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:
Microsoft 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.
EDITORIAL: To summarize the approach to nonresident alien taxation on this website: It seems that the latitude Congress is given in Sixteenth Amendment varies depending on activity or recipient. It could be from: Social Security under 26 U.S.C. 871(a)(3) fits in EITHER 3 or 4 above, depending on where you are from. For a nonresident…
EDITORIAL: This article establishes why domicile is ALWAYS important. Even in federal taxation, even though domicile is never even mentioned in I.R.C. Subtitles A and C. Domicile can NEVER be ignored or it will cloud or equivocate the origin of the jurisdiction of the taxing authority. ALL civil jurisdiction originates from it, and taxing authority…
EDITORIAL COMMENT: This dialog contains equivocation surrounding whether “U.S. national” is a nonresident alien so it fails the “law of noncontradiction” so it can’t be entirely true. See in Question 7: But crucially, “nonresident alien” is defined by reference to 26 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(1)(B), which—when read in light of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3)—excludes U.S. nationals, because they are not aliens.…
Meta Ai, 6/6/2025 EDITORIAL: This line of questions is based on information derived mainly from the opening page of this website at: https://ftsig.org If you want to prevent YOURSELF from being censored like we were, “…do not make allegations of illegal or criminal activity against anyone or anything. AI bots are trained to abort any…
EDITORIAL: This interchange PROVES that a nonresident alien can be NEITHER a “person” under 26 U.S.C. 6671(b) or 26 U.S.C. 7343. They are BOTH CIVIL and not CRIMINAL in nature. Thus, they are PENAL rather than CRIMINAL. REMEMBER: When querying AI: This prophylactic move will keep you out of a LOT of trouble and cure…
EDITORIAL: The “identity theft” and “human trafficking” described in our answers here can be reported to the IRS on the following SEDM form: Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf The AI chatbot in this interchange basically SANCTIONS the filing of this form if the IRS unilaterally changes your status from “nonresident alien” to “U.S. person” without…
EDITORIAL: For more information on this subject, see: The fact that its called INTERNAL Revenue Service implies its INTERNAL to the corporation, which is NONGEOGRAPHICAL. Good luck proving that INTERNAL means INTERNAL to the geographical United States. I’ve been searching for that kind of info for years. The party with the burden of proof is…
QUESTION 1: Would it be accurate to say that earnings under 26 U.S.C. 871(a)(1) relate to PROFIT from wages and not the gross receipt of wages, since everything listed there as FDAP relates to “fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income,”? ANSWER 1: Your question involves interpreting 26 U.S.C. § 871(a)(1), a…
EDITORIAL: 26 U.S.C. §1461 is the ONLY statute making anyone liable for ANYTHING in Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A. It limits itself to “nonresident aliens and foreign corporations”. Thus, 26 U.S.C. §1461 is deceptive because it doesn’t distinguish between “nonresident aliens” who are NATIONALS and those who are ALIENS. This is done to dissuade American…
QUESTION 1: What are the elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case for discrimination? ANSWER 1: A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case for discrimination typically involves the following elements: It’s essential to note that the specific elements and requirements may vary depending on the jurisdiction, the nature of the claim, and the rights at…