Website Definitions

0. Introduction

This page is a defense against the following fraudulent tactics by those in government:

Foundations of Freedom Course, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda, Form #12.021
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
The Beginning of Wisdom is to Call Things By Their Proper Names (OFFSITE LINK) – Stefan Molyneux
Mirror Image Rule (OFFSITE LINK)

The biblical reason for this section is explained in the following videos:

Oreilly Factor, April 8, 2015-John Piper of the Oklahoma Wesleyan University
Overcoming the World 2014 Conference: Against the World (OFFSITE LINK)-Ligonier Ministries. Click here for original source, minutes 15-24.
Kingdom Bible Studies, Lesson 1: WHO’S WHO?-The Correct Meaning of Names (OFFSITE LINK) –Sheldon Emry Memorial Library
Kingdom Bible Studies, Lesson 2: WHO’s WHO?-Understanding Word Meanings (OFFSITE LINK) –Sheldon Emry Memorial Library
Words are Our Enemies’ Weapons, Part 1 (OFFSITE LINK)-Sheldon Emry
Words are Our Enemies’ Weapons, Part 2 (OFFSITE LINK)-Sheldon Emry
The Words We Use (OFFSITE LINK) -Wallbuilders
Roman Catholicism and the Battle Over Words (OFFSITE LINK)-Ligonier Ministries
The Keys to Freedom (OFFSITE LINK)-Bob Hamp

The legal purpose of these definitions is to prevent GOVERNMENT crime using words:

Word Crimes (OFFSITE LINK)

The definitions in this section are MANDATORY in any interaction between either the government or any of its agents or officers and any agent or member of this ministry. The reasons why this MUST be the case are described in:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.3 through 5.8

1. Human

The word “human” means a man or woman above the age of majority, which we regard as 18 years of age. Anyone below the age of 18 is considered a “child” rather than a “human”.

2. “Should”, “Shall”, “Must”, or “we recommend”

All use of the words “should”, “shall”, “must”, or “we recommend” on this website or in any of the interactions of this ministry with the public shall mean “may at your choice and discretion”. This is similar to the government’s use of the same words. See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Sections 12.4.13, 12.4.17, 12.4.19, and 12.4.26 for further details.

3. Private

The word “private” when it appears in front of other entity names such as “person“, “individual“, “business”, “employee“, “employer“, etc. shall imply that the entity is:

In possession of absolute, exclusive ownership and control over their own labor, body, and all their property. In Roman Law this was called “dominium“.
On an EQUAL rather than inferior relationship to government in court. This means that they have no obligations to any government OTHER than possibly the duty to serve on jury and vote upon voluntary acceptance of the obligations of the civil status of “citizen” (and the DOMICILE that creates it). Otherwise, they are entirely free and unregulated unless and until they INJURE the equal rights of another under the common law.
A “nonresident” in relation to the state and federal government.
Not a PUBLIC entity defined within any state or federal statutory law. This includes but is not limited to statutory “person”, “individual”, “taxpayer”, “driver”, “spouse” under any civil statute or franchise.
Not engaged in a public office or “trade or business” (per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)). Such offices include but are not limited to statutory “person”, “individual”, “taxpayer”, “driver”, “spouse” under any civil statute or franchise.”PRIVATE PERSON. An individual who is not the incumbent of an office.”
[Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1359]
Not consenting to contract with or acquire any public status, public privilege, or public right under any state or federal franchise. For instance, the phrase “private employee” means a common law worker that is NOT the statutory “employee” defined within 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) or 26 C.F.R. §301.3401(c )-1 or any other federal or state law or statute.
Not sharing ownership or control of their body or property with anyone, and especially a government. In other words:
7.1 Ownership is not “qualified” but “absolute”.
7.2 There are no moities between them and the government.
7.3 The government has no usufructs over any of their property.
Not subject to civil enforcement or regulation of any kind, except AFTER an injury to the equal rights of others has occurred. Preventive rather than corrective regulation is an unlawful taking of property according to the Fifth Amendment takings clause.
Not “privileged” or party to a franchise of any kind:“PRIVILEGE. “A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law. [. . .] That which releases one from the performance of a duty or obligation, or exempts one from a liability which he would otherwise be required to perform, or sustain in common [common law] with all other persons. State v. Grosnickle, 189 Wis. 17, 206 N.W. 895, 896. A peculiar advantage, exemption, or immunity. Sacramento Orphanage & Children’s Home v. Chambers, 25 Cal.App. 536, 144 P. 317, 319.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 1359-1360]“Is it a franchise? A franchise is said to be a right reserved to the people by the constitution, as the elective franchise. Again, it is said to be a privilege conferred by grant from government, and vested in one or more individuals, as a public office. Corporations, or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known to our laws. In England they are very numerous, and are defined to be royal privileges in the hands of a subject. An information will lie in many cases growing out of these grants, especially where corporations are concerned, as by the statute of 9 Anne, ch. 20, and in which the public have an interest. In 1 Strange R. ( The King v. Sir William Louther,) it was held that an information of this kind did not lie in the case of private rights, where no franchise of the crown has been invaded.
If this is so–if in England a privilege existing in a subject, which the king alone could grant, constitutes it a franchise–in this country, under our institutions, a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which could not be exercised without a legislative grant, would also be a franchise.”
[People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859) ]
The equivalent to a common law or Constitutional “person” who retains all of their common law and Constitutional protections and waives none.”The words “privileges” and “immunities,” like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. “
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]
See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.

Every attempt by anyone in government to alienate rights that the Declaration of Independence says are UNALIENABLE shall also be treated as “PRIVATE BUSINESS ACTIVITY” that cannot be protected by sovereign, official, or judicial immunity. So called “government” cannot make a profitable business or franchise out of alienating inalienable rights without ceasing to be a classical/de jure government and instead becoming in effect an economic terrorist and de facto government in violation of Article 4, Section 4.

“No servant [or government or biological person] can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [government].”
[Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV]

4. Government

The term “government” is defined to include that group of people dedicated to the protection of purely and exclusively PRIVATE RIGHTS and PRIVATE PROPERTY that are absolutely and exclusively owned by a truly free and sovereign human being who is EQUAL to the government in the eyes of the law per the Declaration of Independence. It excludes the protection of PUBLIC rights or PUBLIC privileges (franchises, Form #05.030) and collective rights (Form #12.024) because of the tendency to subordinate PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights due to the CRIMINAL conflict of financial interest on the part of those in the alleged “government” (18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §§144, and 455). See Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 for the distinctions between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.

“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. 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 [PRIVATE] rights is against public policy. [5]“
[63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]

_______________________________________

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).

Anything done CIVILLY for the benefit of those working IN the government at the involuntary, enforced, coerced, or compelled (Form #05.003) expense of PRIVATE free humans is classified as DE FACTO (Form #05.043), non-governmental, PRIVATE business activity beyond the core purpose of government that cannot and should not be protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity. Click here (Form #11.401) for a detailed exposition of ALL of the illegal methods of enforcement (Form #05.032) and duress (Form #02.005). “Duress” as used here INCLUDES:

Any type of LEGAL DECEPTION, Form #05.014.
Every attempt to insulate government workers from responsibility or accountability for their false or misleading statements (Form #05.014 and Form 12.021 Video 4), forms, or publications (Form #05.007 and Form #12.023).
Every attempt to offer or enforce civil franchise statutes against anyone OTHER than public officers ALREADY in the government. Civil franchises cannot and should not be used to CREATE new public offices, but to add duties to EXISTING public officers who are ALREADY lawfully elected or appointed.. See Form #05.030.
Every attempt to commit identity theft by legally kidnapping CONSTITUTIONAL state domiciled parties onto federal territory or into the “United States” federal corporation as public officers. Form #05.046.
Every attempt to offer or enforce any kind of franchise within a CONSTITUTIONAL state. See Form #05.030.
Every attempt to entice people to give up an inalienable CONSTITUTIONAL right in exchange for a franchise privilege. See Form #05.030.
Every attempt to use the police to enforce civil franchises or civil penalties. Police power can be lawfully used ONLY to enforce the criminal law. Any other use, and especially for revenue collection, is akin to sticking people up at gunpoint. See Form #12.022.
Every attempt at CIVIL asset forfeiture to police in the conduct of CRIMINAL enforcement. This merely creates a criminal conflict of interest in police and makes them into CIVIL revenue collectors who seek primarily their own enrichment. See Form #12.022.
Every attempt to compel or penalize anyone to declare a specific civil status on a government form that is signed under penalty of perjury. That is criminal witness tampering and the IRS does it all the time.
Every attempt to call something voluntary and yet to refuse to offer forms and procedures to unvolunteer. This is criminal FRAUD. Congressmen call income taxes voluntary all the time but the IRS refuses to even recognize or help anyone who is a “nontaxpayer”. See Exhibit #05.051.

All of the above instances of duress place personal interest in direct conflict with obedience to REAL law, Form #05.048. They are the main source of government corruption (Form #11.401) in the present de facto system (Form #05.043). The only type of enforcement by a DE JURE government that can or should be compelled and lawful is CRIMINAL or COMMON LAW enforcement where a SPECIFIC private human has been injured, not CIVIL statutory enforcement (a franchise, Form #05.030). Under the State Action Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court, everyone who is the target of CIVIL enforcement is, by definition a public officer or agent in the government and Christians are forbidden by the Bible from becoming such public officers. Form #13.007.

Every type of DE JURE CIVIL governmental service or regulation MUST be voluntary and ALL must be offered the right to NOT participate on every governmental form that administers such a CIVIL program. It shall mandatorily, publicly, and NOTORIOUSLY be enforced and prosecuted as a crime NOT to offer the right to NOT PARTICIPATE in any CIVIL STATUTORY activity of government or to call a service “VOLUNTARY” but actively interfere with and/or persecute those who REFUSE to volunteer or INSIST on unvolunteering. All statements by any government actor or government form or publication relating to the right to volunteer shall be treated as statements under penalty of perjury for which the head of the governmental department shall be held PERSONALLY liable if false. EVERY CIVIL “benefit” or activity offered by any government MUST identify at the beginning of every law creating the program that the program is VOLUNTARY and HOW specifically to UNVOLUNTEER or quit the program. Any violation of these rules makes the activity NON-GOVERNMENTAL in nature AND makes those offering the program into a DE FACTO government (Form #05.043). The Declaration of Independence says that all “just powers” of government derive from the CONSENT of those governed. Any attempt to CIVILLY enforce MUST be preceded by an explicit written attempt to procure consent, to not punish those who DO NOT consent, and to not PRESUME consent by virtue of even submitting a government form that does not IDENTIFY that submission of the form is an IMPLIED act of consent (Form #05.003). This ensures “justice” in a constitutional sense, which is legally defined as “the right to be left alone”. For the purposes of this website, those who do not consent to ANYTHING civil are referred to “non-resident non-persons” (Form #05.020). An example of such a human would be a devout Christian who is acting in complete obedience to the word of God in all their interactions with anyone and everyone in government. Any attempt by a PRIVATE human to consent to any CIVIL STATUTORY offering by any government (a franchise, Form #05.030) is a violation of their delegation of authority order from God (Form #13.007) that places them OUTSIDE the protection of God under the Bible.

Under this legal definition of “government” the IDEAL and DE JURE government is one that:

The States cannot offer THEIR taxable franchises within federal territory and the FEDERAL government may not establish taxable franchises within the territorial borders of the states. This limitation was acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) and continues to this day but is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ignored more by fiat and practice than by law.
Has the administrative burden of proof IN WRITING to prove to a common law jury of your peers that you CONSENTED in writing to the CIVIL service or offering before they may COMMENCE administrative enforcement of any kind against you. Such administrative enforcement includes, but is not limited to administrative liens, administrative levies, administrative summons, or contacting third parties about you. This ensures that you CANNOT become the unlawful victim of a USUALLY FALSE PRESUMPTION (Form #05.017) about your CIVIL STATUS (Form #13.008) that ultimately leads to CRIMINAL IDENTITY THEFT (Form #05.046). The decision maker on whether you have CONSENTED should NOT be anyone in the AGENCY that administers the service or benefit and should NEVER be ADMINISTRATIVE. It should be JUDICIAL.
Judges making decisions about the payment of any CIVIL SERVICE fee may NOT participate in ANY of the programs they are deciding on and may NOT be “taxpayers” under the I.R.C. Subtitle A Income tax. This creates a criminal financial conflict of interest that denies due process to all those who are targeted for enforcement. This sort of corruption was abused to unlawfully expand the income tax and the Social Security program OUTSIDE of their lawful territorial extent (Form #05.018). See Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939) and later in Hatter v. U.S, 532 U.S. 557 (2001).
EVERY CIVIL service offered by any government MUST be subject to choice and competition, in order to ensure accountability and efficiency in delivering the service. This INCLUDES the minting of substance based currency. The government should NOT have a monopoly on ANY service, including money or even the postal service. All such monopolies are inevitably abused to institute duress and destroy the autonomy and sovereignty and EQUALTY of everyone else.
CANNOT “bundle” any service with any other in order to FORCE you to buy MORE services than you want. Bundling removes choice and autonomy and constitutes biblical “usury”. For instance, it CANNOT:
5.1. Use “driver licensing” to FORCE people to sign up for Social Security by forcing them to provide a “franchise license number” called an SSN or TIN in order to procure the PRIVILEGE of “driving”, meaning using the commercial roadways FOR HIRE and at a profit.
5.2. Revoke driver licenses as a method of enforcing ANY OTHER franchise or commercial obligation, including but not limited to child support, taxes, etc.
5.3. Use funds from ONE program to “prop up” or support another. For instance, they cannot use Social Security as a way to recruit “taxpayers” of other services or the income tax. This ensures that EVERY PROGRAM stands on its own two feet and ensures that those paying for one program do not have to subsidize failing OTHER programs that are not self-supporting. It also ensures that the government MUST follow the SAME free market rules that every other business must follow for any of the CIVIL services it competes with other businesses to deliver.
5.4 Piggyback STATE income taxes onto FEDERAL income taxes, make the FEDERAL government the tax collector for STATE TAXES, or the STATES into tax collectors for the FEDERAL government.
Can lawfully enforce the CRIMINAL laws without your express consent.
Can lawfully COMPEL you to pay for BASIC SERVICES of the courts, jails, military, and ROADS and NO OTHERS. EVERYONE pays the same EQUAL amount for these services.
Sends you an ITEMIZED annual bill for CIVIL services that you have contracted in writing to procure. That bill should include a signed copy of your consent for EACH individual CIVIL service or “social insurance”. Such “social services” include anything that costs the government money to provide BEYOND the BASIC SERVICES, such as health insurance, health care, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
If you do not pay the ITEMIZED annual bill for the services you EXPRESSLY consented to, the government should have the right to collect ITS obligations the SAME way as any OTHER PRIVATE human. That means they can administratively lien your real or personal property, but ONLY if YOU can do the same thing to THEM for services or property THEY have procured from you either voluntarily or involuntarily. Otherwise, they must go to court IN EQUITY to collect, and MUST produce evidence of consent to EACH service they seek payment or collection for. In other words, they have to follow the SAME rules as every private human for the collection of CIVIL obligations that are in default. Otherwise, they have superior or supernatural powers and become a pagan deity and you become the compelled WORSHIPPER of that pagan deity. See Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016 for details on all the BAD things that happen by turning government into such a CIVIL RELIGION.

Jesus described the above de jure government as follows. He is implying that Christians cannot consent to any government that rules from above or has superior or supernatural powers in relation to biological humans. In other words, the government Christians adopt or participate in or subsidize CANNOT function as a religion as described in Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016:

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles [unbelievers] lord it over them [govern from ABOVE as pagan idols] , and those who are great exercise authority over them [supernatural powers that are the object of idol worship]. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant [serve the sovereign people from BELOW rather than rule from above]. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
[Matt. 20:25-28, Bible, NKJV]

For documentation on HOW to implement the above IDEAL or DE JURE government by making MINOR changes to existing foundational documents of the present government such as the Constitution, see:

Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002

5. Civil Status

The term “civil status” describes the process by which human beings become “persons” under civil statutory law. It is what the courts call a “res” which gives them civil control over you under one of three different systems of civil law. Civil status is VERY important, because it is the source of civil statutory jurisdiction of courts over you and their right to “personal jurisdiction” over you. It also describes how your actions affect “choice of law” and your “status” in any court cases you bring. Human beings who are “sovereign” in fact:

Have no “civil status” under statutory law.
Only have a “civil status” under the constitution and the common law.
Are not party to the “social compact”, but “foreigners” among citizens. The Law of Nations, Book 1, Section 213 calls them “inhabitants”.
Are not privileged “aliens”.
Participate in NO government franchises or privileges, but instead reserve all their PRIVATE, UNALIENABLE rights (Form #12.038) and thereby remain exclusively private. See Form #05.030.
Were described as “idiots” under early Greek law. Click here for details.
Understand the distinctions between PUBLIC and PRIVATE and maintain absolute separation between the two in all their interactions with any so-called “government”. They ensure that all of their property remains absolutely owned and exclusively private. Thus, they can control and dictate all uses and everyone who wants to take or control it. See Form #12.025.
Civilly govern themselves without external interference, except possibly of common law and criminal courts.
Replace the civil statutory protection franchise with private contracts and franchises of their own for everyone they do business with, thus rendering “civil services” on the part of organized governments irrelevant and unnecessary. For a definition of “civil services”, see the definition in our Disclaimer, Section 4. In that sense they have FIRED the government from a civil perspective and retain all of their God given inalienable rights. All rights reserved, UCC 1-308.
Are civilly governed mainly by the “civil laws” found in the Holy Bible if they are Christians, or by the laws of their faith if they have another faith. This is a protected First Amendment right to practice their religion.
Laws of the Bible, Litigation Tool #09.001

You cannot have a “civil status” under the laws of a place WITHOUT at least one of the following conditions:

A physical presence in that place. The status would be under the COMMON law. Common law is based on physical location of people on land rather than their statutory status.
CONSENSUALLY doing business in that place. The status would be under the common law. See the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 and International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
A domicile in that place. This would be a status under the civil statutes of that place. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a).
CONSENSUALLY representing an artificial entity (a legal fiction) that has a domicile in that place. This would be a status under the civil statutes of that place. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).
Consenting to a civil status under the laws of that place. Anything done consensually cannot form the basis for an injury in a court of law. Such consent is usually manifested by filling out a government form identifying yourself with a specific statutory status, such as a W-4, 1040, driver license application, etc. This is covered in:Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

If any of the above rules are violated, you are a victim of criminal identity theft:

Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046

“civil status” is further discussed in:

Civil Status (important!)-Article under “Litigation->Civil Status (important!) on the SEDM menus
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
Proof that There is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.042-SEDM
Legal Fictions, Form #09.071-SEDM

6. Civil Service

The term “civil service” or “civil service fee” relates to any and all activities of “government” OTHER than:

Police.
Military.
Jails.
Criminal court.
Common law court.

“civil service” and “civil service fee” includes any attempt or act to:

Establish or enforce a domicile (Form #05.002)
Procure consent (Form #05.003) of any kind to alienate rights that are supposed to be INALIENABLE per the Declaration of Independence.
PRESUME consent (Form #05.003) to surrender INALIENABLE PRIVATE RIGHTS by virtue of submitting, accepting, or receiving any application for a government benefit, license, or franchise. See Form #12.023.
Convert PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC property, PUBLIC offices, or excise taxable franchises. See Form #12.025. Government’s FIRST and most important duty is to at all times maintain TOTAL separation between PRIVATE and PUBLIC and NEVER to allow them to convert one to another. Every attempt to convert one to the other represents a criminal financial conflict of interest that turns the PUBLIC trust into a SHAM trust.
Offer or enforce the civil statutory code.
Offer or enforce civil franchises (see Form #05.030),

7. Common Law

The term “common law” means procedures and policies used in constitutional courts in the JUDICIAL branch to provide protection for absolutely owned, constitutionally protected PRIVATE RIGHTS and PRIVATE PROPERTY of a human being who has accepted no franchises or privileges and therefore who is not subject to civil statutes, not domiciled in the forum, and who reserves all rights. These procedures may not be exercised in “legislative franchise courts” in the LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE Branch which manage and adjudicate disputes over federal property, franchises, privileges, and “benefits”. In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, these organic rights are “self-executing” and not government created or owned. They may therefore NOT be limited, restrained, taxed, or regulated by statute:

The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers 524*524 between Congress and the Judiciary. The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, “Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States.” Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal’s threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, “provide[s] safeguards to be enforced by the courts, and not to be exercised by the Legislature”); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it “was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens”). As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.
[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]

It is the duty of all CONSTITUTIONAL courts in the JUDICIAL branch to provide remedy for the protection of such rights when violated, even if there is no statute authorizing a remedy. This is a consequence of the oath that all judges IN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS take to “support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, whether state or federal. Franchise judges in the LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE branch don’t have to take this oath and often ACTIVELY INTERFERE with any attempt by private litigants to invoke or enforce constitutional rights. That sort of behavior would be TREASON in a CONSTITUTIONAL court. Franchise courts act in essence as binding arbitration boards for people in temporary possession, custody, or control of absolutely owned government property which is dispensed with legal strings attached called “franchises”. These courts preside by the CONSENT of those who accept the property or “benefit” that the franchise court is charged with managing, such as “licenses”, “permits”, or government “benefits”. Examples of “legislative franchise courts” include:

Traffic court.
Family court.
Tax Court (see 26 U.S.C. §7441).

For a detailed exposition of exactly how government franchises and franchise courts operate, see:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Rights are property, and protecting and enforcing them is an action to protect PRIVATE property in the case of CONSTITUTIONAL rights recognized but not created by the Bill of Rights. In providing judicial remedy absent statutes, the courts in effect are DEFINING the common law, because statutes CANNOT define or limit such rights:

“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. “
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities [within juries] and officials [and CIVIL STATUTES, Form #05.037] and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts [using the COMMON LAW rather than CIVIL STATUTES, Form #05.037]. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote [of a JURY OR an ELECTOR]; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
[West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441]

Based on the above, anything licensed, taxed, requiring a “permit”, denied (the essence of ownership is the right to exclude and control the use of), or regulated by civil statute or which may be voted on by a jury or an elector or which is created or enforced by statute is NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL or a PRIVATE right and is not the proper subject of the common law. Further, anyone who tries to convince you that there IS no such thing as the common law in the context of CONSTITUTIONAL rights, or that common law proceedings can and do involve STATUTORY remedies is engaging in a conspiracy to DESTROY all of your private rights and private property. This is proven in:

Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

A failure or refusal by a judge in the judicial department to provide CONSTITUTIONAL remedy for absolutely owned PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights is therefore, in fact and in deed:

An attempt to accomplish the OPPOSITE purpose for why government was created, which was to protect PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights.
An attempt to denigrate, demoralize, oppress, and enslave (Thirteenth Amendment) litigants before them who are litigating against any government for a violation of those rights.
An attempt to maliciously abuse legal process to institute peonage and slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589.
A selective REPEAL of a portion of the CONSTITUTIONAL common law.
A selective REPEAL of the portion of the Bill of Rights that forms the STANDING of the party to sue in court.
A violation of the judicial oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Treason punishable by death under 18 U.S.C. §2381.
A violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, because by SELECTIVELY REPEALING a portion of the constitution or constitutional common law, they in effect are acting in a “legislative capacity” as a member of the Legislative or Executive Branch, not as judges.[1]
Destroying ANY and ALL possibility of freedom or liberty itself, according to the man who DESIGNED the three branch system of Republic Government and Separation of Powers:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].
There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”
[. . .]
In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”
[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, 1758, Book XI, Section 6;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]

Further, Congress can only regulate or tax PRIVILEGES or PUBLIC rights that it created by statute, not PRIVATE rights recognized but not created by the Constitution.

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)]

For more details on the CIVIL (not CRIMINAL, but CIVIL) power to tax or regulate only public rights (public property) that Congress created by statute and therefore ABSOLUTELY OWNS and CONTROLS as property, see:

Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm

The basic rules of the common law are documented in the following exemplary books published near the turn of the Twentieth Century and many others, and thus are WRITTEN. These rules have not been REPEALED, but rather fallen out of use because of censorship by covetous Pharisee lawyers trying to convert ALL property to government property so they could STEAL it and harvest it for their personal benefit [2] :

Handbook of Common Law Pleading, Benjamin Shipman (48 MB)-
http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/Hand_book_of_Common_law_Pleading.pdf
Handbook of Common Law Pleading, Joseph Koeffler (4.8 MB).
http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/CL_Pleading.pdf
Principles of Common Law Pleading, John McKelvey (3.5 MB)
http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/Principles_of_Common_law_Pleading.pdf
Pleadings and Practice in Actions At Common Law, Martin Burks (90.3 MB)
http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/Pleading_and_Practice_in_Actions_at_Comm.pdf

In addition to the above generally accepted rules, those owning the PRIVATE property protected by the common law may ADD to these rules with their own set of rules that form the conditions of the temporary use, benefit, or control of the property so granted and protected to the person SUBJECT to those rules. We call these the Grant Rules.

Grant Rules are CIVIL rules implemented as a contract or agreement between the GRANTOR and the GRANTEE for temporarily using, controlling, or benefitting from that property. In the case of government, these rules regulating government property cannot be and are not implemented with CRIMINAL statutes. They are only implemented by CIVIL statutes. They are enforced against those who consent to those RULES by temporarily accepting or exercising custody, benefit, or control over the property in question. These rules behave, in essence, as a franchise or an excise. The OBLIGATIONS against the GRANTOR associated with the use of the granted property are the “consideration” provided by the GRANTOR and the consideration they receive in return are the temporary “RIGHTS” they exercise over the granted property. All franchises are based on “grants” of property with legal strings or conditions attached and ANYONE can grant or participate in such a franchise or use such a franchise AGAINST a government to defend themselves against GOVERNMENT unlawfully offering or enforcing THEIR franchises:

“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]

An example of the use of such rules by the government against the private rights and private property is found below:

“We have repeatedly held that the Federal Government may impose appropriate conditions on the use of federal property or privileges [franchises, Form #05.030] and may require that state instrumentalities comply with conditions [obligations Course, Form #12.040] that are reasonably related to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs. See, e. g., Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 294 -296 (1958); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 142 -144 (1947); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16 (1940); cf. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 853 (1976); Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542 (1975). A requirement that States, like all other users, pay a portion of the costs of the benefits [Form #05.040] they enjoy from federal programs is surely permissible [meaning CONSTITUTIONAL] since it is closely related to the [435 U.S. 444, 462] federal interest in recovering costs from those who benefit and since it effects no greater interference with state sovereignty than do the restrictions which this Court has approved.”
[Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444 (1978);
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16842193024599209893]

Under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment, WE TOO have an EQUAL right, recognized above by the U.S. Supreme Court in Munn v. Illinois, to attach conditions to the use or benefit or control of our property by any and all others, INCLUDING governments. To suggest otherwise is to impute or enforce superior or supernatural powers to a government and institute a civil religion in violation of the First Amendment. ALL ARE EQUAL in a free society. You are equal to the government, as President Obama implied in his First Inauguration Speech, as we prove below:

Foundations of Freedom Course, Form #12.021, Video 1: Introduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikf7CcT2I8I

If you are not equal to the government and cannot use YOUR absolutely owned PRIVATE property to control THEM, then they can’t use THEIR property to control you through civil franchises or statutes either. For more on the abuse of franchises by government to oppress people they are supposed to be helping, and how to use them to DEFEND yourself against such abuses, see:

Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Anyone who asserts that the GOVERNMENT is the only one who can absolutely own property or that government SHARES ownership or control of ALL property is indirectly advocating all of the following:

A violation of the main reason for creating government, which is the protection of PRIVATE rights and PRIVATE property.
The establishment of a state sponsored religion in violation of the First Amendment, because the government can use their control over ALL property to control ANYTHING and ANYONE. See:
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
A violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, because there is no way to avoid the rules associated with buying or using ANY TYPE OF PROPERTY.
The establishment of socialism, which is government ownership or at least control over ALL property:
“Socialism n (1839) 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”[Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-510-X, page 1118; SOURCE: https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Evidence/Q05.010.pdf]

For more information about common misconceptions about the common law propagated mainly by MISINFORMED members of the legal profession and the government, see:

Rebutted False Arguments about the Common Law, Form #08.025
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf

___________________________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See: Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023; https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

[2] See: Who Where the Pharisees and Saducees?, Form #05.047; https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

8. Law

The term “law” as used on this site is constrained by the following requirements:

It must apply equally to ALL. It cannot compel INEQUALITY of treatment between any man or class of men. See Form #05.033.
It cannot do collectively what people individually cannot NATURALLY do. In other words, in the words of Frederic Bastiat, it aggregates the individual right of self-defense into a collective body so that it can be delegated. A single human CANNOT delegate a right he does not individually ALSO possess, which indirectly implies that no GROUP of men called “government” can have any more COLLECTIVE rights under the collective entity rule than a single human being. Click here for a video on the subject.
It cannot punish a citizen for an innocent action that was not a crime or not demonstrated to produce measurable harm. The ability to PROVE such harm with evidence in court is called “standing”.
It cannot compel the redistribution of wealth between two private parties. This is ESPECIALLY true if it is called a “tax”.
It cannot interfere with or impair the right of contracts between PRIVATE parties. That means it cannot compel income tax withholding unless one or more of the parties to the withholding are ALREADY public officers in the government.
It cannot interfere with the use or enjoyment or CONTROL over private property, so long as the use injures no one. Implicit in this requirement is that it cannot FAIL to recognize the right of private property or force the owner to donate it to a PUBLIC USE or PUBLIC PURPOSE. In the common law, such an interference is called a “trespass”.
The rights it conveys must attach to LAND rather than the CIVIL STATUS (e.g. “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc.) of the people ON that land. One can be ON land within a PHYSICAL state WITHOUT being legally “WITHIN” that state (a corporation) as an officer of the government or corporation (Form #05.042) called a “citizen” or “resident”. See:
7.1 Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008.
7.2 Foundations of Freedom, Form #12.021, Video 4 covers how LAND and STATUS are deliberately confused through equivocation in order to KIDNAP people’s identity (Form #05.046) and transport it illegally to federal territory.
(“It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not the status of the people who live in it.” [Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)])
It must provide a remedy AFTER an injury occurs. It may not PREVENT injuries before they occur. Anything that operates in a PREVENTIVE rather than CORRECTIVE mode is a franchise. There is no standing in a REAL court to sue WITHOUT first demonstrating such an injury to the PRIVATE or NATURAL rights of the Plaintiff or VICTIM.
It cannot acquire the “force of law” from the consent of those it is enforced against. In other words, it cannot be an agreement or contract. All franchises and licensing, by the way, are types of contracts.
It does not include compacts or contracts between private people and governments. Rights that are INALIENABLE cannot be contracted away, even WITH consent. See Form #05.003.
It cannot, at any time, be called “voluntary”. Congress and even the U.S. Supreme Court call the IRC Subtitle a “income tax” voluntary. See Exhibits #05.025 and #05.051.
It does not include franchises, licenses, or civil statutory codes, all of which derive ALL of their force of law from your consent in choosing a civil domicile (Form #05.002).

The above criteria derives from What Is “law”?, Form #05.048, Section 16. Any violation of the above rules is what the Bible calls “devises evil by law” in Psalm 94:20-23 as indicated above.

Roman statesman Cicero defined law as follows:

“True Law is right reason in agreement with Nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect upon the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to try to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome or at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all times and all nations, and there will be one master and one rule, that is God, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]

“Power and law are not synonymous. In truth, they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God‘s Law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God‘s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man‘s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the [de facto] government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]

“Law” is defined to EXCLUDE any and all civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges in relation to any and all governments and to include ONLY the COMMON law, the CONSTITUTION (if trespassing government actors ONLY are involved), and the CRIMINAL law.

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

[. . .]

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.

__________________

FOOTNOTES:

FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108.
[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]

Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.”

[. . .]

It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it.” It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be “a rule.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]

“The words “privileges” and “immunities,” like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. “
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]

__________________

FOOTNOTES:

See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.

“What, then, is [civil] legislation? It is an assumption [presumption] by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion [because of abuse of sovereign immunity and the act of “CONSENT” by calling yourself a “citizen”] over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will [society of men and not law], pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human [CIVIL] legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed [and ESPECIALLY those who never expressly consented in writing].”
[Natural Law, Chapter 1, Section IV, Lysander Spooner;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/SpoonerLysander/NaturalLaw.htm]

The above methods of REMOVING the protections of the common law and the constitution from the INALIENABLE rights [rights that CANNOT lawfully be given away, even WITH consent] that are protected by them has been described by the U.S. Congress as the ESSENCE of communism itself! This is especially true when you add games with legal words of art to remove even the STATUTORY limitations upon the conduct of the government. See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 841.
Sec. 841. – Findings and declarations of fact

The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the [de jure] Government of the United States [and replace it with a de facto government ruled by the judiciary]. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion] within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and [FRANCHISE] privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution [Form #10.002]. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of, Form #05.014, the tax franchise “codes”, Form #05.001] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding by the framing of Congressman Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination [in the public FOOL system by homosexuals, liberals, and socialists] with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined [by the IRS and a corrupted judiciary] to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members [ANARCHISTS!, Form #08.020]. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence [or using income taxes]. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced [illegally KIDNAPPED via identity theft!, Form #05.046] into the service of the world Communist movement [using FALSE information returns and other PERJURIOUS government forms, Form #04.001], trained to do its bidding [by FALSE government publications and statements that the government is not accountable for the accuracy of, Form #05.007], and directed and controlled [using FRANCHISES illegally enforced upon NONRESIDENTS, Form #05.030] in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed

The above corruption of our Constitutional Republic by the unconstitutional abuse of franchises, the violation of the rules of statutory construction, and interference with common law remedies was described by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:

“These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.

Although from the foundation of the Government this court has held steadily to the view that the Government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no one of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise powers not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly granted, Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 326, 331, we are now informed that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new territory, 380*380 acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our Government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this Government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the People of the United States. The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces — the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them — is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution.“
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissenting]

Civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges are referred to on this website as “private law”, but not “law”. The word “public” precedes all uses of “law” when dealing with acts of government and hence, refers only to COMMON law and CRIMINAL law that applies equally to everyone, regardless of their consent. Involvement in any and all “private law” franchises or privileges offered by any government ALWAYS undermines and threatens sovereignty, autonomy, and equality, turns government into an unconstitutional civil religion, and corrupts even the finest of people. This is explained in:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

Any use of the word “law” by any government actor directed at us or any member, if not clarified with the words “private” or “public” in front of the word “law” shall constitute:

A criminal attempt and conspiracy to recruit us to be a public officer called a “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc.
A solicitation of illegal bribes called “taxes” to treat us “AS IF” we are a public officer.
A criminal conspiracy to convert PRIVATE rights into PUBLIC rights and to violate the Bill of Rights.

The protection of PRIVATE rights mandated by the Bill of Rights BEGINS with and requires:

ALWAYS keeping PRIVATE and PUBLIC rights separated and never mixing them together.
Using unambiguous language about the TYPE of “right” that is being protected: PUBLIC or PRIVATE in every use of the word “right”. The way to avoid confusing PUBLIC and PRIVATE RIGHTS is to simply refer to PUBLIC rights as “privileges” and NEVER refer to them as “rights”.
Only converting PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights with the express written consent of the HUMAN owner.
Limiting the conversion to geographical places where rights are NOT unalienable. This means the conversion occurred either abroad or on government territory not within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Constitutional state. Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law, would be violated.
Keeping the rules for converting PRIVATE to PUBLIC so simple, unambiguous, and clear that a child could understand them and always referring to these rules in every interaction between the government and those they are charged with protecting.
Ensuring that in every interaction (and ESPECIALLY ENFORCEMENT ACTION) between the government both administratively and in court, that any right the government claims to civilly enforce against, regulate, tax, or burden otherwise PRIVATE property is proven ON THE RECORD IN WRITING to originate from the rules documented in the previous step. This BURDEN OF PROOF must be met both ADMINISTRATIVELY and IN COURT BEFORE any enforcement action may be lawfully attempted by any government. It must be met by an IMPARTIAL decision maker with NO FINANCIAL interest in the outcome and not employed by the government or else a criminal financial conflict of interest will result. In other words, the government has to prove that it is NOT stealing before it can take property, that it is the lawful owner, and expressly HOW it became the lawful owner.
Enforcing the following CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION against government jurisdiction to enforce unless and until the above requirements are met:
“All rights and property are PRESUMED to be EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE and beyond the control of government or the CIVIL statutory franchise codes unless and until the government meets the burden of proving, WITH EVIDENCE, on the record of the proceeding that:
1. A SPECIFIC formerly PRIVATE owner consented IN WRITING to convert said property to PUBLIC property.
2. The owner was either abroad, domiciled on, or at least PRESENT on federal territory NOT protected by the Constitution and therefore had the legal capacity to ALIENATE a Constitutional right or relieve a public servant of the fiduciary obligation to respect and protect the right. Those physically present but not necessarily domiciled in a constitutional but not statutory state protected by the constitution cannot lawfully alienate rights to a real, de jure government, even WITH their consent.
3. If the government refuses to meet the above burden of proof, it shall be CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED to be operating in a PRIVATE, corporate capacity on an EQUAL footing with every other private corporation and which is therefore NOT protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity.”

For a detailed exposition on the mandatory separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE as indicated above, please see the following course on our site:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025

For a detailed exposition of the legal meaning of the word “law” and why the above restrictions on its definition are important, see:

What is “law”?, Form #05.048

9. Copyright

The words “Copyright” or “Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)” used in connection with any of the intellectual property on this site shall mean the following:

Owned by an exclusively private, nonstatutory human and not any artificial entity, “person”, “citizen”, or “resident” under any civil statutory law.
Protected only under the common law and the constitution and not subject to the statutory civil law, including any tax law.
Not owned by this website or ministry.
Owned by an anonymous third party who we have an agreement with to reuse the materials on this site.
Not owned or controlled by any government per 17 U.S.C. §105. Governments are not allowed to copyright their works. Any attempt to bring this ministry under the control of any government or make it the property of any government therefore results in no copyright being held in the name of the government.

The purpose of these copyright restrictions is to ensure that no government can use legal process or tax assessment as a method to censor free speech materials found on this website.

10. Franchise

The word “franchise” means a grant or rental or lease rather than a gift of specific property with legal strings or “obligations” attached.

FRANCHISE. A special privilege conferred by government on individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right. Elliott v. City of Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358, 360. In England it is defined to be a royal privilege in the hands of a subject.

A “franchise,” as used by Blackstone in defining quo warranto, (3 Com. 262 [4th Am. Ed.] 322), had reference to a royal privilege or branch of the king’s prerogative subsisting in the hands of the subject, and must arise from the king’s grant, or be held by prescription, but today we understand a franchise to be some special privilege conferred by government on an individual, natural or artificial, which is not enjoyed by its citizens in general. State v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 639, 86 A.L.R. 240.

In this country a franchise is a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. To be a corporation is a franchise. The various powers conferred on corporations are franchises. The execution of a policy of insurance by an insurance company [e.g. Social Insurance/Socialist Security], and the issuing a bank note by an incorporated bank [such as a Federal Reserve NOTE], are franchises. People v. Utica Ins. Co.. 15 Johns., N.Y., 387, 8 Am.Dec. 243. But it does not embrace the property acquired by the exercise of the franchise. Bridgeport v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255, 4 Arn.Rep. 63. Nor involve interest in land acquired by grantee. Whitbeck v. Funk, 140 Or. 70, 12 P.2d 1019, 1020. In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage. etc. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H. 484 ; State v. Black Diamond Co., 97 Ohio St. 24, 119 N.E. 195, 199, L.R.A.l918E, 352.

Elective Franchise. The right of suffrage: the right or privilege of voting in public elections.

Exclusive Franchise. See Exclusive Privilege or Franchise.

General and Special. The charter of a corporation is its “general” franchise, while a “special” franchise consists in any rights granted by the public to use property for a public use but-with private profit. Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212, 81 N. E. 443, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 420.

Personal Franchise. A franchise of corporate existence, or one which authorizes the formation and existence of a corporation, is sometimes called a “personal” franchise. as distinguished from a “property” franchise, which authorizes a corporation so formed to apply its property to some particular enterprise or exercise some special privilege in its employment, as, for example, to construct and operate a railroad. See Sandham v. Nye, 9 Misc.ReP. 541, 30 N.Y.S. 552.

Secondary Franchises. The franchise of corporate existence being sometimes called the “primary” franchise of a corporation, its “secondary” franchises are the special and peculiar rights, privileges, or grants which it may, receive under its charter or from a municipal corporation, such as the right to use the public streets, exact tolls, collect fares, etc. State v. Topeka Water Co., 61 Kan. 547, 60 P. 337; Virginia Canon Toll Road Co. v. People, 22 Colo. 429, 45 P. 398 37 L.R.A. 711. The franchises of a corporation are divisible into (1) corporate or general franchises; and (2) “special or secondary franchises. The former is the franchise to exist as a corporation, while the latter are certain rights and privileges conferred upon existing corporations. Gulf Refining Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 166 Miss. 759, 108 So. 158, 160.

Special Franchisee. See Secondary Franchises, supra.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, pp. 786-787]

The definition of “privilege” in the definition above means PROPERTY, whether physical or intangible. This loan is often called a “grant” in statutes, as in the case of Social Security in 42 U.S. Code Subchapter I-Grants to the States for Old-Age Assistance. That grant is to federal territories and NOT constitutional states, as demonstrated by the definition of “State” found in 42 U.S.C. §1301(a)(1). Hence, Social Security cannot be offered in constitutional states, but only federal territories, as proven in Form #06.001.

“For here, the state must deposit the proceeds of its taxation in the federal treasury, upon terms which make the deposit suspiciously like a forced loan to be repaid only in accordance with restrictions imposed by federal law. Title IX, §§ 903 (a) (3), 904 (a), (b), (e). All moneys withdrawn from this fund must be used exclusively for the payment of compensation. § 903 (a) (4). And this compensation is to be paid through public employment offices in the state or such other agencies as a federal board may approve. § 903 (a) (1).”
[Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)]

In the case of government franchises, property granted or rented can include one or more of the following:

A public right or public privilege granted by a statute that is not found in the Constitution but rather created by the Legislature. This includes remedies provided in franchise courts in the Executive Branch under Ariticle I or Article IV to vindicate such rights. It does not include remedies provided in true Article III courts.“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)]
Any type of privilege, immunity, or exemption granted by a statute to a specific class of people and not to all people generally that is not found in the Constitution. All such statues are referred to as “special law” or “private law”, where the government itself is acting in a private rather than a public capacity on an equal footing with every other private human in equity. The U.S. Supreme court also called such legislation “class legislation” in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and the ONLY “class” they can be talking about are public officers in the U.S. government and not to all people generally. See Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” For Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008 for proof:“special law. One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally. A private law. A law is “special” when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field of action or operation. A “special law” relates to either particular persons, places, or things or to persons, places, or things which, though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but not such legislation, be applied. Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Utah, 564 P.2d. 751, 754. A special law applies only to an individual or a number of individuals out of a single class similarly situated and affected, or to a special locality. Board of County Com’rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d. 361, 362. See also Private bill; Private law. Compare General law; Public law.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398]
A statutory “civil status” created and therefore owned by the legislature. This includes statutory “taxpayers”, “drivers”, “persons”, “individuals”, etc. All such entities are creations of Congress and public rIghts which carry obligations when consensually and lawfully exercised. See:
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
A STATUTORY Social Security Card. The regulations at 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) indicates the card is property of the government and must be returned upon request.
A U.S. passport. The passport indicates that it is property of the government that must be returned upon request.
A “license“, which is legally defined as permission by the state to do something that would otherwise be illegal or even criminal.

In legal parlance, such a grant makes the recipient a temporary trustee, and if they violate their trust, the property can be taken back through administrative action or physical seizure and without legal process so long as the conditions of the loan allowed for these methods of enforcement:

“How, then, are purely equitable obligations created? For the most part, either by the acts of third persons or by equity alone. But how can one person impose an obligation upon another? By giving property to the latter on the terms of his assuming an obligation in respect to it. At law there are only two means by which the object of the donor could be at all accomplished, consistently with the entire ownership of the property passing to the donee, namely: first, by imposing a real obligation upon the property; secondly, by subjecting the title of the donee to a condition subsequent. The first of these the law does not permit; the second is entirely inadequate. Equity, however, can secure most of the objects of the doner, and yet avoid the mischiefs of real obligations by imposing upon the donee (and upon all persons to whom the property shall afterwards come without value or with notice) a personal obligation with respect to the property; and accordingly this is what equity does. It is in this way that all trusts are created, and all equitable charges made (i.e., equitable hypothecations or liens created) by testators in their wills. In this way, also, most trusts are created by acts inter vivos, except in those cases in which the trustee incurs a legal as well as an equitable obligation. In short, as property is the subject of every equitable obligation, so the owner of property is the only person whose act or acts can be the means of creating an obligation in respect to that property. Moreover, the owner of property can create an obligation in respect to it in only two ways: first, by incurring the obligation himself, in which case he commonly also incurs a legal obligation; secondly, by imposing the obligation upon some third person; and this he does in the way just explained.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 543]

__________________________________________________

“When Sir Matthew Hale, and the sages of the law in his day, spoke of property as affected by a public interest, and ceasing from that cause to be juris privati solely, that is, ceasing to be held merely in private right, they referred to

[1] property dedicated [DONATED] by the owner to public uses, or

[2] to property the use of which was granted by the government [e.g. Social Security Card], or

[3] in connection with which special privileges were conferred [licenses].

Unless the property was thus dedicated [by one of the above three mechanisms], or some right bestowed by the government was held with the property, either by specific grant or by prescription of so long a time as to imply a grant originally, the property was not affected by any public interest so as to be taken out of the category of property held in private right.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 139-140 (1876)]

The above authorities imply that a mere act of accepting or using the property in question in effect represents “implied consent” to abide by the conditions associated with the loan, as described in the California Civil Code below:

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS
PART 2. CONTRACTS
CHAPTER 3. CONSENT
Section 1589

1589. A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.

The U.S. Supreme Court further acknowledged the above mechanisms of using grants or loans of government property to create equitable obligations against the recipient of the property as follows. Note that they ALSO imply that YOU can use exactly the same mechanism against the government to impose obligations upon them, if they are trying to acquire your physical property, your services, your labor, your time, or impose any kind of obligation (Form #12.040) against you without your express written consent, because all such activities involve efforts to acquire what is usually PRIVATE, absolutely owned property that you can use to control the GOVERNMENT as the lawful owner:

“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]

The injustice (Form #05.050), sophistry, and deception (Form #05.014) underlying their welfare state system is that:

Governments don’t produce anything, but merely transfer wealth between otherwise private people (see Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025).
The money they are paying you can never be more than what you paid them, and if it is, then they are abusing their taxing powers!To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St. 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]
If they try to pay you more than you paid them, they must make you into a public officer to do so to avoid the prohibition of the case above. In doing so, they in most cases must illegally establish a public office and in effect use “benefits” to criminally bribe you to illegally impersonate such an office. See The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001 for details.
Paying you back what was originally your own money and NOTHING more is not a “benefit” or even a loan by them to you. If anything, it is a temporary loan by you to them! And its an unjust loan because they don’t have to pay interest!
Since you are the real lender, then you are the only real party who can make rules against them and not vice versa. See Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution for where the ability to make those rules comes from.
All franchises are contracts that require mutual consideration and mutual obligation to be enforceable. Since government isn’t contractually obligated to provide the main consideration, which is “benefits” and isn’t obligated to provide ANYTHING that is truly economically valuable beyond that, then the “contract” or “compact” is unenforceable against you and can impose no obligations on you based on mere equitable principals of contract law.“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments… This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.”
[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) ]”… railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time.”
[United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980)]

For further details on government franchises, see:

Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.014, Cites by Topic: “franchise”
Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
Slides
Video
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

For information on how to avoid franchises, quit them, or use your own PERSONAL franchises to DEFEND yourself against illegal government franchise administration or enforcement, usually against ineligible parties, see:

Avoiding Traps on Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 5
Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
SEDM Forms/Pubs page, Section 1.6: Avoiding Government Franchises
The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040 (Member Subscription form)
Why the Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051 (Member Subscription form)

11. Frivolous

The word “frivolous” as used by the government or on other websites in referring to this website shall mean “correct” and “truthful”. Any attempts to call anything on this website incorrect or untruthful must be accompanied by authoritative, court-admissible evidence to support such a conclusion or shall be presumed by the reader to be untrustworthy and untruthful. All such evidence MUST derive EXCLUSIVELY from the consensual civil domicile of the defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). Parties subject to this agreement stipulate that any violation of this rule is a malicious prosecution and obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589(a)(3). Click here for details on domicile.

12. Federal Income Tax

The term “federal income tax”, in the context of this website, means the revenue scheme described in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code as applied specifically and only to human beings who are not statutory “persons” or “individuals” under federal law and shall NOT refer to businesses or artificial entities. This website does NOT concern itself with businesses or corporations or artificial entities of any description.

13. Tax

The term “tax” includes any method to collect revenues to support ONLY the operation of the government. It does NOT include the abuse of taxing power to transfer wealth between ordinary citizens or residents and when it is used for this purpose it is THEFT, not “taxation”.

“The power to tax is, therefore, the strongest, the most pervading of all powers of government, reaching directly or indirectly to all classes of the people. It was said by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v. Md., 4 Wheat. 431, that the power to tax is the power to destroy. A striking instance of the truth of the proposition is seen in the fact that the existing tax of ten per cent, imposed by the United States on the circulation of all other banks than the National Banks, drove out of existence every *state bank of circulation within a year or two after its passage. This power can be readily employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there is no implied limitation of the uses for which the power may be exercised.

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St. 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

________________________________________________________________________________

“A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.”
[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

“Tax” includes ONLY impositions upon PUBLIC property or franchises (Form #05.030) and not upon absolutely owned PRIVATE property.

PRIVATE property must be consensually converted to PUBLIC property before it can be taxed, and the burden of proof rests on the government to prove that it was lawfully converted before it can be subject to tax. See:
Separation Between Public and Private, Form 12.025
The “persons” spoken above are civil statutory PUBLIC “persons” and not PRIVATE humans. See:
Why All Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

14. Protection

The word “protection” includes only CRIMINAL, constitutional, and common law protection. It excludes every type of government activity, franchise, or program that requires a predicate civil status (Form #13.008) to enforce, such as “citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, “spouse”, Social Security beneficiary, etc. Every attempt to impose, acquire, or enforce a civil status or to enforce duties upon a civil status NOT related to voting or jury service constitutes the following:

An INJURY and an INJUSTICE (Form #05.050).
Identity Theft (Form #05.046).

15. Fact

The word “fact” means that which is admissible as evidence in a court of law BECAUSE ENACTED LAW makes it admissible AND because the speaker (other than us) INTENDED for it to be factual. It does NOT imply that we allege that it is factual, actionable, or even truthful. Any attempt by any government to make anything published on this website or anything said by members or officers of the ministry FACTUAL or ACTIONABLE in conflict with this disclaimer is hereby declared and stipulated by all members to be FRAUDULENT, PERJURIOUS, and a willful act of international terrorism and organized extortion.

16. Statutory

The term “statutory” when used as a prefix to any other term, means that the term it precedes pertains only to federal territory, property, PUBLIC rights, or privileges under the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government. Includes NO private property or people.

17. Statutory Citizen

The term “statutory citizen” is defined on this website to mean someone who:

Is born or naturalized in a specific country and therefore has NATIONALITY in that country. The result is that they therefore are:
1.1. A Citizen* of that country described in this Disclaimer. Citizen* in turn is a POLITICAL status.
1.2. A “national” of that country as described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).
1.3. A POLITICAL MEMBER of the national body politic by virtue of having NATIONALITY. That membership is called “citizenship” in 8 C.F.R. §337.1.
Obtained their Citizen* status by virtue of one of the following:
2.1. The Fourteenth Amendment, in the case states mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
2.2. Title 8 of the U.S. Code, in the case of territories, possessions, federal enclaves, and Americans born abroad.
Has CONSENTED to a CIVIL DOMICILE within the jurisdiction of a specific government within the country they are a Citizen* and NATIONAL (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)) of. By so consenting, they:
3.1. Acquired a CIVIL STATUS.
3.2. Are also called a Citizen**+D on in this Disclaimer.
3.3. Became a consenting party to the CIVIL “Social Compact”, which is a Private Membership Association (PMA) that no one can FORCE you to join. It is a violation of the First Amendment to FORCE you to join.
Is both a POLITICAL MEMBER and a LEGAL (CIVIL) MEMBER of a specific community subject to the CIVIL STATUTORY laws of that community. The civil statutory law in that scenario functions as the equivalent of CIVIL LEGAL rules governing a Private Membership Association (PMA). See:
Hot Issues: Self, Family, Church, Local Self Governance, and Private Membership Associations (PMAs), Section 2
https://sedm.org/self-family-church-and-local-self-governance/
Is an agent or officer of the government they are a CIVIL member of. President Obama in his Farewell Address referred to this membership as a “public office”. See:
President Obama Admits in His Farewell Address that “citizen” is a public office, Exhibit #01.018
https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX01.018-39-45-20170110-Obama%20Farewell%20Speech.mp4
Gave UP some portion of their constitutional or natural rights in exchange for the BENEFITS of CIVIL LEGAL membership. See:
How You Lose Constitutional or Natural Rights, Form #10.015
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/HowLoseConstOrNatRights.pdf

Political status asks: Are you a member of this home, and are you faithful to the family? Civil status asks: Are you a member of the home, and in what room do you live? More on CIVIL STATUS at:

Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf

For a detailed description of the VERY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES of selecting or consenting to a CIVIL DOMICILE, thus becoming a STATUTORY CITIZEN, and thus funding government in an UNACCOUNTABLE way, see:

Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf
Government Corruption, Form #11.401
https://sedm.org/home/government-corruption/

For a way to REMOVE ALL of the MASSIVE infirmities of CIVIL DOMICILE and being a STATUTORY CITIZEN and replace them with something MUCH better and definitely not SOCIALIST but CAPITALIST, see:

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

Every reference to the word “citizen” in every act of congress OTHER than in Title 8 is by default a STATUTORY Citizen and a Citizen**+D as defined in this Disclaimer. Title 8 acts as a substitute for the Constitution for the purposes of only citizenship within territories and/or possessions OR abroad. Fourteenth Amendment/CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship is NOWHERE described or referenced in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Statutes in Title 8 are not necessary to define or authorize citizenship for people in states of the Union:

“Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside. See, e.g., Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922) (Holmes, J.) (“If a thing has been practiced for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it[.]”); Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) (“It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use . . . . Yet an unbroken practice . . . is not something to be lightly cast aside.”). And while Congress cannot take away the citizenship of individuals covered by the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment], it can bestow citizenship upon those not within the Constitution’s breadth. See U.S. Const, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (“Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory belonging to the United States[**].”); id. at art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (Congress may “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . ..”). To date, Congress has not seen fit to bestow birthright citizenship upon American Samoa, and in accordance with the law, this Court must and will respect that choice.16″
[Tuaua v. U.S.A, 951 F.Supp.2d. 88 (2013)]

Note the following in the above:

“If the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. ”

All statutory statuses in Title 8 are therefore POLITICAL statuses rather than CIVIL statuses. For the meaning of “civil status”, see:

Civil Status (Important!)-SEDM
https://sedm.org/litigation-main/civil-status/

However, the political status imputed in Title 8 (“citizen” and/or “national”) is not that mentioned in the Constitution. The constitution does not apply on federal territory with the exception of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 except insofar as Congress legislatively allows it to apply. Once it is made to apply, that constitutional provision which is legislatively applied cannot be legislatively revoked, because Constitutional rights cannot be legislatively revoked and are private property.

“[T]he Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest only when and so far as Congress shall so direct”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 279 (1901)]

All titles of the U.S. Code OTHER than Title 8 and which are CIVIL in nature limit themselves to domiciled parties against whom statutory civil law may lawfully be enforced per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). The origin of civil statutory enforcement authority is domicile on federal territory or representing an entity or office domiciled there (such as “person”). Thus, all such parties must be at least domiciled on federal territory to civilly enforce. And, one can’t have a domicile without physical presence there at some point in time. See:

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

18. Constitutional

The term “constitutional” when used as a prefix to any other term, means that the term it precedes pertains only to land, property, rights, or privileges under the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union and not within the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the national government.

19. Law Practice

The terms “law practice” or “practice of law”:

Exclude any and all statutory references to said term in any state or federal statute.
Exclude any use of these terms found in any rule of court.
Exclude any litigation in which the party “practicing” is representing either a government instrumentality or acting as an officer for said instrumentality such as a statutory “taxpayer” (under the Internal Revenue Code), “driver” (under the vehicle code), “spouse” (under the family code), or “benefit recipient” (under any entitlement program, including Social Security).
Include litigation involving ONLY the protection of EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE property and rights beyond the civil legislative jurisdiction of any de jure government to take away, control, or impair.
Include common law or constitutional litigation that does not acquire the “force of law” from the consent of the parties protected by it.

20. Sovereign

The word “sovereign” when referring to humans or governments means all the following:

A human being and NOT a “government”. Only human beings are “sovereign” and only when they are acting in strict obedience to the laws of their religion. All powers of government are delegated from the PEOPLE and are NOT “divine rights”. Those powers in turn are only operative when government PREVENTS the conversion of PRIVATE rights into PUBLIC rights. When that goal is avoided or undermined or when law is used to accomplish involuntary conversion, we cease to have a government and instead end up with a private, de facto for profit corporation that has no sovereign immunity and cannot abuse sovereign immunity to protect its criminal thefts from the people.
EQUAL in every respect to any and every government or actor in government. All governments are legal “persons” and under our Constitutional system, ALL “persons” are equal and can only become UNEQUAL in relation to each other WITH their EXPRESS and NOT IMPLIED consent. Since our Constitutional rights are unalienable per the Declaration of Independence, then we can’t become unequal in relation to any government, INCLUDING through our consent.
Not superior in any way to any human being within the jurisdiction of the courts of any country.
Possessing the EQUAL right to acquire rights over others by the same mechanisms as the government uses. For instance, if the government encourages the filing of FALSE information returns that essentially “elect” people into public office without their consent, then we have an EQUAL right to elect any and every government or officer within government into our PERSONAL service as our PERSONAL officer without THEIR consent. See:
Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001.
Subject to the criminal laws of the jurisdiction they are physically situated in, just like everyone else. This provision excludes “quasi criminal provisions” within civil franchises, such as tax crimes.
The origin of all authority delegated to the government per the Declaration of Independence.
Reserving all rights and delegating NONE to any and every government or government actor. U.C.C. 1-308 and its predecessor, U.C.C. 1-207.
Not consenting to any and every civil franchise offered by any government.
Possessing the same sovereign immunity as any government. Hence, like the government, any government actor asserting a liability or obligation has the burden of proving on the record of any court proceeding EXPRESS WRITTEN consent to be sued before the obligation becomes enforceable.
Claiming no civil or franchise status under any statutory franchise, including but not limited to “citizen”, “resident”, “driver” (under the vehicle code), “spouse” (under the family code), “taxpayer” (under the tax code). Any attempt to associate a statutory status and the public rights it represents against a non-consenting party is THEFT and SLAVERY and INJUSTICE.
Acting as a fiduciary, agent, and trustee on behalf of God 24 hours a day, seven days a week as an ambassador of a legislatively foreign jurisdiction and as a public officer of “Heaven, Inc.”, a private foreign corporation. God is the ONLY “sovereign” and the source of all sovereignty. We must be acting as His agent and fiduciary before we can exercise any sovereignty at all. Any attempt by so-called “government” to interfere with our ability to act as His fiduciaries is a direct interference with our right to contract and the free exercise of religion. See:
Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007
Capable of being civilly sued ONLY under the common law and equity and not under any statutory civil law. All statutory civil laws are law for government and public officers, and NOT for private human beings. They are civil franchises that only acquire the “force of law” with the consent of the subject. See:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
Protected from the civil statutory law by the First Amendment requirement for separation of church and state because we Christians are the church and our physical body is the “temple” of the church. See: 1 Cor. 6:19.
Responsible for all the injuries they cause to every other person under equity and common law ONLY, and not under civil statutory law.

21. Anarchy

The term “anarchy” implies any one or more of the following, and especially as regards so-called “governments”. An important goal of this site it to eliminate all such “anarchy”:

Are superior in any way to the people they govern UNDER THE LAW.
Are not directly accountable to the people or the law. They prohibit the PEOPLE from criminally prosecuting their own crimes, reserving the right to prosecute to their own fellow criminals. Who polices the police? THE CRIMINALS.
Enact laws that exempt themselves. This is a violation of the Constitutional requirement for equal protection and equal treatment and constitutes an unconstitutional Title of Nobility in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.
Only enforce the law against others and NOT themselves, as a way to protect their own criminal activities by persecuting dissidents. This is called “selective enforcement”. In the legal field it is also called “professional courtesy”. Never kill the goose that lays the STOLEN golden eggs.
Break the laws with impunity. This happens most frequently when corrupt people in government engage in “selective enforcement”, whereby they refuse to prosecute or interfere with the prosecution of anyone in government. The Department of Justice (D.O.J.) or the District Attorney are the most frequent perpetrators of this type of crime.
Are able to choose which laws they want to be subject to, and thus refuse to enforce laws against themselves. The most frequent method for this type of abuse is to assert sovereign, official, or judicial immunity as a defense in order to protect the wrongdoers in government when they are acting outside their delegated authority, or outside what the definitions in the statutes EXPRESSLY allow.
Impute to themselves more rights or methods of acquiring rights than the people themselves have. In other words, who are the object of PAGAN IDOL WORSHIP because they possess “supernatural” powers. By “supernatural”, we mean that which is superior to the “natural”, which is ordinary human beings.
Claim and protect their own sovereign immunity, but refuse to recognize the same EQUAL immunity of the people from whom that power was delegated to begin with. Hypocrites.
Abuse sovereign immunity to exclude either the government or anyone working in the government from being subject to the laws they pass to regulate everyone ELSE’S behavior. In other words, they can choose WHEN they want to be a statutory “person” who is subject, and when they aren’t. Anyone who has this kind of choice will ALWAYS corruptly exclude themselves and include everyone else, and thereby enforce and implement an unconstitutional “Title of Nobility” towards themself. On this subject, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the following:”No man in this country [including legislators of the government as a legal person] is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives,” 106 U.S., at 220. “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the Citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights,” 106 U.S., at 220, 221.
[United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S. Ct. 240 (1882)]
Have a monopoly on anything, INCLUDING “protection”, and who turn that monopoly into a mechanism to force EVERYONE illegally to be treated as uncompensated public officers in exchange for the “privilege” of being able to even exist or earn a living to support oneself.
Can tax and spend any amount or percentage of the people’s earnings over the OBJECTIONS of the people.
Can print, meaning illegally counterfeit, as much money as they want to fund their criminal enterprise, and thus to be completely free from accountability to the people.
Deceive and/or lie to the public with impunity by telling you that you can’t trust anything they say, but force YOU to sign everything under penalty of perjury when you want to talk to them. 26 U.S.C. §6065.

In support of the above definition of “anarchy”, here is how the U.S. Supreme Court defined it:

“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]

The above requirements are a consequence of the fact that the foundation of the United States Constitution is EQUAL protection and EQUAL treatment. Any attempt to undermine equal rights and equal protection described above constitutes:

The establishment of a state sponsored religion in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21B. That religion is described in: Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016. The object of worship of such a religion is imputing “supernatural powers” to civil rulers and forcing everyone to worship and serve said rulers as “superior beings”.
The establishment of an unconstitutional Title of Nobility in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.

For court admissible proof that your CIVIL government is the MAIN and most damaging type of anarchist in modern society, both from a legal perspective and a theological perspective, see:

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

22. Political

The term “political” as used throughout our website in reference to us or our activities:

Excludes the endorsement of specific candidates for political office.
Excludes any motivation that might result in a revocation of 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4) status.
Excludes activities of public officers or agents of the government.
Excludes those who are “persons”, “individuals”, “taxpayers” under any revenue law.
Excludes those with a domicile or residence “in this State”, meaning the government.
Includes efforts to educate the public about the law and the legal limits upon the jurisdiction of those in the government.
Includes ONLY EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE people beyond the civil legislative control of the specific government affected by the policy.
Involves the protection of purely private property and private rights exclusively owned by human beings and not businesses or artificial entities of any description.
Includes activities undertaken ONLY in the fulfillment of purely religious goals as a full time fiduciary of God under the Bible trust indenture.

23. Non-citizen national

The term “non-citizen national” MEANS a human being born in a constitutional state and domiciled or at least physically present there. These people are described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21). They are STATUTORY “non-resident non-persons” as described in Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020. It DOES NOT mean or include those who are:

Domiciled either abroad or on federal territory.
Statutory “nationals and citizens of the United States[**] at birth” per 8 U.S.C. §1401. These people are born in federal territories exclusively.
Statutory “national but not citizen of the United States[**] at birth” per 8 U.S.C. §1408. These people are born in federal possessions such as Puerto Rico.
Statutory “citizens of the United States[**]” per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(A).
Statutory “national of the United States**” per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22).

24. State National

The term “state national” means those who are:

Born in a Constitutional but not Statutory “State” as described in the Fourteenth Amendment or the original constitution.
Standing on land protected by the Constitution and/or the organic law and therefore possessing natural and Constitutional and PRIVATE rights as documented in:
Enumeration of Inalienable Rights, Form #10.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/EnumRights.pdf
Not claiming any government statutory privilege, immunity, exemption, “benefit”, domicile, or civil statutory protection in the context of a specific interaction and reserving all rights per U.C.C. §1.308.
Invoking ONLY the common law, the criminal law, God’s laws, and the national and state Bill of Rights or constitutional rights for their protection in a court of law. They are therefore NOT “anarchists” who reject ALL law. Instead, they only reject that subset of law (the CIVIL STATUTORY law) that acquires the “force of law” from their consent in some form, whether express or implied.
Reject the statutory terms “citizen”, “resident”, or “person” and the use of the word “citizenship” in ANY context in describing themselves. Instead, they insist on the consistent use of “nationality” and “domicile” to describe their degree of POLITICAL and CIVIL/LEGAL membership in the communities they live in respectively. Domicile, in turn, is VOLUNTARY and cannot be compelled, except possibly in a probate proceeding involving a DEAD person with no rights. POLITICAL membership conveys NO civil enforcement authority. Only CIVIL/LEGAL membership can, and it must be voluntary.
Owing allegiance to THE PEOPLE as individuals and sovereigns occupying the land within the state, and not to the government that serves them under the constitution as the delegation of authority order. “State” in a political sense always refers to PEOPLE occupying land and never to GOVERNMENTS or government corporations. In biblical terms, that allegiance is called “love” and it is commanded by God in Matt. 22:34-40. God NEVER commands Christians to love governments or civil rulers and often tells people to DISOBEY them when they violate the Bible as their delegation of authority order (Form #13.007).

Equivalent to a “non-citizen national of the United States OF AMERICA” or a “free inhabitant” under the Articles of Confederation. EXCLUDES any of the following:

STATUTORY “person” under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and §7343.
Statutory “national and citizen of the United States** at birth” as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401. This is a territorial citizen rather than a state citizen.
“citizen of the United States**[federal zone]” under 26 U.S.C. §911, 26 U.S.C. §3121(e), or 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
“National but not citizen of the United States** at birth” under 8 U.S.C. §1408. This is a person born in a federal possession RATHER than a state of the Union.
“U.S.[**] non-citizen national” under 8 U.S.C. §1452. This is a person born in a federal possession RATHER than a state of the Union.
STATUTORY “U.S. person” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30), which is a human being born and domiciled on federal territory not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any Constitutional state.

The term is a SUBSET of the term “American National” as used by the Department of State in 8 U.S.C. §1502 because it:

Excludes citizens or nationals within territories or possessions or those born abroad.
Includes ONLY those born or naturalized within a constitutional state of the Union.

We make this distinction because we don’t want to be in a position of “purposefully availing ourself” of commerce within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government and thereby make ourselves a target of “selective or UNJUST enforcement”. This is also consistent with the SEDM opening page, which says:

“Our goal is to inspire, empower, motivate, and educate mainly those born or naturalized in the USA (and NOT “U.S.”) and who are Members in how to love, honor, obey, glorify, and lift up our Sovereign Lord above every man, king, ruler, government, and Earthly law at a personal and very practical level and in every area of our lives. This is the essence of our religious worship and the essence, according to the Bible, of how we love our God.”
[SEDM Opening Page; http://sedm.org]

“state” for a foreign national = the country of which that person is a national. “state” for an American national is the United States of America, or just America. “state” is not defined in 8 U.S.C. although “State” is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(36) and they are NOT equivalent. See 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) for another reference to a “state national”. Remember the context of 8 U.S.C. §1101 is immigration and nationality. So when we speak of a state in this context, we are talking about international states. In that context, American nationality (or U.S. nationality) is what we are—nationality of California is meaningless in this context. So to say you are a national of California is to say you are a national of the United States[***] OF AMERICA or an American National.

For the purposes of “State”, the following definition applies:

State

As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states. The section of territory occupied by one of the United States. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a case, “The State v. A. B.” The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at a given time.

[The Free Dictionary, Farlex; SOURCE: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state]

“State national” is NOT a statutory term and is not commonly used by courts of law. Therefore, if you invoke it in government correspondence or in litigation, you should take great care to define it BEFORE invoking it so that you do not invite charges of being “frivolous”.

25. “Non-Person” or “non-resident non-person”

The term “non-person” or “non-resident non-person” (Form #05.020) as used on this site we define to be a human who is all of the following:

Not domiciled on federal territory and not representing a corporate or governmental office that is so domiciled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. See Form #05.002 for details.
Not engaged in a public office within any government. This includes the civil office of “person”, “individual”, “citizen”, or “resident”. See Form #05.037 and Form #05.042 for court-admissible proof that statutory “persons”, “individuals”, “citizens”, and “residents” are public offices.
Not “purposefully or consensually availing themself” of commerce with any government. Therefore, they do not waive sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97.
Obligations and Rights in relation to Governments:
4.1. Waives any and all privileges and immunities of any civil status and all rights or “entitlements” to receive “benefits” or “civil services” from any government. It is a maxim of law that REAL de jure governments (Form #05.043) MUST give you the right to not receive or be eligible to receive “benefits” of any kind. See Form #05.040 for a description of the SCAM of abusing “benefits” to destroy sovereignty. The reason is because they MUST guarantee your right to be self-governing and self-supporting:
Invito beneficium non datur.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est.
A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]4.2. Because they are not in receipt of or eligible to receive property or benefits from the government, they owe no CIVIL STATUTORY obligations to that government or any STATUTORY “citizen” or STATUTORY “resident”, as “obligations” are described in California Civil Code Section 1428. This means they are not party to any contracts or compacts and have injured NO ONE as injury is defined NOT by statute, but by the common law. See Form #12.040 for further details on the definition of “obligations”.
4.3. Because they owe no statutory civil obligations, the definition of “justice” REQUIRES that they MUST be left alone by the government. See Form #05.050 for a description of “justice“.
For the purposes of citizenship on government forms:
5.1 STATUTORY “citizen” and “resident” are PUBLIC OFFICES and fictions of law within the national government and not human beings. Whenever CIVIL STATUTORY obligations (Form #12.040) attach to a civil status (Form #13.008) such as “citizen”, “resident”, or “person”, then the civil or legal status has to be voluntary or else unconstitutional involuntary servitude is the result in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. President Obama even admitted that “citizen” is a public office in his Farewell Address. See SEDM Exhibit #01.018 for proof. You have a RIGHT to not be an officer of the government WITHOUT even PAY! They even make you PAY for the privilege with income taxation, because the tax is imposed upon STATUTORY “citizen” and “resident” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a). Who else can institute SLAVERY like that and why can’t you do that to THEM if we are all REALLY equal (Form #05.033) as the Constitution requires?
5.2. Does NOT identify as a STATUTORY “citizen” (8 U.S.C. §1401 and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)), “resident” (alien under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)), “U.S. citizen” (not defined in any statute), “U.S. resident” (not defined in any statute), or “U.S. person” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)).
5.3. Identifies themself as a “national” per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and per common law by virtue of birth or naturalization within the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States***”.
5.4. Is NOT an “alien individual” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i) because a “national” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) or “U.S. national” under 22 C.F.R. §51.1 owing allegiance to a state of the Union and not the national or federal government. Thus, they are not subject to the presence test under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) and may not lawfully be kidnapped into exclusive national government jurisdiction as a privileged alien “resident” or have a privileged “residence” (26 C.F.R. §1.871-2(b)) within the EITHER the statutory geographical “United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) or “United States*” the COUNTRY in 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1(c)(2).
5.5. Is legislatively but not constitutionally “foreign” and “alien” to the national government by virtue of not having a domicile (for nationals under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)) or “residence” (for “alien individuals” under 26 C.F.R. §1.871-2(b)) within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the national government. The words “foreign” and “alien” by themselves are NOT defined within the Internal Revenue Code. This is MALICIOUSLY deliberate so as to DECEIVE the American public in states of the Union into FALSELY declaring a domicile or residence within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government. By using “and subject to ITS jurisdiction” after the word “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c), the average American in states of the Union is deceived using equivocation into VOLUNTEERING for a civil STATUTORY office under the Secretary of the Treasury called “citizen” and “resident” subject to exclusive national government jurisdiction. The “citizen” in this regulation is NOT the POLITICAL citizen mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but a STATUTORY citizen legislatively created and owned by Congress and thus a PRIVILEGE. Those in states of the Union who have neither a domicile nor residence within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government and are not “subject to ITS jurisdiction” and who FALSELY CLAIM on a government form (Form #12.023) such as a W-9 that they are STATUTORY “U.S. persons” have in practical effect VOLUNTEERED to become privileged STATUTORY “taxpayers” and uncompensated officers of the national government EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD who are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week per 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a)! The corrupt, covetous government WANTS this process of volunteering to be invisible in order to VICTIMIZE the Americans into becoming surety to pay off an endless mountain of public debt that there is NO LIMIT on. That’s criminal peonage in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1581 if you knew you could unvolunteer and aren’t allowed to. Its also criminal human trafficking. You can’t UNVOLUNTEER and leave the system until you know HOW you volunteered in the first place. See “Hot Issues: Invisible Consent” for details on how your consent was procured INVISIBLY. That process of volunteering to pay income tax that state nationals don’t owe is exhaustively described in: How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024; https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf.
Earnings originate from outside:
6.1. The STATUTORY “United States**” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) (federal zone) and
6.2. The U.S. government federal corporation as a privileged legal fiction.
Thus, their earnings are expressly EXCLUDED rather than EXEMPTED from “gross income” under 26 U.S.C. §871 and are a “foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31). See 26 U.S.C. §872 and 26 C.F.R. §1.872-2(f) and 26 C.F.R. §1.871-7(a)(4) and 26 U.S.C. §861(a)(3)(C)(i) for proof.
Earnings are expressly EXCLUDED rather than EXEMPTED from STATUTORY “wages” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) because all services performed outside the STATUTORY “United States**” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) (federal zone) and the CORPORATION “United States” as a legal fiction. Therefore, not subject to “wage” withholding of any kind for such services per:
7.1. 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)(6)-1(b) in the case of income tax.
7.2. 26 C.F.R. §31.3121(b)-3(c)(1) in the case of Social Security.
Expressly EXCLUDED rather than EXEMPTED from income tax reporting under:
8.1. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(b)(5)(i).
8.2. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(e)(1)(ii)(A)(1).
8.3. 26 C.F.R. §1.6041-4(a)(1).
Expressly EXCLUDED rather than EXEMPTED from backup withholding because earnings are not reportable by 26 U.S.C. §3406(g) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3406(g)-1(e). Only “reportable payments” are subject to such withholding.
Because they are EXCLUDED rather than EXEMPTED from income tax reporting and therefore withholding, they have no “taxable income”.
10.1. Only reportable income is taxable.
10.2. There is NO WAY provided within the Internal Revenue Code to make earnings not connected to a statutory “trade or business”/public office (Form #05.001) under 26 U.S.C. §6041 reportable.
10.3. The only way to make earnings of a nonresident alien not engaged in the “trade or business” franchise taxable under 26 U.S.C. §871(a) is therefore only when the PAYOR is lawfully engaged in a “trade or business” but the PAYEE is not. This situation would have to involve the U.S. government ONLY and not private parties in the states of the Union. The information returns would have to be a Form 1042s. It is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §912 for a private party to occupy a public office or to impersonate a public office, and Congress cannot establish public offices within the exclusive jurisdiction of the states of the Union to tax them, according to the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 68 S.Ct. 331 (1866).
Continue to be a “national of the United States*” (Form #05.006) and not lose their CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship while filing form 1040NR. See 26 U.S.C. §873(b)(3). They do NOT need to “expatriate” their nationality to file as a “nonresident alien” and will not satisfy the conditions in 26 U.S.C. §877 (expatriation to avoid tax). Expatriation is loss of NATIONALITY, and NOT loss of STATUTORY “citizen” status under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
If they submit SEDM Form W-8SUB, Form #04.231 to control withholding and revoke Form W-4, then they:
12.1. Can submit SSA Form 7008 to correct their SSA earnings to zero them out. See SEDM Form #06.042.
12.2. Can use IRS Form 843 to request a full refund or abatement of all FICA and Medicare taxes withheld if the employer or business associate continues to file W-2 forms or withhold against your wishes. See SEDM Form #06.044.
Are eligible to replace the SSN with a TEMPORARY Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) that expires AUTOMATICALLY every year and is therefore NOT permanent and changes. If you previously applied for an SSN and were ineligible to participate, you can terminate the SSN and replace it with the ITIN. If you can’t prove you were ineligible for Social Security, then they will not allow you to replace the SSN with an ITIN. See:
13.1. Form W-7 for the application.
13.2. Understanding Your IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, Publication 1915
13.3. Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001 for proof that no one within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union is eligible for Social Security.
Must file the paper version of IRS Form 1040NR, because there are no electronic online providers that automate the preparation of the form or allow you to attach the forms necessary to submit a complete and accurate return that correctly reflects your status. This is in part because the IRS doesn’t want to make it easy or convenient to leave their slave plantation.
Is a SUBSET of “nonresident aliens” who are not required to have or to use Social Security Numbers (SSNs) or Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) in connection with tax withholding or reporting. They are expressly excluded from this requirement by:
15.1. 31 C.F.R. §1020.410(b)(3)(x).
15.2. 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b)(2).
15.3. W-8BEN Inst. p. 1,2,4,5 (Cat 25576H).
15.4. Instructions for the Requesters of Forms W-8BEN, W-8BEN-E, W-8ECI, W-8EXP, and W-8IMY, p. 1,2,6 (Cat 26698G).
15.5. Pub 515 Inst. p. 7 (Cat. No 16029L).
More on SSNs and TINs at:
About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012
About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #04.104

They are “non-persons” BY VIRTUE of not benefitting from any civil statutory privilege and therefore being “PRIVATE”. By “privilege”, we mean ANY of the things described in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2):

5 U.S. Code § 553 – Rule making

(a)This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved—

[. . .]

(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.

The above items all have in common that they are PROPERTY coming under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution that is loaned or possessed or granted temporarily to a human being with legal strings attached. Thus, Congress has direct legislative jurisdiction not only over the property itself, but over all those who USE, BENEFIT FROM, or HAVE such property physically in their custody or within their temporary control. We remind the reader that Congress enjoys control over their own property NO MATTER WHERE it physically is, including states of the Union, and that it is the MAIN source of their legislative jurisdiction within the exclusive jurisdiction of Constitutional states of the Union!:

United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

“The Constitution permits Congress to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. This power applies as well to territory belonging to the United States within the States, as beyond them. It comprehends all the public domain, wherever it may be. The argument is, that the power to make ‘ALL needful rules and regulations‘ ‘is a power of legislation,’ ‘a full legislative power;’ ‘that it includes all subjects of legislation in the territory,‘ and is without any limitations, except the positive prohibitions which affect all the powers of Congress. Congress may then regulate or prohibit slavery upon the public domain within the new States, and such a prohibition would permanently affect the capacity of a slave, whose master might carry him to it. And why not? Because no power has been conferred on Congress. This is a conclusion universally admitted. But the power to ‘make rules and regulations respecting the territory‘ is not restrained by State lines, nor are there any constitutional prohibitions upon its exercise in the domain of the United States within the States; and whatever rules and regulations respecting territory Congress may constitutionally make are supreme, and are not dependent on the situs of ‘the territory.‘”
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 509-510 (1856)]

By property, we mean all the things listed in 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) such as SSNs (property of the government per 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d)), contracts (which are property), physical property, chattel property, “benefits”, “offices”, civil statuses, privileges, civil statutory remedies, etc. A “public office” is, after all, legally defined as someone in charge of the PROPERTY of the “public”:

“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]

Even the public office ITSELF is property of the national government, so those claiming any civil statutory status are claiming a civil office within the government. It is otherwise unconstitutional to regulate private property or private rights. The only way you can surrender your private status is voluntarily adopt an office or civil status or the “benefits”, “rights”, or privileges attaching to said office or status, as we prove in:

It is custody or “benefit” or control of government/public property that grants government control over those handling or using such property:

“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

“The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender.”
[Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]

Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]

“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.

“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]

You cannot MIX or comingle PRIVATE property with PUBLIC property without converting the PRIVATE property ownership from absolute to qualified. You must keep them SEPARATE at all times and it is the MAIN and MOST IMPORTANT role of government to maintain that separation. Governments, after all, are created ONLY to protect private property and the FIRST step in that protection is to protect PRIVATE property from being converted to PUBLIC property. For proof, see:

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

What Congress is doing is abusing its own property to in effect create “de facto public offices” within the government, in violation of 4 U.S.C. §72, as is proven in:

Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf

This is how we describe the reason why people should avoid privileges and thereby avoid possession, custody, use, or “benefit” of government/public property on the opening page of our site:

“People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.”

[SEDM Opening Page; http://sedm.org]

“Non-resident Non-Person” or “non-person” are synonymous with “transient foreigner”, “in transitu”, and “stateless” (in relation to the national government). We invented this term. The term does not appear in federal statutes because statutes cannot even define things or people who are not subject to them and therefore foreign and sovereign. The term “non-individual” used on this site is equivalent to and a synonym for “non-person” on this site, even though STATUTORY “individuals” are a SUBSET of “persons” within the Internal Revenue Code. Likewise, the term “private human” is also synonymous with “non-person”. Hence, a “non-person”:

Retains their sovereign immunity. They do not waive it under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 or the longarm statutes of the state they occupy.
Is protected by the United States Constitution and not federal statutory civil law.
May not have federal statutory civil law cited against them. If they were, a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and a constitutional tort would result if they were physically present on land protected by the United States Constitution within the exterior limits of states of the Union.
Is on an equal footing with the United States government in court. “Persons” would be on an UNEQUAL, INFERIOR, and subservient level if they were subject to federal territorial law.

Don’t expect vain public servants to willingly admit that there is such a thing as a human “non-person” who satisfies the above criteria because it would undermine their systematic and treasonous plunder and enslavement of people they are supposed to be protecting. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the “right to be left alone” is the purpose of the constitution. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. A so-called “government” that refuses to leave you alone or respect or protect your sovereignty and equality in relation to them is no government at all and has violated the purpose of its creation described in the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, anyone from the national or state government who refuses to enforce this status, or who imputes or enforces any status OTHER than this status under any law system other than the common law is:

“purposefully availing themselves” of commerce within OUR jurisdiction.
STEALING, where the thing being STOLEN are the public rights associated with the statutory civil “status” they are presuming we have but never expressly consented to have.
Engaging in criminal identity theft, because the civil status is associated with a domicile in a place we are not physically in and do not consent to a civil domicile in.
Consenting to our Member Agreement.
Waiving official, judicial, and sovereign immunity.
Acting in a private and personal capacity beyond the statutory jurisdiction of their government employer.
Compelling us to contract with the state under the civil statutory “social compact”.
Interfering with our First Amendment right to freely and civilly DISASSOCIATE with the state.
Engaged in a constitutional tort.

If freedom and self-ownership or “ownership” in general means anything at all, it means the right to deny any and all others, including governments, the ability to use or benefit in any way from our body, our exclusively owned private property, and our labor.

“We have repeatedly held that, as to property reserved by its owner for private use, “the right to exclude [others is] `one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.’ ” Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 433 (1982), quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979). “
[Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)]

__________________________________________________________

“In this case, we hold that the “right to exclude,” so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right,[11] falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation.”
[Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)]

__________________

FOOTNOTES:

[11] See, e. g., United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 206 Ct.Cl. 649, 669-670, 513 F.2d. 1383, 1394 (1975); United States v. Lutz, 295 F.2d. 736, 740 (CA5 1961). As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis, “[a]n essential element of individual property is the legal right to exclude others from enjoying it.” International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (dissenting opinion).

If you would like a W-8 form that ACCURATELY describes the withholding and reporting status of a “non-resident non-person”, see:

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

26. “Advice” or “legal advice”

The term “advice” or “legal advice” means education about tools, facts, remedies, and options for making your own informed choice. It does not include any method of: 1. Transferring liability or responsibility from the person asking to the person responding; 2. Anything that could be classified as “legal advice” or “law practice” as used in any statute or enacted law; 3. Anything that could be classified as factual or a basis for belief or reliance upon the person asked in connection with commercial speech subject to government protection or regulation.

27. Socialism

The term “socialism” means any attempt by any government to use civil legislation to abolish private property or to convert private property ownership to public property, public rights, or privileges, whether by consent or by theft. “Ownership” and “control” are synonymous for the purpose of this definition. Such property includes land, labor, physical objects, chattel property, or constitutional rights.

Examples of the implementation of socialism include the following activities by government:

Government Franchises and licensing. See:
Government instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
Civil statutes when enforced against those not consensually serving WITHIN the government. See:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
Domicile, which is a civil statutory protection franchise. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
Income and excise taxation. See:
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
Extraterritorial civil enforcement under the COLOR, but without the actual AUTHORITY of law. against parties not domiciled within the jurisdiction or venue doing the enforcement. See:
Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf
Any attempt to change the civil status (Form #13.008) of parties situated extraterritorially without the exclusive jurisdiction of the lawmaker with or without their express or implied consent (Form #05.003). The result is that they are made to APPEAR as parties domiciled within the civil jurisdiction or venue of the lawmaker. See:
Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovernmentIdentityTheft.pdf
Any attempt to offer a “benefit” or franchise without recognizing or enforcing the right to NOT participate or to quit on any and every form administering the program. Thus, the program is TREATED as mandatory by fiat but in fact is voluntary. This violates the common law maxim that you have a right to refuse a “benefit”. See:
Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidingTrapsGovForms.pdf

The result of implementing socialism through civil legislation is ultimately to abolish constitutional or common law protections for property, and to replace them with legislatively granted civil privileges that come with obligations and a corresponding surrender of said rights. Below is how we describe this process on the opening page of our website:

People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.

[SEDM Website Opening Page; http://sedm.org]

For the purpose of this definition “socialism” does NOT include “social control over the means of production” as most contemporary reference sources FALSELY identify it. Early dictionaries defined it consistent with our definition but over the years, the word has fairly recently been redefined to REMOVE the mention of abolition of private property from the definition. This was done so that statists would conveniently stop having to APOLOGIZE for government theft through the legislative process. For examples of this phenomenon, see:

Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “socialism”

It is important to emphasize here that when you want to stop public opposition to a government activity such as theft or conversion of private property, the easiest way is to redefine terms so that there is no word that accurately refers to the activity that is being opposed. The result is that you have eliminated vocabulary that could describe the thing being opposed, and thus to eliminate the political opposition entirely. This approach, in fact, is the heart of the modern phenomenon of “Identity politics“: Control public opinion and public opposition by controlling language.

An important goal of this website is to ELIMINATE all forms of socialism as defined here, and thus to restore the supremacy of individual rights over governmental rights to our political and democratic processes and institutions. For details on the evils of socialism, see:

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407
http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm

28. “Grant” or “loan”

The term “grant” or “loan”, in the context of this website and especially in relation to any type of property or right or to “franchises” generally, means a temporary conveyance or transfer of physical custody or possession of absolutely owned property with legal strings or conditions attached by the grantor in which there are no moities or usufructs over the property held or reserved by the party to whom the property is loaned or temporarily conveyed.

The grantor or lender is the “Merchant” under U.C.C. §2-104(1).
The recipient or borrower of the property conveyed is the “Buyer” under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a).
The property loaned can include land, physical/chattel property, rights, or privileges.
The legal relation or “privity” created between the grantor and the borrower or recipient is referred to as a “franchise”. All franchises are contracts or agreements of one kind or another. Franchises are defined as “a privilege [meaning “property”] in the HANDS of a subject”. Receipt of the property by the Buyer, in fact is what MAKES them the “subject”
The regulation of the property is done through the civil statutory code, which assigns both rights and obligations to the Merchant (grantor) and the Buyer.
Upon voluntary acceptance of the property by the Buyer, a civil status is assigned to both the BUYER and the MERCHANT fixing the relations between them under the privity. Such civil statuses might include “citizen”, “resident”, “person” (under the civil statutory franchise code), “taxpayer” (under the income tax code), “driver” (under the vehicle code), etc.
The CIVIL STATUTORY STATUS assigned to the MERCHANT and the BUYER after the property is accepted constitutes a type of “membership”. A “citizen”, for instance, is a BUYER of government civil statutory protection franchise services, and also a “MEMBER” of a club called “GOVERNMENT” (a corporation) that delivers said services.
Both CIVIL STATUTORY RIGHTS (PRIVILEGES) and OBLIGATIONS attach to the civil status assigned to the parties and these RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS are the method of controlling and managing the property until it is “RETURNED” or SURRENDERED by the Buyer to the GRANTOR. The civil statutory OBLIGATIONS assigned to the civil status of the BUYER become corresponding RIGHTS on the part of the MERCHANT/GRANTOR and vice versa.
If the property, benefit, or privilege was never voluntarily accepted, then the OBLIGATIONS that attach to it cannot be enforced against the BUYER by the MERCHANT in court. Under the common law, you have a RIGHT to refuse to accept property, “benefits”, etc. in every scenario, even after you applied for them.
In pursuing and accepting the property of the Merchant, the Buyer surrenders ABSOLUTE ownership of a part of his or her otherwise private property and is therefore subject to regulation of him or her self by the Merchant. If the Merchant is a government, then they or their activities in which the granted property are used become and “infected with a public interest” and are subject to civil statutory regulation.

The above process, in fact, has been admitted by the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court as the “very essence” of CIVIL government:

“When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. HN4 “A body politic,” as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, “is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively private, Thorpe v. R. & B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143; but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas. From this source come the HN5 police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Cases, 5 How. 583, “are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty, . . . that is to say, . . . the power to govern men and things.” Under these powers the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their exercise it has been customary in England from time immemorial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., and in so doing to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services rendered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day, statutes are to be found in many of the States upon some or all these subjects; and we think it has never yet been successfully contended that such legislation came within any of the constitutional prohibitions against interference with private property. With the Fifth Amendment in force, Congress, in 1820, conferred power upon the city of Washington “to regulate . . . the rates of wharfage at private wharves, . . . the sweeping of chimneys, and to fix the rates of fees therefor, . . . and the weight and quality of bread,” 3 Stat. 587, sect. 7; and, in 1848, “to make all necessary regulations respecting hackney carriages and the rates of fare of the same, and the rates of hauling by cartmen, wagoners, carmen, and draymen, and the rates of commission of auctioneers,” 9 id. 224, sect. 2.”

“From this it is apparent that, down to the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was not supposed that statutes regulating the use, or even the price of the use, of private property necessarily deprived an owner of his property without due process of law. Under some circumstances they may, but not under all. The amendment does not change the law in this particular: it simply prevents the States from doing that which will operate as such a deprivation.”

“This brings us to inquire as to the principles upon which this power of regulation rests, in order that we may determine what is within and what without its operative effect. Looking, then, to the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution protects, we find that when private property is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only.” This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 78, and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.”

[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]

” It will be found that from the earliest periods of our history the State laws regulated the privilege of the elective franchise within their respective limits, and that these laws were exactly such as local interests, peculiar conditions, or supposed policy dictated, and that it was never asserted that the exclusion of any class of inhabitants from the privilege of voting amounted to an interference with the privileges of the excluded class as citizens. As was well said by Judge Mills, of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky: “The mistake on the subject arises from not attending to a sensible distinction between political and civil rights. The latter constitute the citizen, while the former are not necessary ingredients. A State may deny all her political rights to an individual, and yet he may be a citizen. The rights of office and suffrage are political purely, and are denied by some or all the States to part of their population, who are still citizens. A citizen, then, is one who owes the Government allegiance, service, and money by way of taxation, and to whom the Government, in turn, grants and guarantees liberty of person and of conscience, the right of acquiring and possessing [PUBLIC, not PRIVATE] property [WHY?, because the CONSTITUTION protects PRIVATE property ONLY, and CIVIL STATUTES protect PUBLIC PROPERTY. You have to SURRENDER some portion of the protections of the CONSTITUTION in order to acquire, use, or “benefit” from PUBLIC property], of marriage and the social relations, of suit and defense, and security of person, estate, and reputation. These, with some others which might be enumerated, being guaranteed and secured by Government, constitute a citizen. To aliens we extend these privileges by courtesy; to others we secure them–to male as well as female–to the infant as well as the person of hoary hairs.” (1 Litt. R. 342.)”

[Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43 (1872)]

In the context of GOVERNMENT grants of property:

This conveyance of property is the foundation of ALL governmental civil statutory privileges and most civil statutory law, as explained in Why Civil Statutory Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037.
The constitutional authority for such grants is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which allows Congress to “dispose of and make all needful rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States”.
Those receiving the granted property and the associated privileges essentially waive their constitutional rights under the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936).
Individual agencies of the government are created to manage the SPECIFIC property and franchises and privileges loaned or granted, and such agencies DO NOT have jurisdiction over PRIVATE parties NOT in receipt or eligible to receive said property. These agencies are referred to as “the administrative state”. Click here for details on the “Administrative State”.
Types of property that may be loaned must fit within 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2).
In the context of GOVERNMENT property so granted or loaned to the public, the party in temporary custody of the property is legally defined as a “public officer” subject to DIRECT legislative control of Congress WITHOUT the need for implementing regulations pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §553(a), and 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1).”“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]
Jurisdiction over government property extends EXTRATERRITORIALLY and INTERNATIONALLY, and thus grants can occur anywhere in the world and may cross state borders and reach into a Constitutional state of the Union.
There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY GRANTED that allows government to abuse government property to CREATE new public offices. This is a usurpation and an invasion of the states in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.
This source of jurisdiction is the MAIN source of jurisdiction in the case of the income tax, which is an excise tax and a franchise tax upon federal offices legislatively created by Congress but usually implemented ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY within states of the Union, as described in Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052.

“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.

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

[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]

God vehemently forbids Christians from participating in any grants or loans of government property and warns Christians that they will be CURSED if they participate. This curse is the STRONGEST and SCARIEST curse in all the bible:

Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]

“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.

“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]

The reason God forbids becoming and borrower of government property is that the legal relation created by the transaction, being a franchise or contract or agreement, causes conflicts of interest and allegiance and sin.

“The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender.”
[Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]

_____________________

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

______________________________________________________________________________________________

“I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.‘ But you have not obeyed Me. Why have you done this?

“Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'”

So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.

[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]

God also says that the only thing that Christians are allowed to be in relation to any and all governments is Merchants.

“For the Lord your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you.”
[Deut. 15:6, Bible, NKJV]

“The Lord will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.”
[Deut. 28:12, Bible, NKJV]

“You shall not charge interest to your brother–interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest.”
[Deut. 23:19, Bible, NKJV ]

“To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess.”
[Deut. 23:20, Bible, NKJV]

For more information on the subject of franchises and their perils and pitfalls, see:

Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030.
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Family Guardian Fellowship (OFFSITE LINK)
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

For tools and tactics to FIGHT the EXTRATERRITORIAL abuse of franchises and the UNCONSTITUTIONAL grants of government property that implement them, see:

Hot Issues: Laws of Property, SEDM
https://sedm.org/laws-of-property/
Authorities on Rights as Property, SEDM Blog
https://sedm.org/authorities-on-rights-as-property/
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.5 through 5.8
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Private Right or Public Right? Course, Form #12.044
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Proof of Claim: Your Main Defense Against Government Greed and Corruption, Form #09.073
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Administrative State: Tactics and Defenses Course, Form #12.041
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

29. Benefit

The term “Benefit” means advantage; profit; fruit; gain; interest, and real consideration associated with a specific transaction which conveys a right or property interest to a specific status, class, or group lawfully requesting said “benefit” which:

Is not dispensed by an administrative agency of any state or federal government, but by a private individual.
Does not require the recipient to be an officer, agent, employee, or “personnel” within any government.
Is not called a “tax” or collected by the Internal Revenue Service, but is clearly identified as “private business activity beyond the core purposes of government”.
Does not confer upon the grantor any form of sovereign, official, or judicial immunity.
Is legally enforceable in OTHER than a franchise court or administrative agency. That is, may be heard in equity within a true, Article III constitutional court and NOT a legislative franchise court.
True constitutional courts are provided in which to litigate disputes arising under the benefit and those with said disputes are not required to exhaust administrative remedies with an executive branch agency BEFORE they may litigate. These constitutional courts are required to produce evidence that they are constitutional courts with OTHER than strictly legislative franchise powers when challenged by the recipients of said benefits.
The specific value of the consideration can be quantified at any time.
Monies paid in by the recipient to subsidize the program are entirely refundable if the benefits they pay for have not been received or employed either partially or in full.
Has all contributions paid in refunded if they die and never collect any benefits.
Participation in the program is not also attached to any other government program. For instance, being a recipient of “social insurance” does not also make the recipient liable for unrelated or other federal taxes.
The term “benefit” must be defined in the franchise agreement that dispenses it, and its definition may not be left to the subjective whims of any judge or jury.
If the “benefit” is financial, then it is paid in lawful money rather than Federal Reserve Notes, which are non-interest bearing promissory notes that are not lawful money and are backed by nothing.
The franchise must expressly state that participation is voluntary and that no one can be prosecuted or punished for failure to participate.
The identifying numbers, if any, that administer the program may not be used for identification and may not be shared with or used by any nongovernmental entity other than the recipient him or her self.
May not be heard by any judge, jurist, or prosecutor who is a recipient or beneficiary of the same benefit, because this would cause a conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455, 18 U.S.C. §597, and 18 U.S.C. §201.
During any litigation involving the “benefit”, both the grantor and the grantee share equal obligation to prove that equally valuable consideration was provided to the other party. Note that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute lawful money or therefore consideration.
Does NOT include a return of monies UNLAWFULLY withheld against a non-taxpayer. It is not a commercial “benefit” or “purposeful availment” to have property STOLEN by a corrupted government returned to me.

Anything offered by the government that does not meet ALL of the above criteria is herein defined as an INJURY and a TORT. Compelled participation is stipulated by both parties as being slavery in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §1583, 42 U.S.C. §1994, and the Thirteenth Amendment.

Receipt and/or acceptance of any government form by any government constitutes consent by the recipient of the application to use the above definition of “benefit” in any disputes that might arise over such acceptance. The government recipient and its agents, employees, and assignees forfeit their right as private individuals acting in any government office to define the term “benefit” and agree to use ONLY the above definition.

Because the Submitter is ineligible for and does not seek any kind of “benefit” by submitting any of the attached forms, the Submitter and Recipient both stipulate that the perjury statement has no “materiality” or legal actionability because it cannot produce any kind of injury to the Recipient.

Parties stipulate that this definition applies to any and all past, present, or future forms they receive by any parties concerned with this disclaimer.

More on the subject of “benefit” can be found at:

Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “benefit” -legal authorities on “benefit”
Sovereignty and Freedom Points and Authorities, Litigation Tool #10.018, Section 4.10: “Benefits”: ALLEGED but not ACTUAL public rights/property that CANNOT form lawful “consideration” in forming a lawful contract or civil statutory obligation
5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) -Subjects those in receipt of “benefits” to DIRECT LEGISLATIVE CONTROL of congress. Watch out!
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 -Government “benefits” are illegally abused to establish unconstitutional franchises in the constitutional states of the Union
The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040 (Member Subscriptions)
Why the Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051 (Member Subscriptions)
Proof: How to Prove in Court that a So-Called Tax is REALLY an Illegal Extortion”** (Member Subscriptions)
U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2– Gives Congress the authority to DIRECTLY and legislatively control all those in receipt of “benefits”, which are government property on loan to the recipient with legal strings attached.
Why the Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404 (Member Subscriptions)-income taxation is administered as a “benefit”. The OFFICE of “taxpayer”, “person”, “individual”, “citizen”, and “resident” are legislatively created and granted property and all those who use or invoke these statuses are in receipt of a “benefit”. If you doubt this, visit ID.ME and try to sign up for an account with the IRS. They are identified as a “benefit”,

30. Weaponization of government

The process by which a classically governmental function is abused as a method to destroy or war against private rights, private property, common law remedies, constitutional remedies, or even personal choice and autonomy. The PERPETRATOR we call the RECRUITER and the VICTIM we call the PEON, VASSAL, and SLAVE. We describe the HAZARDS of participating in, NOT opposing, or benefiting from the “weaponization of government” on the opening page of our site as follows:

People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.

[Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM) Website Opening Page; http://sedm.org]

Below are the elements describing exactly what we mean by this term:

The result is:
1.1. An INVOLUNTARY conversion of PRIVATE property, PRIVATE rights, and PRIVATE civil status into PUBLIC property, PUBLIC rights, and PUBLIC civil statutory status respectively.
1.2 A destruction of the legal separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE. See:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
1.3 A government that has superior or supernatural powers in relation to the people it was created to SERVE from below rather than RULE from above.
1.4 The creation of a ALLEGED but not ACTUAL consensual connection between a fictional office (the “franchisee”) in the government and an otherwise PRIVATE human OUTSIDE the government.
1.5 A destruction of equality of treatment and protection between the GOVERNORS and the GOVERNED. See:
Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf
1.6 The establishment of a civil or governmental religion in violation of the First Amendment. See:
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
Such activities:
2.1 Work a purpose OPPOSITE of that of establishing government in the first place, which is EXCLUSIVELY the protection of PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights.
2.2 Violate the Bill of Rights of the constitution of the government doing so.
2.3 Violate the oath of office of those working in the government who conspire to engage in such activities.
2.4 Result in a conversion of the government engaging in them from DE JURE to DE FACTO. See:
De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf
The method of instituting this weaponization of government usually consists of illegal “bundling” of a WANTED service with an UNWANTED service, privilege or franchise. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE to avoid the UNWANTED service, privilege, or franchise, because:
3.1 The government has a monopoly on the WANTED aspect of the product or service.
3.2 Private industry is usually legally prohibited from offering the WANTED service. In some cases, the offering of the service is a criminal offense, in order to ENSURE and protect this criminal mafia racketeering.
The techniques described herein fit in the following CRIMINAL categories:
4.1 Extortion. 18 U.S.C. §872. They are coercing you into a public office and franchise so you become a usually ONGOING sponsor of their criminal activities.
4.2 Offer to procure appointive public office. 18 U.S.C. §210. Offering you the UNWANTED portion of the service, which is usually a public office, constitutes a criminal offer to procure the public office with the bribe of “benefits” that you technically aren’t eligible for.
4.3 Bribery of public officials and witnesses. 18 U.S.C. §201. The monies paid to the government under the coerced public office or fiction occupied by the victim of this extortion constitute bribes to a public official to treat you AS IF you are a real de jure public officer and to pay you “benefits” that only public officers can collect.
4.4 Conflict of interest. 18 U.S.C. §208. A criminal financial conflict of interest is created in the people offering the WANTED service to market and compel the UNWANTED service to increase their revenues.
4.5 Peonage and slavery. 18 U.S.C. §1581 and Thirteenth Amendment. The civil statutory obligations that attach to the compelled office that the VICTIM involuntarily occupies constitute PEONAGE.
4.6 Impersonating a public officer. 18 U.S.C. §912. Government can only regulate its own officers. Those officers must, in turn, be lawfully elected, appointed, or hired and they NEVER are. Following proper appointment, election, or hiring protocol would, after all, inform you that you are a volunteer, and they can NEVER admit that they need your consent to regulate you.
Those in government engaging in such activities protect themselves from criminal consequences by:
5.1 Abusing “equivocation” of key terms to make PUBLIC and PRIVATE indistinguishable.
5.2 Playing stupid.
5.3 Ensuring that people administering the program are NOT legally responsible or accountable for anything they say, write, or publish. See:
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf
5.4 Compartmentalizing service personnel at the bottom by telling them to learn PROCEDURES and NEVER actual LAW. Thus, they can claim plausible deniability and never be prosecuted personally for their criminal activities. .
To ensure the continuation and protection of the weaponization of government, the corrupt government agents and employees engaging in it will:
6.1 Hide forms for quitting the programs.
6.2 Describe the program as “voluntary” but provide no regulations, forms, or internal procedures to QUIT.
6.3 Not offer options on the application for the WANTED service any method of UNBUNDLING or REMOVING the UNWANTED service from the transaction.
6.4 Define no statutory or regulatory terms which recognize ANYONE who has not volunteered for the UNWANTED service so that their PRIVATE rights can be legally recognized and even ADMINISTRATIVELY enforced.
The above tactics, in a PRIVATE business context, would be referred to as “marketing”.
To ensure that the government is never victimized by the above tactics by PRIVATE people using it against THEM, the corrupted and covetous government must implement SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY in its own case but DENY it to the sovereign people they serve:
7.1 Government must claim to have sovereign immunity which requires EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT to surrender that sovereign immunity. By the way, the CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE sovereign immunity and there is therefore NO SUCH THING! See: Najim v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 935 (2019).
7.2 The Sovereign People from whom that sovereign immunity was delegated DO NOT have sovereign immunity. Thus, sovereign immunity is a “supernatural power” the people as the “natural” cannot and do not possess.
7.3 All people signing up for the SCAM UNWANTED service do so through usually IMPLIED rather than EXPRESS consent. Thus, they are UNAWARE that they are “electing” themself ILLEGALLY into a public office and joining the government by doing so. This constitutes fraud, because they are NOT ALLOWED to know that is what they are doing, and if they knew that was what they were doing, they would DEMAND the ability to NOT CONSENT to the UNWANTED service connected to the office and receive only the WANTED service or product. See:
Proof That There Is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.042
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf
Synonyms for this process include: adhesion contract, unconscionable contract, compelled franchise, compelled privilege, SLAVERY, PEONAGE, HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

Examples of government programs which usually implement “weaponization of government” as described above:

Passports. Most people use this document mainly for INTERSTATE travel and ID to conduct commerce, neither of which can be or should be “privileged” or regulated. Foreign travel use requests the PRIVILEGE of protection abroad is only secondary and should be optional. The Department of State should offer TWO passports, one for INTRAstate use and one for FOREIGN use, so that you have a “NONPRIVILEGED” version of the document that you can obtain WITHOUT the need to collect an SSN or TIN. Forcing applicants to provide an SSN or TIN to receive ANY kind of passport essentially bundles a DE FACTO public office with otherwise PRIVATE travel. That office is called “STATUTORY citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401, 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c), etc. See:
Getting a USA Passport as a “State National”, Form #10.013
https://sedm.org/product/getting-a-usa-passport-as-a-state-national-form-10-013/
State “resident” ID. This id is intended primarily for use in commerce, and most people, if they had a choice, would AVOID the STATUTORY “resident” civil status and public office bundled with it.
Driver licensing. This id is intended primarily for use in commerce, and most people, if they had a choice, would AVOID the STATUTORY “driver” civil status and public office bundled with it.
Marriage licensing. Licensed marriage is a civil statutory privilege and a three party contract. A licensed marriage is polygamy with the state, and the state is the only one of the three parties who can rewrite the contract at will any time they wan. Thus, the state literally becomes god as the only party with superior or supernatural powers in violation of the First Amendment.
Professional licensing. Government uses licenses to institute in effect ECONOMIC EMBARGOES on all those who don’t follow their rules. If you don’t follow their rules and regulations, they take away the license. In the absence of a license, you lose business and could literally starve in some cases. The result is GENOCIDE.
Building permits. It’s not your property if you need permission from the government to do anything to it that doesn’t demonstrably injure others.
Property taxes. Through the Torrens Act and the building code, the state claims a shared ownership in the property and acquires absolute ownership. If you don’t pay the property tax, they literally STEAL your property and all your equity. The absolute owner is the only party who can deprive other parties of the use of the property so they are the absolute owner.
The Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise. We presently have “currency”, and not “money”. Currency in turn is a debt instrument, and the effective lender is the PRIVATE, for profit, Federal Reserve. Every attempt to regulate the use of this fiat currency through money laundering statutes presupposes that those handling it are engaged in a public office in the national government. See:
8.1 The Money Scam, Form #05.041
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf
8.2 The Money Laundering Enforcement Scam, Form #05.044
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyLaunderingScam.pdf
Criminal courts, who will insist that you must be “REPRESENTED” essentially by a public officer and officer of the court with a criminal financial conflict of interest, or they won’t allow litigation to proceed. See:
Unlicensed Practice of Law, Form #05.029
https://sedm.org/product/unlicensed-practice-of-law-form-05-029/

In the private commercial marketplace, such tactics by large corporations include the following:

The Google Android operating system:
1.1 If phone manufacturers what to implement on their phone, must agree to use Google Search as their default search engine.
1.2 Developers who want to sell their apps in the Google Play store must run all payments through the Google Play payment system and pay a commission to Google. They are NOT allowed to have their OWN private app store or payment platform.
The Apple IOS operating system. Vendors who want to offer their apps in the Apple Store must use the Apple payment platform and pay an exorbitant 30% of all revenues their app collects, even if it isn’t the sale of their app initially. This is extortion.
The Microsoft Windows operating system. For years, Microsoft mandated that the Internet Explorer browser had to be installed as the default browser on all new PC’s sold, or the manufacturer could not buy Windows to install on their computer.
Amazon marketplace. Third party vendors who sell on Amazon must agree in writing when they sign up to NEVER offer the products they sell on Amazon at a LOWER price than the Amazon price.
Banks. Most banks COMPEL you ILLEGALLY into a public office called a STATUTORY “U.S. Person” in order to open a bank account, even though it is ILLEGAL to occupy or elect yourself into such an office. They do this by refusing to accept the W-8 form and mandating the use of the W-9 form to open an account, even though the W-9 doesn’t apply to most Americans. See:
“U.S. Person” Position, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/USPersonPosition.pdf
Money Service Businesses (MSBs) such as Western Union. They require you to provide an SSN in order to obtain a reloadable gift card and claim that “the law” mandates this.
6.1 Their basis for doing so is usually “anti-money laundering” statutes (not “laws”, but “statutes”) that DO NOT apply to the average American. See:
The Money Laundering Enforcement Scam, Form #05.044
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyLaunderingScam.pdf
6.2 No law mandates that a state national and nonresident alien not engaged in the “trade or business” franchise must have or use an SSN or TIN, but they ILLEGALLY refuse to allow prospective cardholders to claim this status or avoid the SSN/TIN requirement. See:
About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.202
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8BEN/AboutIRSFormW-8BEN.htm
Private employers accepting job applicants. They say you MUST fill out a W-4 and will not accept a W-8 in order to obtain a job, NOT as an “employee”, but simply as a “worker” who is NOT a statutory government “employee”. See
Federal and State Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/FedStateWHOptions.pdf

The European Union has previously SANCTIONED large corporations to the tune of billions of dollars of penalties connected with the above tactics, which they label in court as “anti-competitive behavior”. Why aren’t they applying the SAME tactics to THEMSELVES, as far as the MONEY system? For instance, why aren’t PRIVATE companies allowed to have private money systems and not connect those who use them into a public office illegally? Every time someone tries to do this, they get RAIDED illegally under the guise of “know your customer rules” that don’t apply to private people. This has happened with eGold, Bitclub, Liberty Dollar, National Barter Association, and MANY others. Litigating against these entities can only have one purpose: Protect a de facto monopoly on money that the Constitution does NOT EXPRESSLY authorize and which is therefore FORBIDDEN. See:

The Money Scam, Form #05.041
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf
Why It Is Illegal for You to Enforce Money Laundering Statutes In My Specific Case, Form #06.046
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/MonLaundEnfIllegal.pdf
Money Laundering Enforcement Scam, Form #05.044
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyLaunderingScam.pdf

The main purpose of ELIMINATING all “weaponization of government” as described above is to:

Pursue “justice“, which is legally defined as the “right to be left alone” by everyone, INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY government. See:
What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf
Restore the constitutional separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE. The Constitution is a TRUST indenture, and the main “benefit” it delivers, in fact, is PRIVATE PROPERTY! See:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
Restore government to it’s DE JURE functions and eliminate all DE FACTO practices. See:
De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf
Eliminate the “Administrative State” that depends for its entire existence upon the ILLEGAL creation of the public offices that animate and implement the above FRAUD upon the people. See:
Administrative State: Tactics and Defenses Course, Form #12.041
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AdminState.pdf
Eliminate the criminal activities and criminal financial conflicts of interest in both the judiciary and the legal profession created by the above which are extensively documented in:
Government Corruption, Form #11.401
https://sedm.org/home/government-corruption/

31. Natural Law

For the purposes of this website and ministry, the term “natural law” is synonymous with the following behavior by civil government:

ALL property is absolutely owned.
The protection of private property is not regarded by anyone in government as “making law” (Litigation Tool #01.009), but rather a fulfillment of the main purpose of establishing government and the oath that all public officers take when accepting office. The CIVIL statutes DO NOT protect PRIVATE property, but PUBLIC property that became public by donating PRIVATE property to a public use, a public purpose, and/or a public office. In that sense, the current civil government ONLY PROTECTS ITSELF and its own PUBLIC property, and NEVER YOU or ANY HUMAN BEING at least from a CIVIL perspective! See: Why The Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051**.
Civil statutes (Form #05.037) are not called “law”, but civil service franchise contracts.
Only voting and jury service are privileges that can be CIVILLY regulated by default. Any other thing that is a voluntary privilege must be expressly signed up for and PAID for in writing on the annual tax return filed at the beginning of each year and only lasts for one year.
Government ID’s are NOT used to change your civil status to a “resident” or “domiciliary”. You remain PRIVATE when using government ID. See: Hot Issues: Identification*.
No other franchise or privilege (Form #05.030) is or can be bundled with voting or jury service, such as civil DOMICILE (Form #05.002).
All government “civil services” must be requested IN WRITING at the beginning of each year and you only pay for what you ask for. The purpose of filing tax returns is to CONSENT to specific civil services you want and to pay for them in advance. Those who didn’t pay for them may not receive them. See SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.6 for a definition of “civil service”.
Everyone is subject to the criminal and common law, whether they consent or not.
Civil courts may not enforce civil statutory law upon any party UNLESS they expressly consented in writing to receive its benefits as public property. If they didn’t, only the common law and criminal law applies. That consent shall appear on the tax return filed annually.
Administrative tax enforcement is NOT permitted and not necessary, since all civil services consumed are prepaid annually in advance. If you don’t prepay, you don’t get the service.
Every government agent is personally accountable for the accuracy and truthfulness of EVERYTHING he or she communicates to the public that might have an adverse affect on PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights. Thus, they are PRESUMED to be communicating under penalty of perjury at all times. If they lie, they are civilly penalized. ANONYMOUS communication or collection letters are FORBIDDEN. All must be signed by a human being.
All government “benefits” are regarded as “civil services” that must be 100% paid annually for by those who consume them AS THEY ARE USED. Use of public funds for charity is FORBIDDEN.
The filing of information returns (Form #04.001) such as the W-2 and 1099 are forbidden and a criminal offense of impersonating a public office. They are unnecessary if civil services are consented to and paid for annually and you don’t need to BE a public officer to consume civil services. Being a sponsor is sufficient to consume said services.
Consent must always be OVERT and in writing, and NEVER COVERT or implied through actions of any kind. See Hot Issues: Invisible Consent*.

For a system of government that implements the above and builds upon existing organic and statutory law, and which requires the least possible changes to the current system to implement, see:

Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002

32. United States

One of the most important and most abused phrases in government documents may be surprising to you. It’s the “United States.” The United States actually has four primary separate contexts and misinformed readers of government documentation may miss the entire point of any specific government document if they can’t correctly interpret which CONTEXT of the phrase “United States” is actually being referenced in the text. In the real estate field, the three most important things are LOCATION, LOCATION, and LOCATION. In the LEGAL field, the most important thing is CONTEXT of the terms used. Generally, only judges and lawyers understand all the available contexts and are able to discern context by deciphering the nuance in a statute. For the legally uninformed, all the contexts are considered equivalent and YOU as the reader are considered the target of every context in order to illegally expand the jurisdiction and power of the court and the government.

As a result of purposeful confusion by the government we use narrow and well defined TERMS to distinguish between the various CONTEXTS of the United States (and other words of art as well). As you’ll see below there are four primary separate contexts for the meaning of the “United States”. In this Form/Document when we write material describing the United States we use separate terms to describe each one of the potential meanings. However; when we are quoting legal opinions that aren’t our original creation we leave the term “United States” in the quotation, but we use a convention of *, **, ***, **** usually in brackets (“[**]”) when the words “United States” appear to help readers decipher which context was implied by the context.

By the end of this document, you should have a thorough understanding of how the National Government and the enclaves, territories and possessions, which is the same Congress, have colluded with States to unlawfully usurp power and constitutional rights from average Americans and they do it through the use of purposefully convoluted law and intentionally disguised words of art. The ultimate result is an immense financial crime against the American people. You should be able to recognize DECEPTIVE WORDS OF ART so that when you’re reading government documentation you have a legal understanding of the nuance of government documents and potential contractual traps or legal manipulation resulting from them.

1. The two separate geographical jurisdictions create 3 geographically based interpretations for the term the United States

“The term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”
[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

Based on the above Supreme Court Decision there are three separate contexts of the word United States. This is where we apply the convention of *, **, and *** consistently used throughout not only this document, but all the materials found on our website.

United States*: “It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations”.
United States**: “It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends”.
United States***: “or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution”.

Those definitions are lengthy, complicated, and annoying to quote. For simplicity we reference them as the following

United States* – The Nation
United States** – Enclaves, Territories and Possessions
United States*** – States of the Union // the 50 states

If it’s not clear there’s a mathematical relationship between the three above GEOGRAPHICAL definitions. The math formula is 1 = 2 + 3. In other words, the National Government is composed of both the land mass of the Territories and Possessions and the land mass belonging to the 50 States. All three of the above are what we call the “Dr. Jekyll” de jure government:

Figure 1: Geographical versions of “United States”

The United States as described in Hooven sets up distinct geographical boundaries for the United States. Those different geographical boundaries are subject to different groups of people that operate those different United States.

United States*- The Nation, is operated by the National Government.
United States** – The Enclaves, Territories, and Possessions is operated by the same National Congress over what they call the Enclaves, Territories, and Possessions in a capacity the Supreme Court calls the “Federal Zone”. [1]
United States*** – The States of the Union are operated by the various State Governments.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See: United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Justice Kennedy concurring opinion.

2. The first two of four definitions of United States

Via the Bible it’s established that God’s jurisdiction is created by his ownership over a physical geography.

“The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; The world and all its fullness, You have founded them.”
[Psalm 89:11, Bible, NKJV]

Only by absolute ownership can God then become the Lawgiver. He is the LORD because He owns the LAND. Hence, the phrase “Landlord”. The “laws” in this scenario are merely a CIVIL STATUTORY regulation of the use of His property, not unlike how a Landlord can make rules for his or her tenants. In fact, in the following video, Satan himself recognizes God as “an absentee Land Lord”.

Devil’s Advocate: Lawyers, SEDM
http://sedm.org/what-we-are-up-against/

Congress has jurisdiction over the territories and possessions. The Constitution in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 imputes to Congress the authority to “make needful rules” respecting its land and physical property:

United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

All CIVIL STATUTES, including all franchises, are a legitimate exercise of the above power. That power can, in fact, have no other legitimate source. Mere force, fraud, or deception cannot be the origin of that authority. Might does NOT make right as they say.

The Constitution is a trust indenture. It creates a corporation called the “United States****”. The “Corpus” of this trust is the community property owned by the United States**** corporation. Those serving as public officers are then trustees under that trust serving within that corporation. Trusts can be written down and intentionally created. They can also be generated as legal fictions as part of contracts or court matters. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates, describes, and limits the exercise of the power of the “United States****” to 17 specific subject matters:

United States Constitution
Article I: Legislative Department
Section 8: Powers of Congress
Clause 1. Power to Tax and Spend

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

[. . .][United States Constitution, SOURCE: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/]

The National Government derives its powers from the delegated powers of the union States. Each state separately delegated powers to the Nation. Additionally, the first continental congress, which was a group of states working together, collectively but not individually, had the power to levy taxes, wage war, etc. When the nation was brought together the right of the collective to wage war, levy taxes, etc. moved from the continental congress to the new National government. Further, the constitution splits those delegated powers into different branches- legislature, executive branch, and the judicial branch. Each branch has separate delegated powers to enable the 50 states to act as one larger nation, especially in regards to foreign nations and duties, customs, and imposts, but without putting too much power in any single branch. Additionally, the Federal jurisdiction also controls interstate arrangements between two or more separate states, particularly through the judicial branch, but the Federal jurisdiction does not extend within the intrastate policy of any single union state.

The second jurisdiction of the United States** consists of DC and the territories and possessions. DC is a physical, geographical PLACE that’s 10 square miles. Washington, DC is a federal enclave that was originally carved out of Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia side was taken back by the state, leaving only the Maryland side. The constitution enables the exact same Congress as the National Government to serve in the role of the municipal government of Washington DC as well as the possessions, territories, and what the State Department calls the “Freely Associated Compact States.” These “States” (another deceptive Word of Art) aren’t union States and as such the Federal Constitution does not apply to them. This land area and its government is collectively called the Federal Zone by the Supreme Court. This is a big problem, a giant oversight in the Federal Constitution, and a major contributing source of the criminal heist against Americans by the government.

To be clear, the Constitution requires Congress to operate in two roles simultaneously. They operate a Constitutional National Government of delegated powers derived from the Several States and the same legislature operates the Federal Zone Government, absent Constitutional restrictions, which is essentially a municipal function regarding DC, possessions, territories, and “Freely Associated Compact States.”

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
[Cohens v. Virginia , 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]

Congress in a Federal capacity is limited to a Constitutional Republic as outlined in the Constitution.

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

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
[SOURCE: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/]

But that Constitution does not require the Federal Zone Government (United States**) to operate in the same Constitutional capacity.

“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to ‘guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government’ (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, ‘a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,’ Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

The territories and possessions do not operate as a constitutional republic and instead it operates as a socialist democracy. The lack of constitutional constraints in the Federal Zone creates one of the central pillars on which the great heist is orchestrated. That heist is only possible because when there are no constitutional limitations on politicians, the result is COMPLETE ANARCHY and lawlessness because there is no mechanism to constrain what politicians can do. That state of anarchy is exhaustively proven in the following document:

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

3. A fourth United States**** Definition – Contract has no geography

The fourth United States**** is a federal corporation.

TITLE 28 – JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART VI – PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS
CHAPTER 176 – FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER A – DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 3002. Definitions
(15) ”United States” means –
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
______________________________________________________________________________________
“Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made. One universal rule of law protects persons and property. It is a fundamental principle of the common law of England, that the term freemen of the kingdom, includes ‘all persons,’ ecclesiastical and temporal, incorporate, politique or natural; it is a part of their magna charta (2 Inst. 4), and is incorporated into our institutions. The persons of the members of corporations are on the same footing of protection as other persons, and their corporate property secured by the same laws which protect that of individuals. 2 Inst. 46-7. ‘No man shall be taken,’ ‘no man shall be disseised,’ without due process of law, is a principle taken from magna charta, infused into all our state constitutions, and is made inviolable by the federal government, by the amendments to the constitution.”
[Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)]

In the fourth capacity the United States**** corporation competes in the private marketplace for goods, commerce, and contracts to carry into operation the constitutional functions that it has been delegated. The corporation functions as a sovereign entity that cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent. This context of capacity as a “national government” of the United States** is described below as part of the Clearfield Doctrine:

See also Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 369 (1943) (“`The United States does business on business terms‘”) (quoting United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534 (1926)); Perry v. United States, supra at 352 (1935) (“When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference . . . except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent“) (citation omitted); United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66 (1877) (“The United States, when they contract with their citizens, are controlled by the same laws that govern the citizen in that behalf“); Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 398 (1875) (explaining that when the United States “comes down from its position of sovereignty, and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals there“).

See Jones, 1 Cl.Ct. at 85 (“Wherever the public and private acts of the government seem to commingle, a citizen or corporate body must by supposition be substituted in its place, and then the question be determined whether the action will lie against the supposed defendant“); O’Neill v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 823, 826 (1982) (sovereign acts doctrine applies where, “[w]ere [the] contracts exclusively between private parties, the party hurt by such governing action could not claim compensation from the other party for the governing action”). The dissent ignores these statements (including the statement from Jones, from which case Horowitz drew its reasoning literally verbatim), when it says, post at 931, that the sovereign acts cases do not emphasize the need to treat the government-as-contractor the same as a private party.
[United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996)]

The above case does NOT, however, mention the scenario where the Federal Zone Government of the United States** is acting COMPLETELY outside of the constitution as a landlord over its own property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. In that capacity, it implicitly surrenders its sovereign immunity and must operate entirely under equity (contract law) as an equal of every other private enterprise and entities that it is competing with in the commercial marketplace. When that corporation is acting OUTSIDE the constitution as the Federal Zone (over the United States**), it is acting on an equal footing with every OTHER federal corporation under what is called the Clearfield Doctrine: The Government is not acting in a sovereign governmental capacity but in the corporate capacity as a mere private corporation like any other corporation engaged in commerce and contract law.

What you may not know is that the National government collectively functions as a corporation. As a corporation it has the right to contract like any other corporation. When it contracts it is no longer treated as a special class of corporation called a government, and instead of special treatment the United States**** is treated like every other corporation doing business. It’s important to note that the law of contract has no geography.

“Debt and contract [franchise agreement, in this case] are of no particular place.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

So, the fourth description of the United States**** is anti-geographic or virtual. That is, the legal contracts formed with the United States**** have no geographic boundaries.

So in total there are four versions of the United States and they all have their basis in a GEOGRAPHICAL context.

United States* National Government – The totality of the nation
United States** Federal Zone consisting of enclaves, Territories and Possessions, meaning the District of Criminals, possessions and territories.
United States*** States of the Union (the combined geography of all 50 states).
United States**** As a legal entity contracting with individuals (individuals is another word of art, but we’ll get there later), corporations, trusts, and government officers with no geographical limitations.

The corrupt “Mr. Hyde” version of the BEAST government is United States****. The worst behavior of the government is experienced when the United States**** ABUSES contract law to do the OPPOSITE of what governments are created to do, which is protect PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights ONLY. In this capacity, the corporation United States****:

Colors private property into public property via franchise agreements and then targets the newly colored public property for confiscation, exploitation, and theft.
Operates in a “for profit” capacity instead of an eleemosynary non-profit capacity. Once the government has a profit or revenue motive, it DEFEATS the oaths of office that its officers are appointed under:“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. 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. That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. 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. “
[63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]
Has the sole purpose of raising revenue (love of money) and expanding the authority and sovereignty and importance of politicians at the expense of the equality and dignity of the people they work for. This motive originates mainly from the MASSIVE deficit spending it engages in that COMPELS politicians to continually hunt down NEW revenue sources.
Grants itself a monopoly on the service offered and destroys all its competitors. Thus, it is able to stifle all competition.
Exempts itself from the limitations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and thus cannot be sued for monopolistic or anti-competitive behavior.
Functions in an ENTIRELY PRIVATE capacity without sovereign immunity. Thus, the consent of the DE FACTO United States*** is not required to be sued.
Has no more authority than a single human being. The government is a government of delegated authority alone, and can have no more authority than the PRIVATE humans from whom that authority was delegated.
When it competes in the private commercial marketplace for people, property, services, and revenue:
1. Does so as a “Merchant” under U.C.C. §2-104(1) offering you “civil services” and/or”benefits”.
2. Treats you as a “Buyer” under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a).
3. Is the only one who can define the terms of the offer and the obligations associated with your acceptance because they are the CREATOR and OWNER of the thing they are offering you. Civil legislation in the form of a franchise or privilege was the thing used to CREATE the property they are offering you. That act of creation occurs in the DEFINITION section of the civil statutes where “civil statuses” and “legal statuses” are defined and then association with PUBLIC RIGHTS that are PUBLIC property you want to procure.
4. You ACCEPT their offer by applying on a government “benefit” or franchise form asking either for government physical property such as a Social Security Card on an SS-5 Form, or for a CIVIL STATUTORY PUBLIC IDENTITY they create and own, such as “driver” (driver license), “spouse” (marriage license), “taxpayer” (tax code), etc.
Enforces the PRIVILEGES associated with the civil statuses they created and granted as public property within franchise courts in the EXECUTIVE Branch, instead of constitutional courts in the JUDICIAL branch. These fake or de facto “courts” operate under Article I or Article IV of the Constitution rather than Article III.
Can lawfully be sued without its consent in EQUITY under the constitution and the common law.
Because it has a monopoly, can attach ANY condition or obligation it wants to those seeking benefits with its franchises. This is called “weaponization of government”, which we describe as follows:SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.30: Weaponization of Government
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm
Is what we call a “de facto government” or “anti-government” as described in:De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf

The opening page of our website warns about the hazards of contracting, associating with, or consenting to anything offered by the United States**** Beast government as follows:

“People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here (https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm) for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.”
[SEDM Opening Page; http://sedm.org]

FOOTNOTES:

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

4. Restating for context and one more nickname

US* National Government – Congress interacting with foreign nations, declaring wars, setting customs amounts, establishing Federal law. Also, this includes* (another word of art) judges managing interstate matters in Federal District Courts. The US Federal Government has no say in the internal (intrastate) affairs of each separate union State so long as the union State breaks no Federal laws.
US** Federal Zone: Enclaves, Territories and Possessions, also called “The Freely Associated Compact States” – Congress operating municipal government without the restrictions of a constitutional republic over the landmass of DC, territories, possessions aka the “Freely Associated States”.
US*** States of the Union – The total geography covered by the 50 union States each having complete control of intrastate matters
US**** The Corporate Beast – Deals with contracts (especially franchises described below), and does not have a specific geography since contract law is not bound by geography.Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

The first three items in the list are the friendly “Dr. Jekyl” government of the “United States”. The last one, the “United States****”, is the corrupt “Mr. Hyde” corporate beast version of the United States that the Bible book of Revelation refers to as “The Beast”. We also call this the “de facto” government in the following document on our site:

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

5. Drilling down into each of the four further

Using statutes, and supreme court cases, we can further break down each of the four “United States” into their component parts, listing the authorities that are the basis for each.

Table 1: Breakdown of each of the four “United States”

#	Name	Political	Authority	S.C. Case	Who	Geographical
1	United States*	National Government	Law of Nations	Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 651 (1945) U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)	Congress	Interstate but not intrastate, and with regards to Foreign Affairs
1.1	United States*USA	United States of America	Articles of Confederation	U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)	Executive	Foreign Affairs
1.2	United States*F	Federal Government	Constitution of 1789	U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)	Congress	Interstate but not intrastate
2	United States**	Enclaves, Territories, and Possessions
2.1	United States**DCE	District and Federal Enclaves	Const. 1:8:17 (Enclave Clause)	Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 651 (1945) U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)	Congress	DC and Federal Enclaves within 50 States
2.2	United States**TP	Territories and Possessions Local Government	Const. 4:3:2 Title 4 U.S.C. (Buck Act) Title 48 U.S.C.		Local	Territories and Possessions
3	United States***	Constitutional and Corporate union States
3.1	United States***S	State Government	State Constitution Fed. Constit. Article IV	Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 651 (1945) U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)	State	Within the Boundaries of the 50 States
3.2	United States***CS	STATE OF STATE // Federal States // Corporate // Beast	Federalist Papers		State	Federal Enclave within union States
4	United States****	Corporate/Contract, “Beast”	28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A)	Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) U.S. v. Babcock, 240 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464 (1919) U.S.. v Winstar, Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996)	Corporate	Non-geographical, Contract has no Place

NOTES:

Items in red, being 3.2 and 4 are examples of Corporate Beast behavior in both the national and the state governments.
For details on 3.2 and 4 acting in a private, corporate Beast capacity, see:Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf

The National Government has two distinct functions. One function is when it is engaged in foreign affairs. In this capacity the National Government is referenced as the United States of America.

Articles of Confederation

Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

This is also confirmed by the Supreme Court in US v. Curtiss Wright Export

As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Even before the Declaration, the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency — namely the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies. That agency exercised the powers of war and peace, raised an army, created a navy, and finally adopted the Declaration of Independence. Rulers come and go; governments end and forms of government change; but sovereignty survives. A political society cannot endure 317*317 without a supreme will somewhere. Sovereignty is never held in suspense. When, therefore, the external sovereignty of Great Britain in respect of the colonies ceased, it immediately passed to the Union. See Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 80-81. That fact was given practical application almost at once. The treaty of peace, made on September 23, 1783, was concluded between his Brittanic Majesty and the “United States of America.” 8 Stat. — European Treaties — 80.
[U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304, 317 (1936)]

The national Government has a second function when engaged in interstate affairs of the union States. Here it is called the Federal Government.

“The two classes of powers are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature. The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the states such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the federal government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the states. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 294. That this doctrine applies only to powers which the states had, is self evident. And since the states severally never possessed international powers, such powers could not have been carved from the mass of state powers but obviously were transmitted to the United States from some other source. During the colonial period, those powers were possessed exclusively by and were entirely under the control of the Crown. By the Declaration of Independence, “the Representatives of the United States of America” declared the United [not the several] Colonies to be free and independent states, and as such to have “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
[U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304, 316 (1936)]

The United States also has distinctions in the specific context of its municipal function for the Enclaves, Territories, and Possessions.

The statute now before us forecloses the States from experimenting and exercising their own judgment in an area to which States lay claim by right of history and expertise, and it does so by regulating an activity beyond the realm of commerce in the ordinary and usual sense of that term. The tendency of this statute to displace state regulation in areas of traditional state concern is evident from its territorial operation. There are over 100,000 elementary and secondary schools in the United States. See U. S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 73, 104 (NCES 94-115, 1994) (Tables 63, 94). Each of these now has an invisible federal zone extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often irregular) boundaries of the school property. In some communities no doubt it would be difficult to navigate without infringing on those zones. Yet throughout these areas, school officials would find their own programs for the prohibition of guns in danger of displacement by the federal authority unless the State chooses to enact a parallel rule.
[United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 583 (1995)]

The first function it serves is the District of Columbia and the Federal Enclaves within the states. The power comes from Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

U.S. Constitution< Clause 17. District of Columbia; Federal Property
Congress shall have power * * * To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

The second function of the municipality over the Territories and Possessions comes from the Constitution in 4:3:2 and is codified in 4 USC (sometimes called the Buck Act) and 48 USC.

United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This is confirmed by Title 4 USC:

4 U.S. Code § 110 – Same; definitions
As used in sections 105–109 of this title—
(a)The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.
(b)The term “sales or use tax” means any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, sales, receipts from sales, purchases, storage, or use of tangible personal property, except a tax with respect to which the provisions of section 104 of this title are applicable.
(c)The term “income tax” means any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, net income, gross income, or gross receipts.
(d)The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
(e)The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.
(July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 645.)

This is also confirmed by Title 48 USC:

The United States also has distinctions in the specific context of the union States.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION – CONS
ARTICLE III STATE OF CALIFORNIA [SEC. 1 – SEC. 9] ( Article 3 added Nov. 7, 1972, by Prop. 6. Res.Ch. 120, 1972. )

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
(Sec. 1 added Nov. 7, 1972, by Prop. 6. Res.Ch. 120, 1972.)

SEC. 2. The boundaries of the State are those stated in the Constitution of 1849 as modified pursuant to statute. Sacramento is the capital of California.
(Sec. 2 added Nov. 7, 1972, by Prop. 6. Res.Ch. 120, 1972.)
[SOURCE: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=III]

________________________________________________________________________

United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3. Admission of New States; Property of United States
Clause 1. Admission of New States to Union

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The second context is as a STATE OF STATE. The geography of the STATE OF STATE are the sum of federal enclaves within individual union States. The STATE OF STATE is operated by the same State Congress of the union State. In this capacity the STATE OF STATE acts in a corporate context.

33. “Citizen*” and “Citizen**+D” and “Citizenship”

In the context of this entire website:

The term Citizen* means a citizen who has NATIONALITY and is therefore a “NATIONAL” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21). This is equivalent to all uses of the phrase “CONSTITUTIONAL citizen” on this website in the case of American national born or naturalized within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union.
The term Citizen**+D means a citizen who has NATIONALITY and who ALSO has a domicile in a specific geographical place within the NATION United States*. This person is a CIVIL statutory “citizen”. On this site, we refer to this “citizen” as a STATUTORY citizen or a CIVIL citizen or a DOMICILED citizen.

Within civil statutory law, the term “citizen” involves the complex interplay between NATIONALITY and DOMICILE, as pointed out by the U.S. Supreme Court below:

In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” p. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: “The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another, by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.” And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which “the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, 657 *657 must depend;” he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen,” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant;” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765]

“Political status” above is synonymous with NATIONALITY. Nationality (political status) = citizenship + allegiance . Citizenship relates to the body politic per 8 C.F.R. §337.1.

1. Nationality v. Domicile

Below is a summary of the interplay between “nationality” and “domicile”:

Nationality:
1. Is a political status.
2. Is NONGEOGRAPHICAL. You can have ALLEGIANCE ANYWHERE you physically are.
3. Is not necessarily consensual or discretionary. For instance, acquiring nationality by birth in a specific place was not a matter of choice whereas acquiring it by naturalization is.
4. Is defined by the Constitution, which is a political document.
5. Is synonymous with being a “national” within statutory law.
6. Is associated with a specific COUNTRY.
7. Is called a “political citizen” or a “citizen of the United States in a political sense” by the courts to distinguish it from a STATUTORY citizen. See Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d. 147 (1940).
Domicile:
1. Is a civil status.
2. Is ALWAYS GEOGRAPHICAL. You can’t have a domicile that is NOT tied to a specific physical geographical place.
3. Is ALWAYS tied to definitions relating to the GEOGRAPHICAL context for the word used. For instance “U.S. person” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).
4. Always requires your consent and therefore is discretionary. See:Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
  http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5. Is not even addressed in the constitution.
6. Is defined by civil statutory law RATHER than the constitution.
7. Is in NO WAY connected with one’s nationality.
8. Is usually connected with the word “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, or “inhabitant” in statutory law.
9. Is associated with a specific COUNTY and a STATE rather than a COUNTRY.
10. Implies one is a “SUBJECT” of a SPECIFIC MUNICIPAL but not NATIONAL government.

Nationality and domicile, TOGETHER determine the political/CONSTITUTIONAL AND civil/STATUTORY status of a human being respectively. These important distinctions are recognized in Black’s Law Dictionary:

“nationality – That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person’s belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil [statutory] status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization.“
[Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990), p. 1025]

The U.S. Supreme Court also confirmed the above when they held the following. Note the key phrase “political jurisdiction”, which is NOT the same as legislative/statutory jurisdiction. One can have a political status of “citizen” under the constitution while NOT being a “citizen” under federal statutory law because not domiciled on federal territory. To have the status of “citizen” under federal statutory law, one must have a domicile on federal territory:

“This section [of the Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.‘ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]

“This right to protect persons having a domicile, though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm foundation of justice, and the claim to be protected is earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at liberty to disregard. Such domiciled citizen pays the same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens pay for theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same penalties. He owes the same obedience to the civil laws. His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government. In nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties and burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”
[Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) ]

Notice in the last quote above that they referred to a foreign national born in another country as a “citizen”. THIS is the REAL “citizen” (a domiciled foreign national) that judges and even tax withholding documents are really talking about, rather than the “national” described in the constitution.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, POLITICAL citizen and therefore NATIONAL is the PRINCIPAL type of citizen used in everyday speech and in the political departments of the government:

In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary [PRINCIPAL] sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit, which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country.

The use of the word in this sense hardly requires further remark. In the clauses which impose prohibitions upon the States in respect to the making of treaties, emitting of bills of credit, and laying duties of tonnage, and which guarantee to the States representation in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, are found some instances of this use in the Constitution. Others will occur to every mind.

But it is also used in its geographical sense, as in the clauses which require that a representative in Congress shall be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen, and that the trial of crimes shall be held within the State where committed.

And there are instances in which the principal sense of the word seems to be that primary one to which we have adverted, of a people or political community, as distinguished from a government.

In this latter sense the word seems to be used in the clause which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.

In this clause a plain distinction is made between a State and the government of a State.

[Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869); SOURCE:https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096 ]

2. Citizen**+D: Domiciled citizen*

However, within civil statutory law and especially in the context of taxation, the term “citizen” is also often used in connection with DOMICLE as well. Thus, it adds the GEOGRAPHICAL context to the POLITICAL context. This is true, for instance, in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30):

Sec. 7701. – Definitions

(a)(30) United States person

   The term ”United States person” means –

     (A) a citizen or resident of the United States,

     (B) a domestic partnership,

     (C) a domestic corporation,

     (D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and

     (E) any trust if –

        (i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and

        (ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.

In the above context which ADDS domicile, to the principal POLITICAL sense, we refer to this sense as “Citizen**+D”. The above “citizen of the United States” is used mainly in its GEOGRAPHICAL and not POLITICAL sense. Although the POLITICAL sense is the principal sense according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), this statutory context instead is the GEOGRAPHICAL sense tied to domicile rather than nationality or political status because:

26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) relates to POLITICAL status only, because it references birth or naturalization rather than domicile. Thus, the “citizen” referenced is a political member but not a domiciled party.
Those born within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state are political citizens as conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment. As such, they are also “U.S. nationals” per 22 C.F.R. §51.2.
Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United States in its political sense (Cf. 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)) but they are not statutory “United States persons”. Instead, they are called “nonresidents, not a citizen of the United States” for the purposes of title 26. See 26 U.S.C. §2209.
Additionally, a foreign national cannot be a resident of a body politic. They can only be resident within a geographical jurisdiction.
Territories and possessions are foreign countries under 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2.
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) says if any citizen or resident is not in a United States judicial district, they will be treated AS IF they are domiciled in D.C.
26 U.S.C. §7408(d) says if any citizen or resident is not in a United States judicial district, they will be treated AS IF they are domiciled in D.C.
26 U.S.C. §§931-937 place territories and possessions WITHOUT the United States. Clearly they are talking about geographical jurisdiction because:
8.1. They are not part of the federal system.
8.2. They are WITHIN the national body politic.
8.3. Puerto Rico is without the domestic federal jurisdiction…just like the jurisdiction of the 50 states are!
26 U.S.C. §873 recognizes “nationals of the United States” as “nonresident alien individuals”. All POLITICAL citizens are “nationals of the United States”.
22 C.F.R. §51.2 recognizes all recipients of US passports as “U.S. nationals”. If you have a U.S. Passport of have ever gotten one, you are a “U.S. national”, meaning that you have NATIONALITY as a Citizen*N but not necessarily DOMICILE as a Citizen**+D.
“U.S. nationals” have repeatedly been recognized as nonresident aliens on the 1040NR tax return.
Income tax is based ENTIRELY upon domicile according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is geographical and NOT political.
Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613
I am neither domiciled in the statutory geographical “United States” nor representing an entity or office that is so domiciled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).
More like the above at:
Tax Return History: Citizenship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/TaxReturnHistory-Citizenship/TaxReturnHistory-Citizenship.htm

Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that:

“United States” as used in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) is its political sense. This is because the word “citizen” is connected with “born or naturalized” instead of mere DOMICILE or RESIDENCE.
“United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701 is the GEOGRAPHICAL sense. This is confirmed by 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2(b) and 26 C.F.R. §301.7701-7(c)(3)(ii).
The political sense is NON-GEOGRAPHICAL.
Domicile is always geographical.

If you go to a bank and the bank wants you to explain why you are a nonresident alien or why you are the “citizen” mentioned in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) but not THE “citizen” mentioned in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30), you can use the above to prove it.

This proves, for instance, that NOT ALL instances of “citizen of the United States”, should be interpreted ONLY in their geographical context or even NATIONAL context as most people erroneously do because of their legal ignorance. If you think about it, the world thinks the geographical sense is the principal and ONLY sense for the term “citizen of the United States”, because that is all they have ever known or seen. And when lawyers or judges or legislators use the term “citizen of the United States”, they don’t tell you what the principal sense is they PRESUME, or whether the term also includes domicile. They just say, “…when used in a geographical sense…” then everyone acts presumptuously and waives their rights–rights protected by the foreign status most American nationals have by virtue of the separation of powers between the states and the national government as described by:

Separation of Powers Doctrine, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf .

3. Why this information is important

An understanding of these concepts and distinctions is therefore CRUCIAL to avoid being:

Labeled as FRIVOLOUS by a judge or the IRS..
Sanctioned in a court of law by a judge.
Penalized administratively as frivolous by the IRS.
Labeled a “sovereign citizen”.
Unknowingly DESTROYING the separation of legislative powers that is the MAIN protection for our constitutional rights!

For instance, it is considered a frivolous position by the IRS for someone born within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state to claim that they are not “THE citizen” mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1.-1(c).

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, IRS, Sections C.1 and C.2
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-arguments-section-i-a-to-c#contentionc1

Notice that in C1, they put “citizen” in quotes, which is what is defined at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). Denying as a state national or American National that you don’t have that status is frivolous. Demonstrating oneself to NOT be in the 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A) STATUTORY “U.S. person” subclass is both simple and easy and involves nothing remotely close to any frivolous position. In C2, they forthrightly say that asserting DC, territories, and enclaves is what is meant by the “United States” is also frivolous. Embracing the jurisdictions of the 50 States as together forming an integral, domestic jurisdiction can in no way ever be construed as frivolous. Likewise, asserting that the civil jurisdiction of each State is distinct and therefore foreign from the civil jurisdiction of the “United States” cannot in any possible distortion be regarded as frivolous.

Thus, you can see that there is MUCH government equivocation surrounding the use of the word “citizen”. It seems OBVIOUS to us that they INTEND for EVERYONE to be uninformed about how to AVOID this equivocation because it protects their MAIN source of CIVIL jurisdiction and unconstitutionally ENLARGES what is actually the VERY limited civil legislative power of the national government everywhere in the country. For instance, if the ONLY type of jurisdiction most federal judges have within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state is POLITICAL jurisdiction that confers NO CVIL ENFORCEMENT power whatsoever within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state, then they have to use equivocation to DECEIVE you into believing that POLITICAL jurisdiction and CIVIL jurisdiction are synonymous in order to unlawfully enlarge their jurisdiction, importance, and revenue. See:

Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf

We must REMEMBER, however, that judges may not lawfully entertain “POLITICAL QUESTIONS”. Therefore, any dispute before them which involves POLITICAL jurisdiction must be DISMISSED and can never be the origin of CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY!

Equivocation, in turn, is a logical fallacy that is ENGINEERED to deceive and enslave you. Equivocation of this kind ALWAYS involves:

Abuse of a word that has multiple contexts.
A failure to define all the possible contexts used in the statute.
A REFUSAL to disclose which specific context is implied in every specific use.
Doing all the above in order to fool you into PRESUMING that ALL contexts are equivalent.
Deceiving you into believing that all contexts are equivalent. Thus, they are deceiving you into believing that the government has far more jurisdiction and power than it actually HAS by law.

This underscores the ABSOLUTE importance of understanding the context in each use of the word “citizen” in any and every statutory use. In our experience, you can quickly end all dispute, deception, penalties, and frivolous accusations over the relating to your use of the term “citizen” by simply labeling and describing the context described here in every use of the word when communicating with the government on a government form. Similar arguments apply to the use of “United States” mentioned in the previous section.

4. Citizenship

A closely related word is “citizenship”:

citizenship. The status of being a citizen. There are four ways to acquire citizenship: by birth in the United States, by Birth in U.S. territories, by birth outside the U.S. to U.S. parents, and by naturalization. See Corporate citizenship; Diversity of citizenship; Dual citizenship; Federal citizenship; Naturalization; Jus sanguinis; Jus soli.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244]

“Citizenship” is component of “political status” along with allegiance. It is synonymous with MEMBERSHIP in a political community. It is NOT, however, in any way related to DOMICILE or “civil status”. Citizenship is conferred AFTER taking an oath of naturalization consistent with 8 C.F.R. §337.1. When citizenship has been conferred after the oath of allegiance is taken, you end up with NATIONALITY.

Upon close inspection of Wong Kim Ark above, you will see that political citizenship is the common link between political status and civil status.

Political status=citizen* + allegiance. See 8 C.F.R. §337.1.
Civil status=citizen* + domicile=citizen**+D.

Political status asks: Are you a member of this home, and are you faithful to the family?

Civil status asks: Are you a member of the home, and in what room do you live?

Two very different issues, which when considered TOGETHER, paint the complete picture.

5. Political Status v. Civil Status

Some other very important points need to be made about the distinctions between POLITICAL STATUS and CIVIL STATUS:

POLITICAL STATUS
1.1. Citizen*=political status=nationality.
1.2. There is no infirmity whatsoever involved with having a POLITICAL STATUS or NATIONALITY since it is not and cannot be the origin of any enforceable obligation in any court that we have ever found.
1.3. POLITICAL STATUS is NEVER called “LEGAL STATUS”.
CIVIL STATUS
2.1. Citizen**+D is the DEFAULT status in all civil statutory law.
2.2. All legally enforceable CIVIL STATUTORY obligations, including TAX obligations, attach to one’s CIVIL STATUS and NEVER to POLITICAL STATUS.
2.3. CIVIL STATUS is also called LEGAL STATUS.
2.4. DOMICILE is a PREREQUISITE to having a CIVIL STATUS.
2.5. DOMICILE and NOT POLITICAL STATUS is the origin of ALL civil statutory enforcement authority within any court. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).
2.6. ALL of your troubles with government CIVIL enforcement ALWAYS start with voluntarily selecting a DOMICILE, and thus becoming obligated to obey obligations within the CIVIL STATUTORY law.
You will look like a complete, frivolous, insane idiot if you argue about NOT having a POLITICAL STATUS, since it can carry no court enforceable CIVIL legal obligations for a NATIONAL of the Country United States*. POLITICAL STATUS comes with MORAL obligations, but never CIVIL LEGAL obligations for NATIONALS having NATIONALITY.
If you are an ALIEN (foreign national), you have a FOREIGN political status and are in a PRIVILEGED state. Thus:
4.1. You are subject to government CIVIL STATUTORY control and regulation anywhere in the COUNTRY “United States*”. This is confirmed by the Presence Test in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b), which is applicable ONLY to “alien individuals”.
4.2. ONLY in the case of aliens in a foreign country do DOMICILE and NATIONALITY (foreign nationality) coincide. For nationals, they NEVER coincide or go together.

6. Using this information to be LEFT ALONE and maximize your liberty

If you have NATONALITY in the country “United States*” and simply want to be LEFT alone, which is what legal “justice” is defined as, and never targeted with CIVIL enforcement, the simple way out is to:

NEVER select a domicile and thus to AVOID all CIVIL STATUSES.
Write “NO domicile or residence” on every government form that asks for your “permanent address” or domicile.
By doing the above, thus becoming a “nonresident”, “transient foreigner”, and “idiot”. See:
3.1 Are You an “Idiot”?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/are-you-an-idiot-we-are/
3.2 My Preferred Pronouns, SEDM
https://sedm.org/my-preferred-pronouns/

A person who does all the above has MAXIMUM civil liberty (Form #10.002) and forfeits NO rights by joining the civil social compact as a LEGAL member and a Citizen**+D, because:

They have no DOMICILE.
They ave NO “civil status“. See:
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf
They are “civilly dead”,
They are protected ONLY by the criminal law and the common law and NEVER the CIVIL STATUTORY law.
They are NOT “anarchists” because they are STILL subject to the COMMON law an CRIMINAL law just like everyone else. See:
Problems with Atheistic Anarchism Course, Form #08.020
SLIDES: https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ProbsWithAtheistAnarchism.pdf
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/n883Ce1lML0
They are referred to on this website as Citizen*N.
They can only litigate as a EQUAL in EQUITY against the government, rather than an INFERIOR who is PRIVILEGED. See:
Hot Issues: Common law and Equity Litigation**, SEDM
https://sedm.org/common-law-litigation/
The choice of law within every CIVIL dispute must be governed by the following:
Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf
In every civil dispute with the government, they approach the government as a MERCHANT under U.C.C. §2-104(1) and NEVER a BUYER under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a). They are offering NOTHING BUT PRIVATE, CONSTITUTIONALLY protected property and make ALL the rules governing the use or consumption or “benefit” of that property by the government. This is the SAME thing the government tries to do with you using the ENTIRE CIVIL STATUTORY code, which is a protection franchise that completely destroys your private property and private property in most cases.

The civil statutory law, in fact, implements a PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION (PMA) that you have to consensually join. Civil statutes are the “club rules”. More on this subject at:

Hot issues: Self, Family, Church, Local Self Governance, and Private Membership Associations (PMAs), Section 2: Private Membership Associations (PMAs), SEDM
https://sedm.org/self-family-church-and-local-self-governance/

Every possible type of membership in a CIVIL and LEGAL context which results in the Citizen**+D moniker always has a negative affect on your constitutional and natural rights and therefore must be be avoided. Those who avoid all such membership are referred to in civil statutory law as “foreign”. See the following both for the consequences of having no domicile (1) and the VERY negative consequences of having one (1 and 2):

“Sovereign”=”Foreign”, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Sovereignty/Sovereign=Foreign.htm
Collectivism and How to Avoid It Course, Form #12.024
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/Collectivism.pdf
Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf

More on the subject of DOMICILE rather than NATIONALITY as the origin of all your enforcement tangles with the government below:

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

Once you understand these nuances about NATIONALITY, DOMICILE, CITIZENSHIP, and how they relate to each other, you will also thoroughly understand why as an American National born within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Constitutional state, it is PERFECTLY lawful to opt out of most income taxes by filing as a nonresident alien FOREIGN person, instead of a CIVIL STATUTORY “U.S person” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30). The process of doing that is described in:

Nonresident Alien Position Course, Form #12.045
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NRA.pdf
Proof that American Nationals are Nonresident Aliens, Form #09.081
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ProofAnNRA.pdf
1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf
How to File Returns, Form #09.074** (Member Subscriptions)
https://sedm.org/product/filing-returns-form-09-074/
Procedure to File Returns, Form #09.075** (Member Subscriptions)
https://sedm.org/product/procedure-to-file-tax-returns-form-09-075/
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf

7. This is all a Third Rail Issue

Lastly, clearly understanding the differences between Citizen* and Citizen**+D is a Third Rail Issue that government is LOATHE to even talk about. This is using equivocation to conflate this issue in order to UNLAWFULLY enlarge their CIVIL jurisdiction is the origin of MOST of their UNJUST tyranny and usurpation from a civil perspective. If you have this understanding, it will be like garlic to vampires or Kryptonite to Superman. Your government opponents will RUN from you and thus REALLY leave you alone. And, if you start every debate about it with this definition, they can NEVER accuse you of being a “sovereign citizen”. This site does not promote any aspect of being a “sovereign citizen”. More on Third Rail Government Issues at:

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

8. Summary

In summary:

Citizenship is one’s association to a body politic. That’s the status of being a “citizen*”.
Citizenship + allegiance = nationality (political status).
Citizenship + domicile = civil status (i.e., “U.S. person”).
The “citizen” that pledges allegiance (independent of his domicile) is an American national. They are a “citizen*”.
The “citizen*” of 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) is a citizen* of the country (call it nation if you want) of the United States. Under this status, neither allegiance nor domicile come into play.
The “United States” in its political sense is baked into the term “citizen*” through the language and context of 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
The “citizen” of the “United States” (geographical sense) is a “U.S. person” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30). This “citizen**+D” has a tax abode in the jurisdiction of the “United States” (geographical sense within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)).
The “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 then enters into a subclass through the addition of the qualifying “United States**” geographical meaning being tacked onto the end of the term “citizen” at 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30)(A). This is where the hocus pocus takes place. Nobody realizes that in addition to affirming their national citizenship, they are electing a tax abode (domicile) for the purposes of taking on the office/property of “U.S. person,” which is domiciled in the “state” of 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10).
The reason this is all confusing is because there is a “United States**” within a “United States*” for tax purposes.
This needless confusion and complexity is ENGINEERED to deceive people born within the constitutional states into believing they are “U.S persons” liable for income tax on their WORLDWIDE earnings, rather than correctly believing they are “nonresident aliens” who only own tax on VOLUNTARILY donated “effectively connected” earnings and payments only from the government or its instrumentalities, such as federal corporations.

The ruse is this: They want people to think they are simply affirming their national citizenship, when in legal reality, elites in the District of Criminals have constructed a scheme to get people to elect a tax abode (domicile) in the domestic federal jurisdiction defined as the “United States**” in its geographical sense pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9).

For a detailed exposition of the above list, see:

Tax Status Presentation, Form #12.043
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/Tax_Status_Presentation.pptx

34. Beneficial owner

The absolute owner of PRIVATE property:

The ownership of all of whose property is not shared or qualified or a usufruct in relation to any government.
Who retains and invokes the “right to exclude” of absolute ownership of himself/herself and their property by expressly prohibiting any and all enforcement activity directed at such property.
Who is protected only by the constitution and not civil statutory law and which is NOT described in any civil statute.
Who is the Merchant under U.C.C. §2-104(1) and never the Buyer under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a) in relation to any and every government who is offering their private property to the government for sale under the conditions of the following:
Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf
Who is legislatively foreign to any and EVERY government.
Who is not consenting to be party to any privilege, franchise, or “benefit” offered by any and every government either expressly or impliedly.
Who is in possession, use, or “benefit” of NO civil statutory status offered by any government, including but not limited to “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc.
Whose consent to anything must be procured ONLY in writing signed by both parties and never by implied consent or action.
Who makes no “elections” under the Internal Revenue Code and consents to NOTHING that any government offers using the civil statutory law.
Who is not engaged in a “trade or business” excise taxable franchise as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26).
Whose property and earnings are a “foreign estate” as described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) because not engaged in the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise.
Who if a human being, trust, or estate, is NOT mentioned as a party “liable to” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a), which in the case of foreign persons, excludes nonresident aliens NOT engaged in a “trade or business” under 26 U.S.C. §871(a). Therefore, they are PURPOSEFULLY excluded and here defined as “non-persons” as a result.
Who is not a statutory “alien” for foreign affairs purposes. Thus, not the “alien individual” defined in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i) as “neither a citizen nor a national of the United States”.

Specifically EXCLUDES the following references to the statutory term “beneficial owner” in:

31 U.S.C. §5336: Beneficial ownership information reporting requirements.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5336
26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1: Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons, including but not limited to 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(6).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.1441-1
31 C.F.R. Subpart C – Subpart C—Reports Required To Be Made, Part 1010
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/part-1010/subpart-C
“Beneficial owner” mentioned anywhere on the IRS Website, including but not limited to:
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/beneficial-owners
“Beneficial owner” mentioned anywhere on the U.S. Department of Treasury FINCEN Website, including but not limited to:
https://www.fincen.gov/boi

35. Rules for interpreting words or terms that are not expressly defined

Other than the words defined above, all words used on this website and in the materials on it shall:

Have only the common meaning ascribed to them.
Be associated with the EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE status beyond the reach of civil statutory law.
NOT be construed in any way to have the statutory meaning found in any federal or state law.
NOT be associated with a “public office”, “publici juris”, or “public interest”, or anything within the CIVIL jurisdiction of any state or federal court.
Be subject to enforcement only in the context of the common law where perfect equity and equality is enforced between the government and any and every human being.

The only exception to this rule is that when a word is surrounded in quotation marks and preceded or succeeded by an indication of the legal definition upon which it is based, then and only then will it assume the legal definition.

The legal or statutory definitions for words used by this ministry in turn:

Shall be based FIRST upon statutory definitions provided.
Shall conclusively be presumed to EXCLUDE the ordinary or EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE civil context for the meaning of words. This is because the ability to regulate EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE conduct is REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION as held by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Shall rely FIRST on the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites By Topic for the statutory definitions.
May not ADD anything not EXPRESSLY appearing in any statute in which they are defined, if a statutory definition is provided. Any attempt to do so shall be interpreted as TREASON by the judge or government prosecutor who attempts it.
“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”
[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]

The purpose of this requirement is to eliminate ALL presumptions from any legal proceeding about what we might write or say so that such false and unauthorized presumptions cannot be used to discredit or slander us or prejudice our rights or sovereignty. For instance, here are two examples:

Statement from this website	Meaning
Wages are not taxable	Earnings from labor of a human being that do not fit the description of “wages” defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3 are not taxable without the consent of the subject.
“Wages” are taxable	Wages as defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3 ARE taxable because they fit the legal description of “wages“.

Key to Capitalization Conventions within Laws. Whenever you are reading a particular law, including the U.S. Constitution, or a statute, the Sovereign referenced in that law, who is usually the author of the law, is referenced in the law with the first letter of its name capitalized. For instance, in the U.S. Constitution the phrase “We the People”, “State”, and “Citizen” are all capitalized, because these were the sovereign entities who were writing the document residing in the States. This document formed the federal government and gave it its authority. Subsequently, the federal government wrote statutes to implement the intent of the Constitution, and it became the Sovereign, but only in the context of those territories and lands ceded to it by the union states. When that federal government then refers in statutes to federal “States”, for instance in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) or 4 U.S.C. §110(d), then these federal “States” are Sovereigns because they are part of the territory controlled by the Sovereign who wrote the statute, so they are capitalized. Foreign states referenced in the federal statutes then must be in lower case. The sovereign 50 union states, for example, must be in lower case in federal statutes because of this convention because they are foreign states. Capitalization is therefore always relative to who is writing the document, which is usually the Sovereign and is therefore capitalized. The exact same convention is used in the Bible, where all appellations of God are capitalized because they are sovereigns: “Jesus” ”, “God”, “Him”, “His”, “Father”. These words aren’t capitalized because they are proper names, but because the entity described is a sovereign or an agent or part of the sovereign. The only exception to this capitalization rule is in state revenue laws, where the state legislators use the same capitalization as the Internal Revenue Code for “State” in referring to federal enclaves within their territory because they want to scam money out of you. In state revenue laws, for instance in the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) sections 17018 and 6017, “State” means a federal State within the boundaries of California and described as part of the Buck Act of 1940 found in 4 U.S.C. §§105-113.

Terms in Quotation Marks: Whenever a term appears in quotation marks, we are using the statutory or regulatory definition of the term instead of the layman’s or dictionary definition. We do this to clarify which definition we mean and to avoid creating the kind of confusion with definitions that our government and the unethical lawyers who work in it are famous for. For instance, when we use say “employee”, we mean the statutory definition of that term found in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c)-1 rather than the common definition everyone uses, which means anyone who receives compensation for their labor. “Employees” are much more narrowly defined in the Internal Revenue Code to mean elected or appointed officers of the U.S. government only. We also put terms in quotation marks if they are new or we just introduced the term, to emphasize that we are trying to explain what the word means.

Geographical terms: The following geographical definitions apply within the context of discussions about law.

Law	Federal constitution	Federal statutes	Federal regulations	State constitutions	State statutes	State regulations
Author	Union States/ ”We The People”	Federal Government		“We The People”	State Government
“state”	Foreign country	Union state or foreign country	Union state or foreign country	Other Union state or federal government	Other Union state or federal government	Other Union state or federal government
“State”	Union state	Federal state	Federal state	Union state	Union state	Union state
“in this State” or “in the State”[1]	NA	NA	NA	NA	Federal enclave within state	Federal enclave within state
“State”[2] (State Revenue and taxation code only)	NA	NA	NA	NA	Federal enclave within state	Federal enclave within state
“several States”	Union states collectively[3]	Federal “States” collectively	Federal “States” collectively	Federal “States” collectively	Federal “States” collectively	Federal “States” collectively
“United States”	states of the Union collectively	Federal United States**	Federal United States**	United States* the country	Federal United States**	Federal United States**

What the above table clearly shows is that the word “State” in the GENERAL context of MOST federal statutes and regulations means (not includes!) federal States only under Title 48 of the U.S. Code [4], and these areas do not include any of the 50 Union States. This is true in most cases and especially in the Internal Revenue Code. There are four exceptions to this rule that we are aware of, and these subject matters include (are limited to):

SOURCES OF EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

A military or foreign affairs function of the United States. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1).
1.1 Making or executing war. This is the Department of Defense (DOD), Title 50 of the U.S. Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.), 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47.
1.2 Regulating aliens within the country. The presence test at 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) implements the tax aspect of this.
1.3 Protecting VOLUNTARY STATUTORY citizens (not constitutional citizens) abroad. This is done through passports, 26 U.S.C. §911 which pays for the protection, the Department of State (DOS), and the military.
1.4 International commerce with foreign nations. This is done through the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97, U.S.C.I.S., Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the foreign affairs supervision of the federal courts.
1.5 Economic sanctions on foreign countries and political rulers imposed by the Department of the Treasury.
A matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2). Note that:
2.1. ” Taxes” do NOT fall in the category of “public property, loans, grants, or benefits” , but the U.S. supreme court identified them as a “quasi-contract” in Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
2.2. In the case of “agency management or personnel”, they are talking about public officers serving within the national government as EXPRESSLY GEOGRAPHICALLY authorized by by 4 U.S.C. §72 and NOT elsewhere. We’ll give you a HINT, there IS no “express legislative authorization” for “taxpayer” offices to be exercised outside the District of Columbia as required, so all those serving in such an office extraterritorially are DE FACTO officers (Form #05.043). The income tax is an excise tax upon the “trade or business” franchise, which is defined in in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”, but those offices may not lawfully be exercised outside the District of Columbia. That is why the statutory geographical “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) is defined as the District of Columbia and NOWHERE expressly extended outside the District of Columbia or the Federal statutory “State” defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d).
2.3. Civil statutory statuses such as “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, and “person” AND the PUBLIC RIGHTS and privileges that attach to them are PROPERTY legislatively created and therefore owned by the national government. Those claiming these statuses are in receipt, custody, or “benefit” of federal privileges no matter where they physically are, and thus are subject to Congress power to “make all needful rules respecting the Territory and other property” granted by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof. 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1).
EXPRESS and INFORMED consent or comity in some form. Note that NO ONE can consent FOR YOU. YOU have to consent YOURSELF. Presently, “comity” is legally defined as “willingness to grant a privilege”. It USED to be defined as MUTUAL consent or agreement of both parties. This has the INSIDIOUS effect that it is OK for a judge to consent FOR YOU, or you to consent sub silentio or by acquiescence. The RESULT is that you are treated AS IF you are a privileged agent or officer of the state, which we call a “straw man”, often without compensation. This is CRIMINAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING and CRIMINAL IDENTITY THEFT (Form #05.046) if you didn’t KNOWINGLY consent. The purpose of this SOPHISTRY is to procure your consent INVISIBLY, so they don’t have to recognize or respect your sovereignty or autonomy. After all, they think they know better than you about what is good for you. See:
4.1. Hot Issues: Invisible Consent
https://sedm.org/invisible-consent/
4.2. How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

The above four items collectively are referred to as “extraterritorial jurisdiction“. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is defined as SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over PUBLIC property (Form #12.025) physically situated OUTSIDE of the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the national government under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Congress has jurisdiction over its property and the offices it creates no matter WHERE they physically reside or are lawfully exercised, INCLUDING within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state as confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), which ironically was about SLAVES. Those who don’t CONSENT to be statutory “taxpayers” would fall in this same category of “slave” and are treated literally as CHATTEL of the national government. HOWEVER, the Constitution confers NO EXPRESS authorization for Congress to use TACIT and PERSONAL BRIBES or GRANTS of its physical or chattel PUBLIC property or “benefits” to CREATE NEW public offices or appoint new officers to de facto offices that are NOT created by an EXPESS lawful oath or appointment. Any attempts to do so are CRIMINAL OFFENSES under 18 U.S.C. §§201, 210, 211. More about public offices and officers in:

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf
Proof That There Is a “Straw man”, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf

For the purposes of this discussion, Sovereign States of the Union are NOT “territory” of the national government. Also, the Sixteenth Amendment did NOT confer EXTRATERRITORIAL jurisdiction to levy an UNAPPORTIONED direct tax upon labor as property within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union either. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it “conferred NO NEW power of taxation” in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916). Thus, the income tax HAS ALWAYS been a tax upon officers of the national government called statutory “taxpayer”, “citizens”, and “persons” This is ENTIRELY consistent with the legislative intent of the proposed sixteenth amendment proposed to Congress by President Taft himself.

If you would like to know all the implications of the separation of powers reflected in the above table, as well as a history of unconstitutional efforts to destroy this separation, see the following references:

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 6017.

[2] See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 17018.

[3] See, for instance, U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 2.

[4] See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/48

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0. Introduction

1. The two separate geographical jurisdictions create 3 geographically based interpretations for the term the United States

2. The first two of four definitions of United States

3. A fourth United States**** Definition – Contract has no geography

4. Restating for context and one more nickname

5. Drilling down into each of the four further

33. “Citizen*” and “Citizen**+D” and “Citizenship”

1. Nationality v. Domicile

2. Citizen**+D: Domiciled citizen*

3. Why this information is important

4. Citizenship

5. Political Status v. Civil Status

6. Using this information to be LEFT ALONE and maximize your liberty

7. This is all a Third Rail Issue

8. Summary