Itemized List of Government Drift (corruption) Tactics

SOURCE:

Timeline for Corruption of Tax System by Abandoning PersonPRI and Replacing with PersonPUB, FTSIG, Section 2
https://ftsig.org/timeline-for-corruption-of-tax-system-by-abandoning-personpri-and-replacing-with-personpub/#2.1._Statutory

1. Introduction

The purpose of this index is to explain all the ways that corruption is introduced and expanded in the government by all the various branches of government. “Drift” techniques are subtle techniques used by all branches of government to:

1. Unconstitutionally expand their jurisdiction, importance, authority, or revenue at the expense of your rightsPRI.
2. Conceal the source of their authority so that it can be surreptitiously expanded.
3. Violate the separation of powers to consolidate power in one branch and use that consolidation to coerce the surrender or rightsPRI.

We provide this list so you will be on the lookout for these techniques and be able to discipline the perpetrators and turn jurists and government actors against these unlawful and malicious tactics in court and in the political arena.

2. Statutory Drift

Congress:

1. Enacts legislation that progressively redefined private economic activity as public statutory activity.
2. Collapses the distinction between political citizenship and civil statutory status.
3. Creats registration and identification systems that functioned as invisible consent mechanisms.
4. Leaves major terms undefined that have a statusPUB context but because they were undefined, judges use the ordinary/statusPRI context to interpret.
5. Abuses the word “includes” and “including” in statutory definitions to encourage readers and the executive branch to add things or classes of things not expressly defined in violation of the reasonable notice provisions of the constitution. See 26 U.S.C. §7701(c). See:
   Includes & including, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/special-language/includes-including/

The key instruments include the revenue acts, provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, and identification mandates. This vector operates across the entire modern period, from 1861 to the present, and constitutes the foundational framework upon which all other vectors depend.

3. Doctrinal Drift

Courts — particularly the Supreme Court of the United States — issued decisions that expanded federal jurisdiction by:

1. Definitions of “terms”:
   1.1. Conflating statutory terms (public) with dictionary terms (private) relating to human beings or their property.
   1.2. Using stipulations and preexisting elections to expand statutory terms through consent of the parties.
   1.3. Unilaterally expanding terms to include PRIVATE activity in violation of the rules of statutory construction and of the separation of powers.
   1.4. Presuming a PUBLIC context for ordinary words by default.
   1.5. Using the word “includes” and “including” in a statutory definition to add anything they want to the definition in violation of the rules of statutory construction, the separation of powers, and due process (reasonable notice) requirements.
   More like the above at:
   Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf
2. Confusing classical terms such as “domicil” and “domicile” to deceive the public. See:
   HOW TO: Distinguishing Domicil v. Domicile
   https://ftsig.org/how-to-distinguishing-domicil-v-domicile/
3. Inventing their own method of compelling civil statutory status not in the constitution. Domicile is unnecessary in common law suits. See:
   Copilot: Origin of domicile and authority of courts to use it, FTSIG-judges COMPELLING domicile, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/copilot-origin-of-domicile-and-authority-of-courts-to-use-it/
4. Enforcing the Public Rights Doctrine in violation of the Constitution:
   4.1. Implement the doctrine to prevent challenges based on:
   4.1.1 Bill of Rights or property.
   4.2.2 Involuntary civil capacity.
   4.2. Grounding everything in “sovereign power” instead of what it really is for U.S. nationals on land protected by the constitution: “Proprietary power”.
   4.3. Treating statutory definitions as dispositive.
   4.4. Treating political status and civil status as the same in violation of the political questions doctrine.
   4.5. Using a jurisdiction nexus instead of consent.
   4.6. Treating statutory classifications as “definitions”, not the legislative creation and property “property” of Congress that they really are that carries ownership and responsibility with it.
   4.7. Shifting burdens through statutory structure, so the accused has to prove a NEGATIVE, which is an impossible burden of proof.
   4.8. Omitting the consent mechanisms from opinions (e.g. Cook v. Tait).
   More like the above at:
   Copilot: Origin of CIVIL Privileges v. Obligations, FTSIG, Question 17
   https://ftsig.org/copilot-origin-of-civil-privileges-v-obligations/
5. Treating legislatively foreign states of the Union as federal territories and/or possession so as to destroy the separation of powers and expand the scope of the income tax. Even comity does not permit this. See 4 U.S.C. 110(d) and Howard v. Commissioners, 344 U.S. 624, 626, 73 S.Ct. 465, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953).
6. Conflating physical presence with legal presence. See:
   Writing Conventions On This Website, Section 10: Types of Civil Legal Presence
   https://ftsig.org/introduction/writing-conventions-on-this-website/#10._Types
7. Conflating geographic location with jurisdictional consent. See:
   Writing Conventions On This Website, Section 4.1: United States
   https://ftsig.org/introduction/writing-conventions-on-this-website/#4.1._United
8. Conflating political citizenship with civil statutory obligation. See:
   Civil/Political Jurisdiction menu
   https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/
9. Interfering with or penalizing civil capacity challenges (identity theft) by non-publication of cases and illegal sanctions. See:
   Government Identity Theft, Form #05.049
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovernmentIdentityTheft.pdf
10. Even though government’s main job, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to protect private property, judges seldom discuss any of the following critical issues in their orders unless its directly raised as an issue in the pleadings:
    10.1. How the rightsPRI of both litigants are impacted individually.
    10.2. When and how the litigants to surrendered constitutional rights if there was a conversion from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
    The above tactics remove the constitutionally required reasonable notice to everyone of when and how they surrender their rights.

Over time, courts ceased performing capacity analysis as a threshold jurisdictional inquiry. The result was the judicial ratification of a system in which the antecedent question — “In what capacity does the government address this individual?” — was never asked. This vector commenced with the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and continues to the present.

4. Regulatory Drift

Administrative agencies — principally the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of the Treasury, and the Social Security Administration (SSA)

1. Promulgated regulations, procedures, and forms that presumed personPUB status universally.
2. Eliminated capacity-verification procedures.
3. Created practical compulsion systems that rendered functioning outside personPUB nearly impossible.

This vector commenced in the 1930s with the establishment of the SSA and accelerated through each subsequent decade of administrative expansion.

5. Ministerial Officer Drift

1. People in the IRS and state revenue agencies are what courts call “ministerial officers”.
2. A ministerial officer operates under strict legal limitations:
   2.1. They are not fact witnesses and cannot CREATE facts.
   2.2. They seldom if ever sign perjury statements.
   2.3. They cannot make their own “legal conclusions” or “legal determinations” or practice law on their own.
   2.4. If you complete and sign a tax form that contains a legal conclusion or even a status, then a ministerial officer must dismiss and not act upon a legal conclusion on your part, even IF it is verified by a perjury statement
3. To understand how to challenge a ministerial officer, you must study the Federal and State rules of evidence.
   3.1. Facts are CREATED by perjury statements and personal knowledge.
   3.2. Facts do not include hearsay of others or presumptions on your part.
   3.3. Facts include independently verifiable things like your address, phone number, name, birthdate, email address, etc.
   3.4. Facts DO NOT include “legal conclusions” or “legal determinations”.
   3.5. Legal conclusions by those not practicing law are inadmissible as evidence.
   3.6. A statutory status, capacity, or classification is NOT a fact, but a legal conclusion or determination that is NOT evidence. See Federal Rule of Evidence 610.
4. IRS forms and publications are not trustworthy according to the IRS. See:
   IRS Forms/Pubs/Statements warning, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/special-language/irs-pubs-warning/
5. The fact that IRS publications and statements are NOT EVIDENCE or trustworthy means that:
   5.1. Neither the form nor any of the words on the form from the IRS are facts or admissible as evidence.
   5.2. The connection between untrustworthy words on the form and things you ADD to the form is inadmissible as evidence.
6. Because the untrustworthy words the IRS puts on the form and the statuses on the form are inadmissible as evidence and cannot be validated by your own perjury statement:
   6.1. The choice of form is irrelevant insofar as it affects your statutory classification or capacity.
   6.2. The perjury statement you sign on the form does not validate the words the IRS put on the form, but only what you ADDED to the form.
7. The only way a ministerial officer can create an enforceable statutory capacity or status that is admissible as evidnece under the rules of evidence without involving an inadmissible legal conclusion is to offer you a CHOICE. That means:
   7.1. They have to CALL it a choice of election.
   7.2. They have to include check boxes on the form identified as CHOICES.
   7.3. They cannot use your CHOICE of form to make the election invisible, because the status printed on the form isn’t evidence.
   7.4. If they don’t OFFER you a choice, they are violating the reasonable notice provisions of the constitution.
8. In fact, IRS cannot and does not EVER satisfy all the above legal requirements imposed upon them as “ministerial officers”.
   8.1. If they vouched for the accuracy of the form to make it factual, they could be subjected to massive lawsuits for fraud.
   8.2. They can’t offer you and notice you of a choice, because if they did, you could technically completely “opt out”.
   8.3. They must maintain the deception and illusion that the tax is INVOLUNTARY, even though it in fact is voluntary for most people. Courts do the same thing with the games they play with the “Public Rights Doctrine” using word games.
9. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for the IRS and state revenue agencies to lawfully operate within the bounds of their delegated authority and their status is ministerial officers, everything they do is:
   9.1. Executed in their PRIVATE capacity.
   9.2. Ultra vires.
   9.3. A tort. MInisterial officers are not trained in the legal constraints on their position so the routinely and unavoidable violate those constraints:
   Front-line government officers — IRS agents, revenue officers, withholding agents (employers), law enforcement officers, court officers, and judges were trained to presume universal personPUB status, eliminating the gatekeeping function that should require capacity verification before any exercise of authority over an individual.
10. Officers became instruments of capacity inversion rather than capacity gatekeepers.
11. Ministerial officers violate rights by illegally enforcing against personPRI parties AS IF they are government instrumentalities. See:
    Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook,Form #09.082
    https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf

You can learn more about the above at:

Copilot: Duties and Authority of “Ministerial Officers” at the IRS and State Revenue Agencies, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/copilot-duties-and-authority-of-ministerial-officers-at-the-irs-and-state-revenue-agencies/