How to Aver Your Status as a Fourteenth Amendment “nonresident alien”

Source: Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 11.1; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf

1. Introduction

Those claiming “nonresident alien” status must invoke it properly to be recognized by the court as a nonresident alien.

The most famous example of a state citizen recognized by the court as a nonresident alien was Frank Brusher in the famous case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).  You can read about this case at:

1. Google scholar
   https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5893140094506516673
2. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S1 (1916) Transcripts, Exhibit #09.031
   https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX09.031.pdf
3. Frank R. Brushaber Genealogical Records, SEDM Exhibit #09.034.  Contains Treasury Decision 2313 recognizing Brushaber as a nonresident alien.
   https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX09.034.pdf

In the above case, Brushaber averred in his U.S. Supreme Court petition that he was a:

“citizen of the State of New York, and resident of the borough of Brooklyn in the City of New York“

Notice that from his averment:

1. Nobody can conclude that he’s NOT a political “citizen” of the nation–A “citizen” that through “U.S. person” election is within the domestic civil jurisdiction of the “United States”.   That “U.S. person” has a domicile in the District of Columbia as an agent of the national government.
2. Rather, he protects his foreign status by regarding the residual and inviolable sovereignty of the state, keeping ITS political jurisdiction at the forefront, and thereby preserving his foreign civil status.

Of course, Brushaber was an American national.  But that is irrelevant. 

All Brushaber’s census records indicate that he is a POLITICAL and not CIVIL “citizen.” One’s averment must articulate both the political and civil jurisdiction aspects of this.

We would NEVER use the phrase “resident” to describe ourself like Brushaber did because all “residents” in the Internal Revenue Code are aliens.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave a HINT about why and how to correctly aver your status as an American National in a Constitutional state when they held:

“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. 74*74 Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.”

[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73-74 (1873);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12565118578780815007]”

What we want to AVOID calling ourself is someone who is a “citizen of the United States” while NOT being a “citizen of a State”. This would include those born or living in:

1. Those in the District of Columbia, which by the way is what “United States” is geographically defined as in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).
2. Federal enclaves.

2. What We Would Say

Therefore, we would use:

“I am a political but not civil citizen of the State of ________, residing (but not necessarily DOMICILED) in ________ county.“

If you do the above, you:

1. Make your allegiance divided between state and national.
2. Force the court to recognize the inviolable sovereignty of your state.
3. Establish that you are not the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government or domiciled on federal territory.
4. Recognize the complementary nature of the federal system described on the next page.

This method of averment is consistent with:

1. The separation of powers doctrine. 
2. What Sandra Day O’Connor as a retired Supreme Court Justice told one of our members about how to aver their status as a nonresident alien.
3. Precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court in:
   • Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall 162 (1875)
     https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5117525999793250938
   • U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1897)
     https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765
   • Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15118083235858813035

How NOT to do it:

1. I’m a “state citizen”
   Why?:  In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 21 Wall 162 (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court held that all state citizens are, ipso facto, NATIONAL citizens.
2. I’m NOT a “U.S. citizen”
   Why?: You can’t prove a negative.
3. I’m a natural born citizen of ______(State name)
   Why?: You didn’t define the term.
   No statute, regulation, or court ruling defines the term.
4. I’m sovereign!
   Why?:  Because politically, they will say that only governments can be sovereign. 

The above are examples of “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN” BULLSHIT!

1. We don’t advocate being a “sovereign citizen”.
2. Get with the program, people!

3. Handling an IRS CID Deposition

Handling an example IRS Criminal Investigation Division (CID) deposition about your citizenship status:

IRS-CID:  “So….are you a U.S. citizen?”

NRA:  “I’m a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Volusia county.”

IRS-CID:  “So you’re a “State” citizen?”

****WRONG ANSWER****

NRA:  “Yes.“
(This results in a status of “citizen” of the “United States”*G)

****CORRECT ANSWER****

NRA:  “Like I said, I’m a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Volusia county.“
(This results in a status of “nonresident alien.”

4. Warning!:

Just agreeing to be a generic “State” citizen in the context of Federal law without articulating which state exactly results in a claim of “D.C. citizenship,” thereby imputing a “necessary domicile” of “United States”*G(geographical) for tax purposes.

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) serve two different purposes with potentially the same result if not handled properly.

See how sneaky this can be?  Never answer “Yes”/”No” questions.  Always come back with the more correct accurate answer like Jesus did.

The whole election scheme is based on the logical fallacy of the inapposite question. And that question is disguised to look like a benign inquiry into national citizenship (not to be confused with nationality). Instead, it constitutes an invitation to elect a “necessary domicile” in the “United States”*G, thereby creating a waiver of foreign status in favor of a domestic one. And this domestic status election creates a steward/trustee connection with Federal government property, as the status imputes rights and obligations. This creates a franchise arrangement subjecting the steward/trustee to statutorily created obligations to pay tax on worldwide income incurred through ALL income generation in concert with said property (the U.S. person status).

It requires a very specific averment that if not followed every time will result in equivocation and prima facie evidence of a domestic status. The scheme is so DEVIOUS and SUBTLE that the perpetrators don’t even recognize what’s happening. They think they’re “doing good” when in reality they are useful dupes.

That’s the power of the scheme. If presented properly, inherently good people like former IRS agents Joe Banister and Sherry Peal Jackson will abandon ship.

Once their tactics are explained and understood, and responded to appropriately, the house of cards collapses.

Otherwise dupes enforce it unwittingly because they do not understand the difference between the U.S. in its political and geographical senses. Nor do they understand how national citizenship serves as a common denominator to political status (nationality) and civil status (imputed through jurisdiction of domicile).

They are PREDATORS, not PROTECTORS.  Most of them are unwitting accomplices. And because they are of weak character and almost certainly not saved, they do the bidding of the evil one under the guise of believing they are right. Totally deceived!!!

5. Why Does This Have to Be So Complicated?

QUESTION:  Why do the courts have to make this so bloody complicated?

ANSWER:  Because it’s a THIRD RAIL ISSUE!  They don’t want to crack the damn and cause a flood of people leaving the system! 

Remember:

1. Doing this WRONG can be life threatening and should not be up to conjecture.  Judges should explain what they mean much more accurately, along with it’s implication.
2. We think because we have to guess about this and explain it to people after years of researching the subject, the system fails to give constitutionally required reasonable notice and is void for vagueness! It fails the smell test.
3. When and how did you get notice that this is how it works.  Not in public school.  Not in government publications.  Not in statutes or regulations.  Not even in getting a law degree!

THIS IS BULLCRAP!   And we are dedicated students of the law.  What about Joe Sixpack?

Is it SUCH a dangerous third rail issue to government revenue that no one can tell me this who works for the government?  It clearly must be a matter of national security to keep this truth OUT of the hands of people like you!

This sort of corruption of the government is despicable!

James Madison, the person whose notes at the constitutional convention were used to assemble the constitution, wrote of this situation the following:

“Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.”

[Federalist Paper #62, James Madison; SOURCE: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp]

6. Conclusions

If you would like to learn more about the critical distinctions between POLITICAL and CIVIL citizenship discussed here, see:

Why You are a “national”, “State National”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf

If you want PROOF that you are not the SUBCLASS of “citizen” mentioned in the Internal Revenue Code and regulations, see section 6 of the above presentation.

For those interested in properly averring their state domiciled constitutional/political citizen status as a nonresident alien, see also the following sources:

1. Nonresident Alien Position Course, Form #12.045, Section 21
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NRA.pdf
2. Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 11.1
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf