FAQ: Why Not create an individualPRI and individualPUB to distinguish the PUBLIC straw man from the PRIVATE human?

INTRODUCTION:

This suggestion was eventually implemented. You can find it at:

Writing Conventions on This Website, Section 2: Two Contexts for Legal Information, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/introduction/writing-conventions-on-this-website/#2._Two

---

QUESTION:

What do you think about “individual^PRI” and “Individual^PUB” when the word is used, to distinguish between PRIVATE individuals and PUBLIC individuals, just like domestic^1 and domestic^2?

1. Individual^PRI (blue, POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL) Private/foreign, constitutional person as part of United States^P like in your diagram. Blue is FOREIGN
2. Individual^PUB Individual^PUB (green, CIVIL) PUBLIC officer consensually engaged in franchises who made an election and became a I.R.C. §6671(b) or I.R.C. §7343 “person” as a U.S. person. Part of United States^SMJ

You need to explain and show people how the transition from PRIVATE to PUBLIC happens at the PERSON level. Right now, most people PRESUME everyone is a PERSON who owes CIVIL OBLIGATIONS. That’s not always the case:

IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf

Everyone wants to know WHEN and HOW they walked into the “straw man” role/matrix and became PUBLIC PROPERTY in effect. You have a better way to represent that and diagram it? We need a symbology for it because the word “individual” is added to nonresident alien and together, the party has an indirect obligation through their property.

ANSWER:

The important thing to realize is that:

1. A “citizen” alone is always a POLITICAL “citizen,” and
2. An “individual” is always an “individual”
3. There’s no change to the meaning of these terms as defined IN ISOLATION.
4. Congress never actually defined “individual” but they USE it. So by itself, its not a privileged civil status. They HAVE to define it before they can OWN it as PUBLIC property. See:
   Effect of Definitions Upon OWNERSHIP and CONTROL of Property, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/effect-of-definitions-upon-ownership-of-property/

HOWEVER, those terms are placed into subclasses by the additional modifiers that attach to them. For example:

1. “citizen” = citizen of the nation
2. “citizen” of the “United States^G” is a subclass and understood as such through its combination with “United States^G”

By creating “citizen¹” and “citizen²” it creates a belief that the term in ISOLATION can have different meanings, but it doesn’t. Its class is determined by the modifiers connected BEFORE or AFTER it, such as “citizen of the United States^G“.

The same goes for “individual.” There is an “individual” (alien or nonresident alien) in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3). And there is an “individual” connected with a “trade or business.”

It’s important for people to understand it’s not the “citizen” or the “individual” alone that is the issue. It is their connection to the domestic¹ jurisdiction through the privileged “trade or business” franchise activity.

This is crucial to understand so as not to create a false assertion. And there’s only one way to present that visually—as described above. To do otherwise would be an errant presentation visually.

The problem with creating citizen^PRI, citizen^PUB, individual^PRI, and individual^PUB is that you have to create additional definitions BEYOND what the IRC or Regs provide for. This introduces additional complexity and an exponential level of unnecessary confusion. The reader will go to the IRC and Regs and continually try to ascertain which “citizen” or which “individual” is being presented. All they have to do is take the terms AS DEFINED in isolation and see how those terms are modified by the surrounding language.

Admittedly, this website does RECOGNIZE various contexts for the word “United States” and “domestic” like you want to do with “individual. We didn’t create extra definitions—Congress did. All meanings are imputed through I.R.C. §7701(a)(9) through the term “includes” and is context specific. Context provides the general class that affords the meaning AS DEFINED.

But the terms “citizen” and “individual” have one meaning. The terms “includes” and “including” do not appear in the definitions, thus NO ENLARGEMENT is afforded beyond the explicit definitions.

The subclasses are established by attaching the “citizen” and the “individual” to the franchise activity. But the meanings of “citizen” and “individual” never change.

There’s also zero legal infirmity attached to the terms “citizen” and “individual” when those terms stand alone.

BUT….to avoid equivocation, you style your averment as Brushaber did in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad—a “citizen” of the State of New York and resident of the borough of Brooklyn. See:

How to Aver Your Status as a Fourteenth Amendment “nonresident alien”, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-aver-your-status-as-a-fourteenth-amendment-nonresident-alien/

Notice that “citizen” is not tied to “United States^G” yet, by being a “citizen” of New York, it is a self-evident truth that he is ipso facto a “citizen” (United States^P deployed within the term’s definition) per Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5117525999793250938.