FAQ: How does your stance compare with other Nonresident Alien Position proponents?
QUESTION:
How does your stance compare with Supremelaw.org website, Mitch Modeleski?
ANSWER:
The authors of this website began their study of law and taxation way back in 2000. During that time, there were four proponents of the Nonresident Alien Position they were aware of:
- No Thanks IRS -David William. They help with 1040-NR Tax return filings for others. Used to have a website but in 2024 shut it down. Maintains a Telegram Channel to educate clients and publish a few short educational documents about what they do.
- Weiss+Associates-Started in about 2008. Offer videos, tax response letters, and Revocations of Election. See our description in section 1 later.
https://www.weissparis.com/ - Supremelaw.org website: Authored by Mitch Modeleski who uses the pseudoname “Paul Andrew Mitchell”. Mitch Modeleski wrote and published the following famous book on his website:
The Federal Zone, Paul Andrew Mitchell
https://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm - Lynn Meredith: Author of the following books documenting the Nonresident Alien Position:
4.1. Vultures in Eagle’s Clothing
4.2. How to Cook a Vulture - Paul Leinthall. Offered a 1040-NR tax filing services. He didn’t write any books but published a newsletter. Now deceased.
None of the above sources or authors are in 100% agreement with the content of this website. This website is a vast expansion and improvement of all the above.
If you want to read about the above proponents of the Nonresident Alien Position who all got some portion of it wrong or incomplete, you can find more information at:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 13
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
If you would like to know in general the stance and history of other freedom proponents, see:
Who’s Who in the Freedom Community, Form #08.009
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhosWho.pdf
1. No Thanks IRS, David William
Date range: 2009-Present
No Thanks IRS (NTIRS) helps people do tax return filings using the 1040-NR method. You can read about them in:
Who’s Who in the Freedom Community, Form #08.009, Section 3.70
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhosWho.pdf
They do not maintain a website at this time and deal with their clients using Telegram instead. They maintain at least two Telegram channels, which have over 1000 members last time we checked. You can see the link to their Telegram Channels below. You must be a Basic Member of SEDM to view, which is free:
Activism and Collaboration Tools*, Section 2, SEDM
https://sedm.org/activism-and-collaboration-tools/
No Thanks IRS! Consulting was established in 2009 to provide educational services and assistance for Americans who want to learn more about their rights (and how to successfully exercise those rights in dealing with taxing agencies) in order to make their federal and state income taxes as low as legally possible. In most cases, the lowest amount of income tax legally possible is $0. Over the years, we have had hundreds of satisfied clients.
They take the same approach as SEDM on every subject that is important. In fact, they have spent over ten years learning and studying materials on the SEDM and Family Guardian websites.
Furthermore, they haven’t been approached by “refugees” from SEDM or Family Guardian who claimed they were injured by any of the materials on either site.
The main theme of both Family Guardian and SEDM is franchises. They refer to these as “quasi-contracts” and rely upon the following cite as proof:
“Even if the judgment is deemed to be colored by the nature of the obligation whose validity it establishes, and we are free to re-examine it, and, if we find it to be based on an obligation penal in character, to refuse to enforce it outside the state where rendered, see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265, 292, et seq. 8 S.Ct. 1370, compare Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, still the obligation to pay taxes is not penal. It is a statutory liability, quasi contractual in nature, enforceable, if there is no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common-law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit. United States v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250, 31 S.Ct. 155; Price v. United States, 269 U.S. 492, 46 S.Ct. 180; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227; and see Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 542; Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 493. This was the rule established in the English courts before the Declaration of Independence. Attorney General v. Weeks, Bunbury’s Exch. Rep. 223; Attorney General v. Jewers and Batty, Bunbury’s Exch. Rep. 225; Attorney General v. Hatton, Bunbury’s Exch. Rep. [296 U.S. 268, 272] 262; Attorney General v. _____, 2 Ans.Rep. 558; see Comyn’s Digest (Title ‘Dett,’ A, 9); 1 Chitty on Pleading, 123; cf. Attorney General v. Sewell, 4 M.&W. 77. “
[Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935)]
They have collaborated with SEDM on the following document which explains how American Nationals essentially VOLUNTEER to pay income tax:
| How American Nationals VOLUNTEER to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024 https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf |
In addition, they have suggested improvements to the Family Guardian and SEDM websites based on our extensive use of both over the last 10 years.
They take an entirely statutory approach and avoid invoking the Constitution, and in fact insist that there is no such thing as Constitutional rights in the context of INVOLUNTARY taxation, which SEDM disagrees with.
They have also collaborated with SEDM in writing, reviewing, and improving the following form based on our approach to filing tax returns.
| How to File Returns, Form #09.074 https://sedm.org/product/filing-returns-form-09-074/ |
You can find a detailed comparison of SEDM with No Thanks IRS in section 2 of the above document.
The main point of difference between SEDM and them is whether the status of “taxpayer” is in fact a privilege. They think that it is NOT, while SEDM believes that it is. For details on both sides of the argument, see:
- Proof that “Taxpayer” is in fact a STATUTORY PUBLIC PRIVILEGE, and not a CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE RIGHT, SEDM Blog
- Membership in a Specific Class, Status, or Group As a Cause for Loss of Rights, SEDM Blog
https://sedm.org/membership-in-a-specific-class-status-or-group-as-a-cause-for-loss-of-rights/ - Who are “Taxpayers” and Who Needs a “Taxpayer Identification Number”?, Form #05.013
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhoAreTaxpayers.pdf
2. Weiss+Associates
Since our beginnings studying the Nonresident Alien Position, other imitators have sprung up, the most notable of which is:
Weiss+Associates
https://www.weissparis.com/
Ironically, the founder of the above website, Steadman Jackson, was a former officer of SEDM. He has since died in 2019 and others have taken over his business. He stared the idea of “Revocation of Election (R.O.E.)” that is still prevalent to this day. You can read about our approach to that FATALLY FLAWED process at:
Frivolous Subject: Revocation of Election (R.O.E.), SEDM
https://sedm.org/frivolous-subject-revocation-of-election-r-o-e/
Even up to now, Weiss+Associates still incorrectly advocates the same “federal zone” errors promoted by Supremelaw.org at least in their videos. You can read their book below, which SEDM has improved and corrected since he died:
Galileo Paradigm, Form #11.303
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GalileoParadigm/TheGalileoParadigm.pdf
3. Supremelaw.org
The Supremelaw.org website’s Federal Zone book comes the closest to our position. However the book improperly defines the term “DOMESTIC” to be synonymous with the “federal zone”, meaning areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. This includes the territories and possessions and federal enclaves but excludes the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional States. Here is a quote from that book on the subject:
“Being a creation of Congress, the Union Pacific Railroad Company was found to be a “domestic” corporation under the law. In common, everyday language, the term “domestic” is often used to mean “inside the country”. For example, airports are divided into different areas for domestic and foreign flights, in order to allow Customs agents to inspect the baggage and passports of passengers arriving on flights from foreign countries. However, under federal tax law, the term “domestic” does not mean “inside the country”; it means “inside the federal zone” which is an area that is much smaller than the whole country. Accordingly, a “foreign” corporation is a corporation chartered by a government that is “outside the federal zone”.
The federal zone consists of the enclaves, territories and possessions over which the Congress of the United States** has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. California is outside of the federal zone, for example, and corporations which are chartered in the State of California are foreign corporations with respect to the federal zone. Similarly, corporations chartered in France are likewise foreign corporations with respect to the federal zone. It is simple, once you understand the proper legal definitions of the terms “foreign” and “domestic” in the federal tax Code.
[The Federal Zone, Eleventh Edition, p. 2; SOURCE: https://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm]
The above excerpt correctly concludes that the Union Pacific Railroad Company was “domestic”, but the fact that it was DOMESTIC had more to do with the use of the laws of Congress to incorporate than it did with the LOCATION of the domicile of the corporation. This is confirmed by the definition of “domestic” in the Internal Revenue Code:
26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions
(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(4)Domestic
The term “domestic” when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States [federal corporation, not geography] or under the law of the United States or of any State unless, in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides otherwise by regulations.
As we have pointed out throughout this site, TAX STATUSES and CIVIL STATUSES or OFFICES, all of which are synonymous, are legislatively created and therefore OWNED by Congress as PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property. Congress has constitutional authority under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 to control the use of its property anywhere in the WORLD, wherever it is physically found, and not just in the “federal zone”. This was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case relating to slavery, in which ALL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY was called “the national domain”:
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 510*510 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 (1857);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026]
So the use of “the federal zone” in the Supremelaw.org as a synonym for “domestic” is simply WRONG. Other considerations also demonstrate this. The geographical definition of “United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. 110(d) would seem to reinforce Modeleski’s definition of the “federal zone”, BUT:
- The “citizens of the alleged federal zone” in Puerto Rico are identified in 26 U.S.C. §2209 as “nonresidents not a citizen of the United States.
- Territories and possession are identified as FOREIGN or FOREIGN COUNTRIES in 26 C.F.R. §301.7701-7 and 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2(b).
- The U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell identified the income tax as NON-GEOGRAPHICAL when it said it was “without limitation as to place”.
- In terms of state authority to institute income tax, domicile, which is always geographical, is the sole basis for income taxation as held by the U.S. Supreme Court in:
Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613 - When President Taft proposed the Sixteenth Amendment, he identified is as a power to tax THE GOVERNMENT, and not the GEOGRAPHY. See:
Sources of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/sources-of-extraterritorial-civil-jurisdiction/
So the income tax clearly is NON-GEOGRAPHICAL and therefore has NOTHING to do with ANY geographical place by the name of the “federal zone”. Instead:
- Its a franchise tax on the use or consumption of GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC property and services WHEREVER they are consumed or physically located, INCLUDING the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state. That was also the finding in the famous case of Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). This was the FIRST major tax case decided during George Washington’s presidency, in fact. And it happened even BEFORE the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified. Pennsylvania was a CONSTITUTIONAL state and not a territory at the time, and the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a national excise tax on carriage production applied within the state of Pennsylvania, which was NOT part of “the federal zone”.
- “Taxpayers” are “resident agents” of a CIVIL franchise office domiciled in the District of Columbia.
- The OFFICE is the taxpayer, and not the person VOLUNTEERING to fill the office called “person”, “citizen of the United States**”, or “resident of the United States**”.
- Those who VOLUNTEER for the office are SURETY for the “taxpayer” office.
- Formerly PRIVATE property is DONATED to the office by “effectively connecting” it and associating the FRANCHISE MARK, the SSN or TIN, with the property.
Its more than excusable that Mitch Modeleski didn’t grasp the above concepts when he wrote his “Federal Zone” book. We too thought he was correct when we first read it. It took years of legal study and research and litigation before their implications before we fully understood that his “federal zone” concept was fatally flawed and that the above concepts replaced it.
The only thing we can fault him for at this point is for not improving his book and research to accurately reflect our new research on this subject. It’s a horrible public service to the freedom community to put out bad information. Once you know its wrong, you owe it to fix the inaccuracies in your research so people aren’t hurt by it, even it the information comes with a disclaimer as ours does.
4. Lynn Meredith
Lynn Meredith was the first researchers to document the process that a Fourteenth Amendment political citizen could use to file a 1040-NR form. She was friends with Mitch Modeleski of Supremelaw.org. She also offered asset protection services such as trusts. Her position largely imitated Mitch Modeleski’s research, which we have already covered.
Both of Lynn’s books were short and sweet but they left a HUGE gaping hole of evidence needed to defend the position in court or how to apply it to businesses or artificial entities. Thus, she was a sitting duck when the IRS came along. They raided her offices, attacked all her employees, and did assessments against all the employees to get them to flip sides and testify against her. Ultimately, they couldn’t prosecute her for any aspect of her stance on the Nonresident Alien Position. Instead, they prosecuted her for fraud on a DS-11 US Passport application. The Social Security Number was ONE DIGIT off on her passport application and she was sentenced to TEN YEARS in jail for fraud in doing so. Joe Izen of Texas was her attorney at the time.
Lynn’s research was so incomplete and oversimplified that it would have made anyone who followed it a sitting duck in court. Our materials are ORDERS of magnitude more defensible in court, which may be why we are still walking the street and have never been prosecuted for a tax crime. We have also continuously removed inaccuracies in our research since we were introduced to Lynn Meredith’s work in 2001 to ensure our information is accurate and highly useful and defensible in court so that people can be much more successful using the material.