. Preemption is now out the window or at least must be treated differently. And we now have a new concept to replace it: Layered jurisdiction and how it has to interact with the separation of powers in order to be lawful, from both of the following perspectives:
    1.1. Sovereign power.
    1.2. Proprietary power.
  2. “citizen” of “the United StatesG” is also out the window and makes no sense at all at this point.
    FRIVOLOUS SUBJECT: There is such thing as a “citizen of the United StatesG” on this website, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/frivolous-subject-there-is-such-thing-as-a-citizen-of-the-united-statesg-on-this-website/

At this point, United StatesG really only makes sense as far as 26 U.S.C. 871 as a sovereign power of taxation over aliens abroad doing business in the COUNTRY “United States*”. Anything else doesn’t make sense. Use of it for implementing proprietary taxation of U.S. nationals makes no sense because insofar as states of the Union, it violates:

  1. The separation of powers. AND
    Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
  2. The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine.
    Microsoft Copilot: Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine applied to Federal and State Income Taxation, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine-applied-to-federal-and-state-income-taxation/

If in fact you don’t want to revisit the separation of powers issue, we can never resolve any of the above issuse futher, because it’s central to the resolution of such issues.

A little “intellectual honesty” in your case would go a long way in this discussion.

Intellectual Honesty, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/special-language/intellectual-honesty/

THEM 27:

Yeah….I don’t think so.

U.S. person:

(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-2032517217-454322949&term_occur=999&term_src=)

One could argue that “citizen” stands alone next to resident of the United States. But it doesn’t. If it did, then a Puerto Rican would be a U.S. person. We know they are not. So the “United States” as that term above is deployed eliminates the territories and possessions. That’s because the term is used in its geographical sense—not its political sense. 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) and 26 U.s.C. 2209 validated that reasoning.

So again, if you maintain that “United States” as deployed in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30)(A) means the government, then you defeat you’re own averment that you are an NRA. Because, in such an instance, “citizen” stands alone. Furthermore, “citizen” or resident of the government is absurd on its face. It’s a frivolous interpretation, and the wrong argument.

If anything, you assert art. IV state citizenship as a means of NOT denying national citizenship, but precluding equivocation into the class of “citizen” with a +D election.

US 28:

1. Not frivolous to claim “of the United states” means the government. The government is a corporation and if you are working for it, you are the same kind of “citizen” that IT is.

“A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only.”

[19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §886 (2003)]

2. The “citizen of the United StatesP” in 26 U.S.C. 1.1-1(c) is not the same united states as United StatesGOV in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(a) and (b), nor is it necessarily a geographical citizen either.

3. Thus, so long as you qualify that its a political citizen AT BIRTH ONLY and NOT afterward, as Brushaber did, you’re fine.

4. Puerto Rican citizens in 26 U.S.C. 2209 are political citizens who are NOT treated as corporate officers by default. However, I don’t think IRS would argue with even a Puerto Rican citizen who is abroad and who files a 1040 to claim the benefit of a treaty to avoid double taxation like Cook did.

5. Thus, the subclass implicated is the government as its creator and owner and not a geography.
5.1. You can’t owe obligations to a geography but you always owe obligations to your creator if you volunteer to be surety for a fiction it created. See section 2 of the following for proof
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/process-to-invisibly-join-the-matrix-electing-a-civil-statutory-status/
5.2. Physical presence alone in a geography where there is no domicile also is insufficient to create the civil obligation, which must be a precursor to any legitimate government franchise obligation.
5.3. The obligation is owed WORLDWIDE regardless of location, so it can’t be strictly geographical.
5.4. The obligation would be proprietary and non-governmental if it was franchise based but didn’t have a domicile predicate, in which case sovereign, official, and judicial immunity wouldn’t apply. This can’t be the case though because they consistently call it a sovereign power. Geographically domestically though, its NOT a sovereign power but a proprietary power.

6. Everything the government legislatively creates is propertyPUB.
6.1. The government is just a collection of property consisting of tangible and intangible property managed under the Constitution as a public trust. So no matter what subset of that property you use AFTER birth, you’re still privileged, whether its a POLITICAL “citizen” or a CIVIL “citizen” of the “United StatesGov”. Its all the same thing.
6.2. Only a fool touches any of their property. A political citizen at birth is a candidate, but if you only claim the status at birth and not afterward, you don’t touch any privileges so you remain private.
6.3. AFTER birth, the candidate becomes a political citizen ONLY through a domicile election. You can’t register to vote without a domicile. Voting is the exercise of political privileges so citizen**+D comes along for ride automatically AFTER birth when you claim it.

I vote “none of the above”, leave me the HELL alone, which is what justice is legally defined as. If I don’thave that choice to disassociate under the First Amendment, the whole thing is a scam. Self-ownership demands the right to exclude any and all others from using or benefitting from you or your other absolutely owned private property. If you don’t have that right, you’re just a slave and a vassal of someone else.

These are not simple enough concepts for the average joe to understand. That complexity is the main thing that hides the machinery of the matrix. I don’t know of a way to simplify it further, but I know you’d like to.

You’re oversimplifying by not considering the layering described both above and in the article below:

Jurisdictional Layers, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/jurisdictional-layers/

That’s why I reintroduced the layering concept in this debate. Its a multidimensional problem.

Posted in Debate and Discovery