PROOF OF FACTS: Why the government CAN’T AND WON’T RECOGNIZE PRIVATE OF FOREIGN and ONLY RECOGNIZES PUBLIC and DOMESTIC

The purpose of establishing government, according to the Declaration of Independence, is to protect PRIVATE property.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -“
[Declaration of Independence]

“Unalienable.  Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]

The first step in actually PROTECTING private property is to simply LEAVE IT ALONE by NOT taxing, regulating, or controlling it in any way so long as you don’t hurt anyone with it. This, by the way, is the very DEFINITION of “justice” itself: The Right to be LEFT ALONE:

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”
[James Madison, The Federalist No. 51 (1788)]

---

PAULSEN, ETHICS (Thilly’s translation), chap. 9.

“Justice, as a moral habit, is that tendency of the will and mode of conduct which refrains from disturbing the lives and interests of others, and, as far as possible, hinders such interference on the part of others. This virtue springs from the individual’s respect for his fellows as ends in themselves and as his co equals. The different spheres of interests may be roughly classified as follows: body and life; the family, or the extended individual life; property, or the totality of the instruments of action; honor, or the ideal existence; and finally freedom, or the possibility of fashioning one’s life as an end in itself. The law defends these different spheres, thus giving rise to a corresponding number of spheres of rights, each being protected by a prohibition. . . . To violate the rights, to interfere with the interests of others, is injustice. All injustice is ultimately directed against the life of the neighbor; it is an open avowal that the latter is not an end in itself, having the same value as the individual’s own life. The general formula of the duty of justice may therefore be stated as follows: Do no wrong yourself, and permit no wrong to be done, so far as lies in your power; or, expressed positively: Respect and protect the right.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 2]

---

“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]

---

“Do not strive with [or try to regulate or control or enslave] a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.”
[Prov. 3:30, Bible, NKJV]

---

“With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens–a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”
[Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320]

But EXACTLY HOW is “justice” accomplished in relation to your PRIVATE property for Executive Branch Employees whose delegated authority is limited to controlling, regulating, and taxing ONLY PUBLIC property and NEVER PRIVATE property?

1. Government’s job is to maintain the ABSOLUTE separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE at all times and never allowing one to convert to the other, even by consent:
   Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
2. Only the Judicial Branch through the COMMON law and the Police through the CRIMINAL law can protect your private property if you never converted it to PUBLIC voluntarily.
3. The Executive Branch can’t protect, tax, or regulate PRIVATE property because they don’t own it and would be stealing to tax, regulate, or control it.
4. The Supreme Court has EMPHASIZED and PROTECTED the absolute separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE by acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is “self executing” and NEEDS no statutes to enforce. See:
   Enumeration of Inalienable Rights, Form #10.002, Section 7
   https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/EnumRights.pdf
5. The PUBLIC RIGHTS Doctrine and the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges that you SURRENDER PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights in favor of CIVIL STATUTORY privileges if you invoke the benefits of ANY civil statute. See:
   Catalog of Supreme Court Doctrines, Litigation Tool #10.020, Sections 5.3 and 5.13
   https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/SCDoctrines.pdf
6. For Executive Branch employees to even ACKNOWLEDGE the existence of PRIVATE property outside their enforcement authority would be to:
   6.1. Render most of what they do irrelevant.
   6.2. Give you a REAL choice about whether you want to hire them to protect it and therefore convert it to PUBLIC.
   6.3. Empower you to essentially “cancel” the government if you don’t like or want the CIVIL services they offer.
   6.4. Interfere with their enforcement authority because people would just convert it back to PRIVATE if they don’t want it to be targeted for enforcement.

Thus, even the mere EXISTENCE of PRIVATE property, meaning FOREIGN property outside the civil jurisdiction and enforcement authority of the Executive Branch is literally a Third Rail issue, as described in:

Third Rail Government Issues, Form #08.032
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ThirdRailIssues.pdf

It will be like pulling hens teeth to get them to talk about PRIVATE or FOREIGN, because they will INEVITABLY lose revenue, power, importance, jurisdiction, and possibly even their JOB to even talk about these things. This subject is LITERALLY and ABSOLUTELY a BLACK HOLE. No information, light, sound, heat, gravity, or waves that might produce evidence of the existence of this problem EVER escape or enter into the public record. Such evidence is the MOST TOXIC type of information to all government employees. You can search for YEARS as we have and find almost nothing about it. How then can you learn about it? A lot of persistence and the scientific method was our approach. But the hunt is kind of like the hunt for a REAL physical black hole. The man who measured the one at the center of of our galaxy won a Nobel Prize for figuring that intractable problem out. See:

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/ghez/facts/

There are several other SECONDARY effects of the fact that PRIVATE and FOREIGN are ALWAYS Third Rail issues. These behaviors can become EVIDENCE in documenting and proving Third Rail issues such as this one. These are that:

1. There can be NO civil legislation that can define ANYTHING about them. To even DEFINE anything is to exercise OWNERSHIP over the property that they don’t have. See:
   Laws of Property, Form #14.018, Section 14: ownership as the Origin of the Right to Define
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/LawsOfProperty.pdf
2. CIVIL legal definitions relating to PRIVATE property must therefore have to DESCRIBE what they are NOT, and not what they ARE. Thus, they are not really “definitions” as legally defined. This approach is sometimes called a “negative definition”, but we call it a NON-DEFINITION because it creates more ambiguity than clarity and places too much discretion in the hands of judges about what is “included”. This happens, for instance with:
   2.1. “foreign person” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(2).
   2.2. “nonresident alien” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B).
3. If you then use ANY “term” to describe yourself, Executive and Judicial branch employees must ALWAYS INTERPRET the term in its PUBLIC and DOMESTIC and CIVIL context unless you specify the PRIVATE and FOREIGN and COMMON LAW context. If you aren’t clear in specifying the context before using the term, they know they have a “useful idiot” on their hands ripe for exploitation. BEND OVER!
4. Even if you define words you use in their PRIVATE and FOREIGN and NON-STATUTORY context, they will respond by quoting the PUBLIC and DOMESTIC civil context ANYWAY and say that you aren’t in the definition. This happens with the following terms, for instance:
   4.1. “national of the United States“. The PUBLIC context is 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22). The PRIVATE context is a common law context not in any statute.
   4.2. “U.S. national“. The PUBLIC context is 8 U.S.C. §1408, 8 U.S.C. §1452, and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B). The PRIVATE context is the common law, which is also recognized in 22 C.F.R. §51.2(a) and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and several court cases.
   4.3. “person“. The PUBLIC context is 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1), 26 U.S.C. §6671(b), and 26 U.S.C. §7343. The PRIVATE context is a CONSTITUTIONAL “person” protected by the Bill of Rights and the Common Law.
5. If you are dealing with an Executive Branch agency that offers you a PUBLIC service, they will provide no regulations, forms, tools, or options to QUIT the program, meaning the UNCONSENT. This would be a criminal offense with any private business. This is how Social Security runs their program. See:
   Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee, Form #06.002
   https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSTrustIndenture.pdf
6. If you emphasize that you are approaching them as a PRIVATE civil “non-person”, they will try to say you are “frivolous” but are always unable to prove WHY. See:
   6.1. Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf
   6.2. Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
7. If you try to invoke the common law or the Bill of Rights to protect the property they are trying to enforce against, they will try to call you “frivolous” but are unable to prove why. There is basis for such an allegation. See:
   7.1. Rebutted False Arguments About the Common Law, Form #08.025
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf
   7.2. Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
   https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

Government workers HAVE to do ALL the above because their very commercial survival depends on it. That is why PRIVATE and FOREIGN are Third Rail Issues to begin with. This even happens IN SPITE of the fact that the oath of office they take DEPENDS on doing the OPPOSITE!

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1]  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2]   That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3]  and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4]   It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5]   Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[6]”

[63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247]

__________________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] State ex rel. Nagle v Sullivan, 98 Mont 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.

[2] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524. A public official is held in public trust.  Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist) 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill Dec 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill Dec 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.

[3]Chicago Park Dist. V. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec.134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.

[4] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill) 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 U.S. 807, 98 L.Ed.2d. 18, 108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den 486 U.S. 1035, 100 L.Ed.2d. 608, 108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass) 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).

[5] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325.

[6]Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App) 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).

In private industry, this is called DISHONESTY, but in a government context, the polite way to refer to it is a special type of “marketing” for their services.

You can sit for years and scratch your head and wonder for YEARS as we have how such an OBVIOUS form of hypocrisy can be so UNIVERSAL and CONSISTENTLY implemented in EVERY SINGLE public servant we have ever met. We know, we used to be one, and upon realizing the above, had to LEAVE Babylon and turn against it. But what those INSIDE government almost universally DON’T know is the deep dark pit they will instantly be thrown into once they realize the above and start asking questions about it, as the following FORMER IRS agents did and were promptly FIRED or RESIGNED for doing:

1. Sherry Jackson.
2. John Turner.
3. Joe Banister.

Every one of the above IRS Agents, when they realize what was going on above, were promptly FIRED or ORDERED to resign. And it was kept very HUSH HUSH. Other employees were NOT allowed to know and it wasn’t publicized by the government because they didn’t want to spread the mutiny, break the damn, and destroy the FRAUD.

Corrupt judges also participate in the coverup of such things as well by:

1. Refusing the discuss or apply ANY of the laws of property to ANY civil case. See:
   Laws of Property, Form #14.019
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/LawsOfProperty.pdf
2. Equivocating in between the PRIVATE and the PUBLIC context for terms, which are ALWAYS mutually exclusive and non-overlapping. PROPERTY cannot be PUBLIC and PRIVATE at the same time:
   2.1. The PRIVATE context is the constitution.
   2.2 The PUBLIC context are civil statutes.
3. Equivocating PRIVATE/CONSTITUTIONAL and PUBLIC/STATUTORY contexts for geographical terms:
   3.1 “United States”. In the CONSTITUTION it means areas within the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union. IN the STATUTORY context is usually means areas subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction and excluding areas within the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union. Thus, it can mean only ONE of TWO MUTUALLY exclusive areas.
   3.2. “State”. In the CONSTITUTION it means areas within the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union. IN the STATUTORY context is usually means areas subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction and excluding areas within the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union. Thus, it can mean only ONE of TWO MUTUALLY exclusive areas. They do this by confusing “States” as TERRITORIES and POSSESSIONs in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) with states mentioned in the constitution that are LEGISLATIVELY FOREIGN. The Social Security Act at 42 U.S.C. §1301 does the same thing.
   The above separation MUST be maintained in order to properly implement the separation of legislative powers between State and Federal as documented in:
   Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
4. Equivocating the PRIVATE/CONSTITUTIONAL and PUBLIC/STATUTORY contexts for citizenship terms:
   4.1. A Fourteenth Amendment POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen* of the United States***” is PRIVATE.
   4.2. A CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizen**+D of the United States**” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) is PUBLIC and an officer in the national government. Also called a “U.S. person”.
   More on the above confusion at:
   How You are Illegally Deceived or Compelled to Transition from Being a POLITICAL Citizen to a CIVIL Citizen: By Confusing the Two Contexts, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/HowCitObfuscated.htm
5. Associating ANY right, and ESPECIALLY PROPERTY RIGHT, recognized by the Bill of Rights, which are the first 8 Amendments to the constitution, with the status of being a CIVIL/DOMICILED Citizen**+D. These rights are available to ALL CONSTITUTIONAL “persons”, and not just to PRIVILEGED CIVIL/DOMICILED STATUTORY “citizens” or “residents”. This is an attempt to replace your RIGHTS with PRIVILEGES, which is a conspiracy against your rights. THIEVES! We talk about this in:
   Separation Between Pubic and Private Course, Form #12.025, Section 6
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
   Below is a quote from an attempt by Black’s Law Dictionary to do this:
   “Property, within constitutional protection, denotes group of rights inhering in citizen’s relation to physical thing, as right to possess, use and dispose of it. Cereghino v. State By and Through State Highway Commission, 230 Or. 439, 370 P.2d. 694, 697.
   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1095]”
6. Making cases unpublished so they can’t be used as precedent.
7. In really poor countries, KILLING the witnesses of the behavior. Oligarchs in Russia are frequently murdered or gunned down or thrown from sky scrapers by Putin because they know to much.
8. Doctoring case transcripts after a hearing or trial by ORDERING the stenographer to change it.
9. Destroying or denying evidence of the above in the case record.
10. Trying to enjoin websites that expose and publish this kind of information about corruption. They tried it on SEDM back in 2005 for this reason, by the way. See:
    Rebuttal to Injunction against C. Hansen*, SEDM
    https://sedm.org/rebuttal-to-injunction-against-c-hansen/
11. Dismissing cases dealing with the issue early on, so evidence on the subject doesn’t enter the public record.
12. Sanctioning licensed attorneys who bring this up. Thus, only sui juris litigants who can’t be disbarred can raise them without sanctions.
13. Falsely claiming that enforcing the common law by recognizing private property and protecting it is “making law”, or that there IS no common law. Now deceased U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia did that during speeches at law schools given to the Federalist Society. Scum bag. See:
    Rebutted Arguments Against the Common Law, Form #08.025, Section 17.1
    https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf
14. Not allowing unlicensed attorneys who are therefore PRIVATE to help clients at all. All such FIAT licensing is illegal and has never been allowed by the constitution. See:
    Unlicensed Practice of Law, Form #05.029
    https://sedm.org/product/unlicensed-practice-of-law-form-05-029/
15. Compelling someone to have a domicile who doesn’t want one. This converts their status from PRIVATE to PUBLIC, implements involuntary servitude, interferes with the right to politically DISASSOCIATE, and results in criminal identity theft. See:
    Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Sections 13 and 15
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

The above dishonest and corrupt tactics of cover-up and “cancel culture” are the main method by which we even found out what a Third Rail Issue is in our early beginnings because they are so prevalent among corrupt members of the Executive and Judicial Branches. This is really the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM in EVERY court proceeding that no one will acknowledge.

We must then ask themselves WHY would a judge or government worker consciously CHOOSE to be so openly DISHONEST in interpreting and enforcing the law as listed above? Most of the above corruption started AFTER the fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment and the establishment of the Federal Reserve in the SAME year: 1913. The Sixteenth Amendment was fraudulently ratified in February of 1913, and during Christmas Recess when everyone was home on vacation, just a handful of Senators QUIETY enacted the Federal Reserve Act without a proper quorum to do so. ILLEGAL! You can read about this SCAM in:

The Creature from Jekylll Island, G. Edward Griffin
https://archive.org/details/creaturefromjeky0000grif

Whenever you create an entirely fiat currency not backed by gold or silver as required by the constitution, you need a method to REGULATE the supply of currency. That is the SOLE if not ONLY purpose of the IRS and the income tax, in fact, as confirmed by the Grace Commission Report commissioned by Ronald Reagan. That fiat currency SCAM is documented in:

The Money Scam, Form #05.041
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf

For a DRAMATIZATION of this vast corrupt conspiracy to interfere with the main purpose of government, which is protecting PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights, see:

Devils Advocate: Lawyers, SEDM
https://sedm.org/what-we-are-up-against/

Because they love money (1 Tim. 6:10) more than protecting your freedom or happiness or following REAL law (Form #05.048), the IRS, doesn’t like admitting that there is such a thing as a FOREIGN, PRIVATE “non-person” or a “nontaxpayer” who they have no jurisdiction or tax enforcement authority over. Consequently, there is a lot of malicious government deception, willful omission, and equivocation about this subject as thoroughly documented in:

1. IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf
2. Your Rights as a “Nontaxpayer”, Publication 1a, Form #08.008
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NontaxpayerBOR.pdf
3. Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf

It doesn’t take a grand, centrally orchestrated conspiracy for the corrupt government behavior described on this page to flourish and propagate. Human nature motivated by its own self-preservation to the detriment of moral principles or truth itself is sufficient. And the greater the need of the government or legal profession person who engages in it, the more likely they are to engage in it. For instance, poorer countries where police and judges are underpaid are much more likely to see this behavior than more wealthy countries where law enforcement or legal personnel are better paid. Fraud and corruption are very egalitarian in poor countries but much less so in wealthier countries.

If you asked a government workers engaging in it the corrupt behavior described here to admit their interest in the legal matter before them, they would be reluctant also out of self-preservation to avoid the legal consequences of acting corruptly. This is why we often say:

Never ask a barber if you need a haircut.

Never ask the IRS if you owe taxes.

Never ask Eve why she’s wearing the fig leaf.

Never ask a legal question you don’t already have an OBJECTIVE answer to supported by evidence BEFORE you ask it. You should always assume at the beginning that everyone whose livelihood is threatened will always be a hostile witness.

Those in the government and legal the profession reading this article are simply asked to remain silent on everything they agree on. A decision to ignore is a decision to ratify its accuracy, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6):

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8: General Rules of Pleading

(b) Defenses; Admissions and Denials.

(6) Effect of Failing to Deny. 

An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.

Lastly, we do not attempt to particularize this article to the scenario in state courts, but it applies there as well.