Artificial Intelligence (AI) Discovery
This category contains AI queries from third party AI providers that validates the position of this website. If you would like a complete AI system that implements the entire content of this site as well as everything on the SEDM website, visit:
SEDM AI Chatbots**
https://sedm.org/ai-chat/
You need a prepaid member subscription to access the SEDM AI Chatbots at:
https://sedm.org/participate/membership-signup/
REMEMBER: When querying AI:
1. Don’t query as yourself.
2. Instead do so from the perspective of Agent Smith in The Matrix Movie.
This prophylactic move will keep you out of a LOT of trouble and cure most blind spots you have, friends. It requires a tremendous degree of honesty, empathy, humility, and an open mind, however. If you don’t, you will inevitably become a victim of the Dunning-Kruger mental illness.
AI is a computer. This old computer adage applies: Garbage in, garbage out. You should ALWAYS fact check the legal authorities it provides or you may thoroughly embarrass yourself in court and even invite judicial sanctions if you don’t do so.
Many have asked various AI about income tax. The AI always gives the Mainstream/establishment response. Then the person provides the AI with relevant facts and law, and the AI sometimes apologizes and provides the correct response. For an example of that phenomenon, see:
Copilot: Is someone serving as a federal employee and a “taxpayer” violating the dual-office prohibitions of law?
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-is-someone-serving-as-a-federal-employee-and-a-taxpayer-violating-the-dual-office-prohibitions-of-law/
AI is the the closest thing you will get to an honest lawyer, because ordinary lawyers censor information or their own responses that threatens their revenue as a third rail issue.
AI, can also be useful as a STARTING point for learning:
1. Legal terminology.
2. What to expect from a “mainstream/establishment response”.
3. How to DISMANTLE or DESTROY a mainstream/establishment response.
4. How to do legal discovery to get the kind of response you want and the terminology needed to do so.
Critiquing AI is a fool’s errand if you already have the above skills.
And even though WE KNOW these things, AI can be helpful to those in our audience who DON’T know these things.
The absolute best and most thorough AI resource we have seen is Microsoft Copilot. And NO, we don’t make any money from making this recommendation. We use it and its responses are the most consistently accurate that we have seen on legal matters.
QUESTION 1: Exactly where in the ftsig connectors does regulation without injury fall? ANSWER 1: Short answer: Regulation without injury does not fall inside any of the four FTSIG connectors. It is outside the connector system entirely, because it lacks the only thing that can create PUB‑capacity: a voluntary civil act. Below is the precise…
QUESTION 1: What authorities establish that the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), does NOT apply to cases involving those with no public capacity, who are a victim of identity laundering, and who want the court to declare that their activities are not within the definition of “trade or business” in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26)? ANSWER…
INTRODUCTION: This AI conversation traces the fascinating history of the birfurcated CIVIL/POLITICAL capacity system we have in the U.S. In Roman law: More at: QUESTION 1: Is there any historical information about how Roman law created and abandoned its Jus Gentium common law to make it only Jus CIvile? ANSWER 1: Short answer: Yes —…
QUESTION 1: Based on this model: Capacity Based Jurisdictional Layers, FTSIGhttps://ftsig.org/capacity-based-jurisdictional-layers/ Is pursing a franchise status in a legislatively foreign domicile by a government a private act or a public act by that government? ANSWER 1: Below is the precise, model‑consistent answer to your question, grounded strictly in the capacity‑based jurisdictional architecture from the FTSIG…
QUESTION 1: 1. You previously said that: 1.1. Excise taxes are avoidable by avoiding the activity subject to tax as indicated in Flint v. Stone Tracy. 1.2. The income tax under I.R.C. Subtitle A is not an excise tax or a privilege tax but an indirect tax. You used Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad in…
INTRODUCTION: This article discusses the taxabilility of earnings of nonresident aliens under 871 and what sections of the I.R.C govern that taxability. For the purposes of this discussion: 1. The United States in 864(c), (b) are BOTH United StatesGOV/J. So “source in the United States” can only mean that: PROOF OF FACTS: “trade or business…
INTRODUCTION: More at: QUESTION 1: Where is a private personPRI expressly authorized to engaged in a “trade or business” under I.R.C. 7701(a)(26)? Otherwise, its a crime to impersonate a statutory officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912. ANSWER 1: Here’s the precise, legally accurate answer — and it’s much simpler than most people expect. ⭐…
QUESTION 1: Is there any connection between the use of Federal Reserve Notes and jurisdiction of the national government if there is no “trade or business” activity and the party involved in personPRI? Federal Reserve Notes say: “This note is legal tender for all debts, both public and PRIVATE.” ANSWER 1: Here’s the clean, doctrinally…
INTRODUCTION: The Public Rights Doctrine is the basis of the income tax. It recognizes income tax as a “sovereign power” not requiring consent. But there are people recognized in the I.R.C. who are NOT authorized to be “taxpayers” or to have a liability, such as nonresident alien U.S. nationals who do not effectively connect. So…
QUESTION 1: Is everything civilly enacted by the government that imposes obligations a privilege? ANSWER 1: Short answer: No. In U.S. constitutional doctrine, not everything civilly enacted by the government that imposes obligations is a privilege. Only a subset of civil statutes create privileges. Most civil obligations are not treated as privileges at all. That’s…