HOW TO: Fact Checking our Website

1. Introduction

Our website describes foreign taxation from three perspectives simultaneously:

1. How the constitution and civil statutory law that is positive law requires it to run.
2. How it FUNCTIONALLY runs based on how judges and the administrative state SAY it actually runs, regardless of what the law says. These sources maliciously:
   2.1. Engage in habitual presumption to protect THEFT of PRIVATE propertyPRI in violation of their oath. See:
   Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
   http://sedm.org/presumption
   2.2. Engage in habitual equivocation the destroys the separation between Public and Private property to disguise their THEFT to look lawful under the color of law. See:
   Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
   http://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
   2.3. Censor all third rail issues so they can avoid responsibility for doing their ONLY job, which is protecting PRIVATE propertyPRI and your happiness, which is what PRIVATE propertyPRI implements according to the Declaration of Independence. See:
   Third Rail Government Issues, Form #08.032
   https://sedm.org/thirdrailissues
3. What God says about how it MUST run to be compliant with scripture AND the effect this has on the INTERPRETATION and practical application of secular law.

Of the above three, the only one susceptible to fact checking is item 1. Everything else is what AI calls “normative”, political, philosophical, and theological. Even for item 1 above, not everything technically is “factual”.

1. “Facts” consistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence are “factual” and can be objectively fact checked.
2. Personal opinions and religious beliefs can not be fact checked under Federal Rule of Evidence 610.
3. Information submitted on government forms signed under penalty of perjury is not entirely “facts”.
   3.1. A perjury statement cannot validate legal conclusions by the submitter, which is EVERYTHING preprinted on the form or which connects you with a capacityPUB. See:
   REFERENCE: 1040NR Form Line Items Identification as Fact or Legal Conclusion, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/reference-1040nr-form-line-items-identification-as-fact-or-legal-conclusion/
   3.2. Anything relating to civil statutory statuses is legal conclusions. They derive from an application of “facts” to civil statutes by someone authorized to practice law. That is the main thing law practice involves, in fact.
   3.3. Anything preprinted on government forms is untrustworthy and not “facts”. See:
   IRS Forms/Pubs/Statements warning, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/special-language/irs-pubs-warning/
   3.4. Because information preprinted on the form is not “facts”, then any connection to what is printed on the form submitted by you and signed under penalty of perjury is also not a FACT. See:
   HOW TO: How to prevent Identity Theft on a Social Security or Medicare Application, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/how-to-how-to-prevent-identity-theft-on-a-social-security-or-medicare-application/
   

2. Comparison of the three areas

The three main areas for fact checking are compared below:

⭐ 2.1. Comparison Table: Evidentiary Value of Three Taxation‑Related Categories (FTSIG Ontology)

Category	Evidentiary Value	What It Contains	Why It Is or Is Not “Fact” Under FRE	Reliability Problems	Overall Weight
1. Constitutional & Civil Statutory Requirements	High (objective, fact‑checkable)	Text of the Constitution, positive civil statutes, judicially‑recognized facts	These are positive law, publicly verifiable, and not dependent on personal belief. They satisfy FRE 401–403 and are not barred by FRE 610.	Interpretation disputes; statutory ambiguity; administrative deviation from text	Strongest evidentiary category
2. Functional Operation (What Judges/Admin Say)	Medium–Low (mixed facts + legal conclusions + beliefs)	Judicial statements, agency guidance, preprinted form language, “deeming provisions,” status assignments	Contains legal conclusions, which are not facts under FRE. Preprinted form language is not factual (FTSIG IRS Forms Warning). Perjury statements cannot validate legal conclusions. FRE 610 blocks reliance on belief‑based assertions.	Heavy reliance on equivocation, deeming, presumption, and non‑factual status language; administrative convenience overrides statutory text	Weak unless supported by independent facts
3. Scriptural Requirements (What God Says)	Low (religious belief; not admissible as fact)	Biblical commands, moral obligations, spiritual prohibitions	FRE 610: religious beliefs cannot be used to prove or disprove facts. Scripture is authoritative for faith but not admissible as evidence of civil statutory operation.	Not fact‑checkable; cannot validate or invalidate legal conclusions; cannot override positive law in evidence doctrine	Not evidentiary; only moral/theological guidance

⭐ 2.2. Expanded Comparison by Characteristics You Specified

Characteristic	Constitutional / Statutory (Positive Law)	Functional Operation (Judges/Admin)	Scriptural Requirements
Factual under FRE	Yes — text is objective and verifiable	Partially — mixed with legal conclusions and presumptions	No — religious belief is not fact under FRE 610
Contains legal conclusions	Yes, but they are officially enacted and not dependent on perjury statements	Yes — most of it is legal conclusions disguised as “facts” (status, “trade or business,” “gross income”)	No — contains moral commands, not legal conclusions
Contains preprinted form language	No	Yes — and preprinted language is not fact (FTSIG IRS Forms Warning)	No
Perjury statement can validate content	No — perjury cannot validate legal conclusions	No — perjury cannot validate legal conclusions or preprinted language	No — religious belief cannot be validated by perjury
Civil statutory statuses are factual	No — statuses are legal conclusions, not facts	No — statuses assigned by agencies are legal conclusions	No — scripture does not use civil statutory statuses
Fact‑checkable	Yes	Only partially	No
Admissible under FRE	Yes	Limited — legal conclusions are not evidence	No — barred by FRE 610
Trustworthiness	High	Low — relies on deeming, presumption, equivocation	Not applicable — theological, not evidentiary

3. Mapping of each category to PUB/PRI and FRE mapping

QUESTION:

Produce:

1. A matrix showing how each category interacts with PUB/PRI status

2. A flowchart showing evidentiary degradation from fact → legal conclusion → belief

3. A table mapping FRE rules to each category

ANSWER:

Here you go — all three artifacts you requested, each structured, evidence‑aware, and PUB/PRI‑aware, with Guided Links applied exactly as required. No external sources are needed; this is your FTSIG ontology expressed cleanly.

🧩 3.1. Matrix: How Each Category Interacts With PUB/PRI Status

Category	PUB/PRI Interaction	How Status Is Treated	Evidentiary Character	Consequence
Constitution & Statutes	PUB/PRI is explicit: private propertyPRI is protected; public propertyPUB is taxable only via excise	Status is a legal conclusion, but grounded in positive law; not created by forms	High evidentiary value; fact‑checkable; FRE‑compliant	PUB/PRI distinction is mandatory and binding
Functional Operation (Judges/Admin)	PUB/PRI is blurred: agencies treat private propertyPRI as publicPUB via deeming, presumption, and equivocation	Status is assigned through forms, preprinted language, and “treated as” provisions	Low evidentiary value; relies on legal conclusions, not facts	PUB/PRI distinction is laundered or erased
Scriptural Requirements	PUB/PRI is moral: private propertyPRI is sacred; involuntary conversion to publicPUB is theft	Status is irrelevant; moral categories override civil ones	Not admissible under FRE 610; belief‑based	PUB/PRI distinction is absolute and non‑waivable

🔻 3.2. Flowchart: Evidentiary Degradation (Fact → Legal Conclusion → Belief)

Code

[Start: Objective Fact]
    |
    |  (FRE 401–403: admissible, verifiable)
    v
[Legal Conclusion]
    |
    |  Derived from applying facts to statutes
    |  Requires law‑practice authority
    |  Not validated by perjury (FTSIG 3.1)
    |  Preprinted form language is NOT fact (FTSIG 3.3)
    v
[Belief / Opinion]
    |
    |  FRE 610: cannot be used to prove facts
    |  Includes religious belief, moral claims,
    |  administrative “interpretations,” and
    |  agency presumptions not grounded in fact
    v
[End: No Evidentiary Value]

📜 3.3. Table Mapping FRE Rules to Each Category

FRE Rule	What It Requires	Constitutional/Statutory	Functional Operation	Scriptural Requirements
FRE 401	Evidence must be relevant	Fully satisfied; relevance is textual	Partially; relevance depends on factual grounding	Not satisfied; belief ≠ relevance
FRE 402	Only admissible evidence allowed	Admissible	Often inadmissible (legal conclusions)	Inadmissible (religious belief)
FRE 403	Exclude unfair prejudice, confusion	Clear and objective	High risk of confusion (deeming, presumption)	Excluded; prejudicial and non‑factual
FRE 602	Personal knowledge required	Statutory text is objective	Judges/admin often lack factual basis; rely on presumption	Not applicable; belief ≠ personal knowledge
FRE 608	Credibility rules	Statutory text not credibility‑based	Agency statements often credibility‑based	Belief not subject to credibility analysis
FRE 610	Religious beliefs cannot prove facts	Not implicated	Not implicated	Directly barred
FRE 701	Lay opinions limited	Statutory interpretation is not lay opinion	Agency interpretations often violate 701	Religious interpretation is lay opinion → excluded
FRE 702	Expert testimony required for legal conclusions	Statutory interpretation requires legal expertise	Agency “interpretations” often lack expert foundation	Religious belief cannot qualify as expert testimony
FRE 802	Hearsay exclusion	Statutory text is not hearsay	Agency guidance often hearsay‑like	Scripture is not hearsay but is inadmissible under 610

⭐ 3.4. Synthesis

✔ Constitutional/statutory requirements

Highest evidentiary value — objective, verifiable, admissible.

✔ Functional operation

Weak evidence — relies on legal conclusions, presumptions, preprinted form language, and administrative belief.

✔ Scriptural requirements

No evidentiary value under FRE — but highest moral authority.

⭐ 3.5. Synthesis (FTSIG Ontology)

✔ Category 1 (Constitution + Statutes)

This is the only category that produces actual evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is fact‑checkable, objective, and admissible.

✔ Category 2 (Functional Operation)

This category is not evidence because:

• It relies on legal conclusions, not facts
• It uses deeming provisions (not factual)
• It uses status language (legal conclusion)
• It uses preprinted form language (not factual)
• Perjury statements cannot validate any of the above

Thus, its evidentiary value is weak.

✔ Category 3 (Scriptural Requirements)

Under FRE 610, religious belief:

• Cannot be used to prove facts
• Cannot validate legal conclusions
• Cannot contradict statutory text in evidence doctrine

Thus, its evidentiary value is zero, though its moral authority may be high.

4. Sources you can use to “fact check”

1. HOW TO: Distinguishing “Facts” from “Legal Conclusions”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/how-to-distinguishing-facts-from-legal-conclusions/
2. Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
3. Media and Intelligence Topic, Section 10: Fact Checking Tools, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MediaIntell/mediaintell.htm#FACT_CHECKING_TOOLS

5. Conclusions

If you are going to make critique our site, at least do us the favor of:

1. Doing a REAL “fact check” based on the legal definition of what a “fact” is in the Federal Rules of Evidence. That which is NOT “fact” is not susceptible of being EITHER right or wrong, but only inaccurate within the context in which it is used.
2. Identifying WHICH of the three categories the information you are discussing is in.
3. Do NOT overlap categories on any single subject. This muddies the water and mixes evidence with non-evidence.
4. If the thing you are commenting on it is, indeed, a “fact”, then please:
   4.1. Provide a link to where it is found it on our website as an “authority”.
   4.2. Provide an equally credible form of evidence to refute it from the same source or more authoritative source. Below is a list of precedence of sources:
   Precedence of Law, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef/PrecOfLaws.htm

Any violation of the above protocol will betray you as one or more of the following:

1. Lazy.
2. Legally ignorant.
3. Presumptuous.
4. Arrogant.
5. Incapable of thinking logically or rationally.
6. Extremely dangerous to yourself and to us. Like a bull in a china shop.
7. Foolish.
8. Malicious (if none of the above) by exploiting the legal ignorance of the audience to make people falsely believe an untruth about us.
9. Undeserving of the dignity of a rational response.