Effect of Definitions Upon OWNERSHIP and CONTROL of Property

1. Introduction

A VERY important subject to understand is that:

  1. CIVIL STATUTORY definitions are a creation of and property of their CREATOR, the government.
  2. CIVIL STATUTORY definitions are a method of TRANSMITTING PUBLIC rights and PUBLIC property to those who invoke them to describe either THEMSELF or their PROPERTY.
  3. In your communication with the government on a government form, every instance where you invoke a CIVIL statutory definition to describe yourself or your property constitutes the pursuit of:
    3.1. Public property.
    3.2. Public benefit.
    3.3. A Privilege of one kind or another.
    3.4. A FRANCHISE in which you identify yourself as an agent of the government HANDLING public property.
    3.5. A VOLUNTARY WAIVER of the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, at least within the context of the STATUS you requested, under the Public Rights Doctrine and the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court. See:
    Catalog of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrines, Litigation Tool #10.020
    https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/SCDoctrines.pdf

You are GUARANTEED to be a perpetual victim of government abuse and corruption if you don’t understand the above concepts. These concepts are an outgrowth of the fact:

  1. Civil statutory law is a VOLUNTARY Private Membership Association (PMA). See:
    Self, Family, Church, Local Self Governance, and Private Membership Associations (PMAs), Section 2: Private Membership Associations, SEDM
    https://sedm.org/self-family-church-and-local-self-governance/#2._Private_Membership_Associations
  2. MEMBERSHIP in the CIVIL “State” is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT. Everything connected with membership is a privilege, including:
    2.1. The ELECTIVE franchise. It has domicile as a prerequisite.
    2.2. Serving on jury duty. It has domicile as a prerequisite.
    2.3. Domicile.
    2.4. Everything privilege that attaches to domicile.
    2.5. Being a “taxpayer”, which is an excise taxable privilege.
    2.6. The ability to invoke the CIVIL STATUTORY protections of any court. See:
    Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]
  3. You have to JOIN the “State” as a civil/legal member by your consent by making a CIVIL “citizen” election or choosing a domicile.
    Why Domicile and Becoming a ‘Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
  4. Civil statutory law only applies to officers and agents of the government. See:
    Why Statutory Civil law is Law for Government and not Private Persons, form #05.037
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf

Those who don’t want to be MEMBERS of the CIVIL STATUTORY “STATE” simply invoke the Bill of Rights and the common law instead, both in all their interactions with the government administratively as well as in court. Thus, they RETAIN their PRIVATE status. If they can’t do that, then they are victims of criminal identity theft, slavery, and human trafficking in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment as described in:

Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

2. The TWO types of definitions

There are TWO types of definitions in a civil statutory context:

  1. CIVIL STATUS: A statutory term used to attach OBLIGATIONS to a “persons” such as human beings or an artificial entities. You adopt a CIVIL STATUS by pursuing a DOMESTIC status of “U.S. person”, citizen, resident, etc. This done by connecting your name and identifying information to the status on a government form such as a tax return.
  2. LEGAL STATUS: A statutory term used to attach PUBLIC PROPERTY interests to tangible or intangible property. You adopt a LEGAL STATUS for your property by either “effectively connecting it” or attaching an SSN to it, which is a LICENSE to use or consume government property. This done by using your property in connection with privileged activities such as a “trade or business” or by “effectively connecting” it through an election by entering it on the 1040 form or the 1040NR form in the “effectively connected” section.

3. Is the DEFINITION PUBLIC or PRIVATE?

It is VERY important to be able to distinguish whether a term used on a government form is PUBLIC or PRIVATE. This is done by:

  1. Searching STATUTES for a definition of the term.
  2. Searching REGULATIONS for a definition of the term.
  3. Ignoring administrative publications, because they are not authoritative or actionable. See:
    IRS Pubs Warning, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/special-language/irs-pubs-warning/

Next, we must apply ONE of the following based on the above search of the term used:

  1. Not defined in STATUTES or REGULATIONS.
    1.1. Common law applies.
    1.2. Status is PRIVATE and constitutionally protected if a human being adopts it.
  2. Defined in STATUTES but not REGULATIONS.
    2.1. Congress created and OWNS the status as an office, agency, or property of the national government.
    2.2. Status is PUBLIC and NOT constitutionally protected.
    2.3. Civil enforcement limited to officers serving in elected or appointed positions in the government.
  3. Defined in REGULATIONS but not STATUTES.
    3.1. Status is created by the head of a department under 5 U.S.C. §301 and is therefore an OFFICER who works for the head of that department.
    3.2. Status is PUBLIC and NOT constitutionally protected.
    3.3. Enforcement limited to officers serving WITHIN the department that wrote the regulation.
  4. Defined in STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.
    4.1. Congress created and OWNS the status as an office, agency, or property of the national government.
    4.2. Status is PUBLIC and NOT constitutionally protected.
    4.3. Those claiming the status need not serve WITHIN the government.

You can validate the enforcement authority identified above by reading:

Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook, Form #09.082
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf

4. Application to Income Tax Terminology

As an example of how to apply these concepts to a tax return filing, consider the words “individual” and “taxpayer”:

#TermDefined inPublic or Private?Notes
1Person26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1)
26 U.S.C. §6671(b)
26 U.S.C. §7343		PublicObligations and privileges directly attach.
2IndividualNo definedPrivateNo obligations and privileges directly attach.
Alien individual26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i)PublicObligations and privileges directly attach.
3Taxpayer26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14)PublicObligations and privileges directly attach.
4citizen26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)PrivatePOLITICAL and not CIVIL citizen.
5citizen of the United StatesNot definedPublicObligations and privileges directly attach.
6United States Person26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)PublicObligations and privileges directly attach.
7Nonresident alien26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)PrivateNo obligations or privileges directly attach.
8Nonresident alien individual26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii)PublicObligations and privileges directly attach.

More on the above at:

  1. Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
    https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidingTrapsGovForms.pdf
  2. Public Right or Private Right? Course, Form #12.044
    https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PrivateRightOrPublicRight.pdf

5. General Strategy for applying these concepts to communications with the government

SOURCE: FTSIG Opening Page, Section 5; https://ftsig.org/#5._The_DOMESTIC_U.S.

Since Uncle Sam created the statutory “U.S. person,” franchise or privilege, he is the OWNER and has the right to define the allowable candidates of its potential franchisees. The CREATOR of a thing is always the OWNER under legal principles. Rather than go with nationality or domicile, Uncle decided to make the “U.S. person” franchise status accessible to only a certain class of VOLUNTEER “citizens*” or resident aliens physically present anywhere in the COUNTRY. This new “citizen” or “resident” civil status established by the franchisor is the ONLY lawful target of CIVIL enforcement under I.R.C. 6671(b) and CRIMINAL enforcement under I.R.C. 7343. NO EXPRESS LIABILITY statute is needed to make you the lawful target of enforcement because the election itself is all the consent needed to make enforcement lawful. That election happens by simply submitting a government form that identifies you WITH the status, such as “taxpayer”, “citizen of the United States****(government)”, “resident of the United StatesSMJ (government)”, “U.S. individual”, etc. The only choice you have if you want to avoid obligations of the status is to:

  1. Choose a DIFFERENT form. OR
  2. Make your own form. OR
  3. Define the terms to avoid the status and the obligations that attach to it.

This site takes the LAST approach above. The reason we take that approach is because when you fill out a government form, YOU are ALWAYS the only witness, the only one with personal knowledge, and the only one with constitutional rights. The ability to define the meaning of words and terms you use is an INNATE right embedded in the First Amendment. Remember that in any interaction there are two components:

  1. Ability to write the rules that govern the property involved in the contract. That is what the CIVIL statutory codes do: control the use of PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property.
  2. Ability to define the status that CONTROLS the use of the property. This includes “person”, “taxpayer”, etc.

He who controls EITHER of the above always wins! You typically don’t control #1 above but you as the ONLY witness on a government form ALWAYS control #2 above, as explained in the following video:

Oreilly Factor, April 8, 2015, John Piper of the Oklahoma Wesleyan University-Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Media/20150408_1958-The_O’Reilly_Factor-Dealing%20with%20slanderous%20liberals%20biblically-Everett%20Piper.mp4

If you in #2 above define the terms on your form submission to exclude the government civil statutory context and define a NEW context and your own agreement governing YOUR private property that REMAINS your private property, then you have turned the GOVERNMENT’S offer into YOUR COUNTEROFFER and flipped the relationship so that YOU now become the Merchant and the GOVERNMENT becomes the Buyer. This is described in the following entertaining legal education videos:

  1. This Form is Your Form, Mark DeAngelis
    http://www.youtube.com/embed/b6-PRwhU7cg
  2. Mirror Image Rule, Mark DeAngelis
    http://www.youtube.com/embed/j8pgbZV757w

There is NOTHING you can do to get a CONSTITUTIONAL remedy beyond the point of accepting their legislatively created and owned PUBLIC tax status or civil status. This is because by voluntarily pursuing the franchise civil status of statutory “U.S. person” you SURRENDERED constitutional remedies in exchange for Congressionally granted PRIVILEGES, which are PUBLIC property under what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “The Public Rights Doctrine” and the “Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine”.

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 StatesSMJ [federal corporation, not geography] or under the law of the United StatesSMJ or of any State unless, in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides otherwise by regulations.

“These general rules are well settled:

(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431-433; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212.

(2) That, where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35.

Still, the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374; United States v. Laughlin, 249 U.S. 440. “

[United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331 (1919);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13911914425951042261]

“The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents. Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must at a minimum arise “between the government and others.” Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 451, 49 S.Ct., at 413. In contrast, “the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined,” Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 51, 52 S.Ct., at 292, is a matter of private rights. Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U.S. 442, 450, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1261, 1266, n. 7, 51 L.Ed.2d. 464 (1977); Crowell v. Benson, supra, 285 U.S., at 50-51, 52 S.Ct., at 292. See also Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 894, 917-918 (1930).FN24 Private-rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power.”

[. . .]

Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell’s and Raddatz’ recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right [a “privilege” or “public right” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress’ power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress’ power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.

[Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 69-70, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17768408304219861886]

Note the quote above:

“The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents. Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must at a minimum arise “between the government and others.”

[Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 69, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17768408304219861886]

They are ADMITTING what they DON’T like talking about because it’s a Third Rail Issue, which is the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE and how one gets converted to the other. They even showed you that they wanted to avoid it in this case. Consequently, this is MOST of what YOU should talk about in front of them if you want to shut them up and avoid being called frivolous.

The above quotes also explain why if you want to be totally free and avoid government obligations, for instance, that you shouldn’t use or invoke any STATUS in their franchise code when communicating with them and must CREATE your own definitions and anti-franchise that only YOU own and therefore CONTROL. The DEFINITION section of civil statutes in fact is where the status is CREATED and OWNERSHIP of its CREATOR is established. PUBLIC RIGHTS (privileges) are then assigned to that civil statutory status elsewhere in the franchise contract or code. If no OBLIGATIONS attach to the status like that of “nonresident alien”, then its NOT their property and they don’t control people who invoke it. If you do use their definitions, you surrender all PRIVATE rights and exchange them for PUBLIC privileges (which are also sometimes DECEPTIVELY called “rights”). Remember: All rights are property. PUBLIC rights are PUBLIC property, PRIVATE rights are PRIVATE, constitutionally and not statutorily protected property. Watch out!

On Why You MUST Define Franchise “words of art” on all Government Forms and How to Do It, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/on-why-you-must-define-franchise-words-of-art-on-all-government-forms-and-how-to-do-it/

6. How to apply these concepts to a tax return filing

Those filing the 1040-NR return as a “nonresident alien” can apply the concepts in this article as follows:

  1. Include an attachment to the 1040-NR indicating the definitions of all civil statuses and legal statuses on the form and excluding the CIVIL STATUTORY definitions. See:
    1040-NR Attachment, Form #09.077
    https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf
  2. Because you provided a definition that excludes the civil statutory context, then its PRIVATE and YOU are private and no obligations or privileges attach to it.
  3. Because you excluded the civil statutory context, the you are the absolute owner and the Merchant selling or renting your property to the government and not a BUYER participating in a franchise or privilege or quasi-contract.
  4. Because “individual” alone is never defined and not obligations attach directly to it alone, then there is no infirmity associated with claiming it.
  5. If you define “taxpayer” in your filing as someone NOT subject who is the victim of a false information return and identity theft, you remain PRIVATE. Notice we DID NOT say we are NOT a “taxpayer”. Rather, we just define it in the filing as something they didn’t create and don’t own which is private and constitutionally protected. So its not a frivolous argument and I don’t have to prove a negative to win the argument. Its purely a first amendment and identity theft issue at that point.
  6. Since our filing procedure require those using them NOT to “effectively connect” anything under 26 U.S.C. §864(c), if they have any taxable earnings, they would fall under 26 U.S.C. §871(a).
  7. 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(1) FDAP earnings are upon only PROFIT. See:
    https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/uspi-thru-domestic-source/#4._26
  8. The IRS website is silent on whether FDAP involves PROFIT or GROSS RECEIPTS. A Gross Receipts tax is ONLY upon PUBLIC property and not PRIVATE property. Otherwise, it would be an unconstitutional Direct Tax upon private property.
  9. In order for the government to claim that you owe tax on “GROSS RECEIPTS” instead of only PROFIT under the Sixteenth Amendment, their burden of proof is to establish that the TAXPAYER is PUBLIC rather than PRIVATE. Good luck with that!
  10. If they can’t produce proof of any PROPERTY they absolutely own in the transaction that I ASKED for, then:
    10.1. Their definitions are ALWAYS and everywhere IRRELEVANT.
    10.2. They have no authority to tax or regulate extraterritorially.
    10.3. You now become the Merchant selling or renting private property to them, who then become the Buyer.
    10.4. You can use YOUR property to place conditions upon THEM as an “anti-franchise franchise”. Here’s an example of such a franchise:
    Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
    https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf