Effect of Definitions Upon OWNERSHIP and CONTROL of Property

SOURCE: Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023, Section 17; https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf

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. See:
   Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm
2. CIVIL STATUTORY definitions are a method of CREATING and 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/LEGAL “State” is a PUBLIC PRIVILEGE not a PRIVATE RIGHT. Everything connected with membership is a privilege, including:
   2.1. The ELECTIVE franchise (voting). It has domicile as a prerequisite.
   2.2. Serving on jury duty. It has domicile as a prerequisite because members are selected based on their DOMICILE in the “vicinage”.
   2.3. Domicile. See:
   Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
   2.4. Every privilege or franchise, because they all attach to domicile per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.
   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 LEGAL 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 and FOREIGN and CONSTITUTIONALLY protected but not CIVIL STATUTORILY protected 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 “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. See:
   Acquiring a “Civil Status”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/
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.
   3.4. For an example of how to apply this, see:
   How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
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”:

#	Term	Class	Defined in	Public or Private?	Obligations directly attach?	Notes
1	Person	2	26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1)	Public	No	This is the default definition
2	Person	4	26 U.S.C. §6671(b)	Public	Yes	Civil enforcement only
3	Person	2	26 U.S.C. §7343	Public	Yes	Criminal enforcement only
4	Individual	1	No defined	Private	No	This is not a privilege unless it is ADDED to other terms.
5	Qualified individual	2	26 U.S.C. §911(d)	Public	Yes	Connected with “United States person” status.
6	Alien individual	3	26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i)	Public	Yes
7	Taxpayer	2	26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14)	Public	No	See Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)
8	citizen	3	26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)	Private	No.	POLITICAL but not CIVIL “citizen*”
9	citizen of the United States	1	Not defined in statutes or regulations	Public	Yes	Combines “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) with “of the United StatesSMJ“
10	United States Person	2	26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)	Public	Yes
11	Nonresident alien	2	26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)	Private	No
12	Nonresident alien individual	3	26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii)	Public	Yes
13	national of the United States	4	22 C.F.R. §51.1, 22 U.S.C. §212	Private	No	Someone owing “allegiance”. POLITICAL and not CIVIL status.
14	U.S. non-citizen national	2	8 U.S.C. §1408, 8 U.S.C. §1452, 22 C.F.R. §51.2	Private	No	POLITICAL and not CIVIL status

NOTES:

1. Class column 2 has the meanings described in section 3 earlier.
   (1) Not defined in STATUTES or REGULATIONS.
   (2) Defined in STATUTES but not REGULATIONS.
   (3) Defined in REGULATIONS but not STATUTES.
   (4) Defined in STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.
2. You have a constitutional right to NOT have a PUBLIC status. This is because the PUBLIC status is an exercise of your right to contract and associate (First Amendment). If you don’t LEGALLY associate by choosing a CIVIL statutory status, then you:
   2.1. Remain PRIVATE and FOREIGN.
   2.2. Are protected ONLY but the constitution and the common law and not the CIVIL STATUTORY law.
3. Acquiring a PUBLIC state results in you becoming an agent of the person who wrote the definition for the status. If there is no definition, there is no agency.
4. Obligations attach ONLY to CIVIL statutory statuses and not POLITICAL statuses. Thus, these statuses are OFFICES or AGENCIES within the national government.
5. You cannot have a CIVIL status without a domicile.
6. Civil statuses have a domicile INDEPENDENT of the human FILLING said status under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.
7. The CIVIL STATUS as an office and the HUMAN occupying the office can only be connected by the voluntary consent of the human. That consent is manifested by INVOKING the status on a government form.
8. Anyone owing an obligation to the government is, by definition, a public officer:
   “A public officer is one who has some duty to perform concerning the public; and he is not the less a public officer when his duty is confined to narrow limits, because it is the duty, and the nature of that duty, which makes him a public officer, and not the extent of his authority.’ 7 Bac. Abr. 280; Carth. 479…. “
   [Ricker’s Petition, 66 N.H. 207 (1890)]

5. Relationship of definitions to whether YOU or your PROPERTY are DOMESTIC or FOREIGN

How the above definitions fit into the hierarchy of “government”:

1. Body politic=government (corporation), people, and land. See Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869). The body politic consists of BOTH PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
2. Body corporate=government. It is wholly PUBLIC. All civil statuses and legal statuses are WITHIN the body corporate.
3. Sovereignty resides in the People as a collective and as consenting members of the body politic. The state is a creation of the people for both the benefit of the public welfare and the citizens’ private property. The State, therefore becomes an agent on behalf of the People for the protection of their rights.
4. The body corporate/government is a SERVANT of the State and an AGENT of it.
   4.1. If someone working in the government injures you and they are acting outside their authority, the government is not the principal and you have to sue the individual actor in their private capacity. See 28 U.S.C. §2679(d).
   4.2. Anything not authorized by the constitution or the law is outside the delegated authority. It thus produces a de facto government if not corrected. A de facto government is a PRIVATE cabal pretending to BE a PUBLIC government. See:
   De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf
5. All governments (body corporate) are corporations. See Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837).
6. Although ultimate authority resides in the people, governments are instituted by the consent of the governed. Jury duty, voting, etc., are CIVIL obligations responsible citizens should engage in for the public good. That should not abrogate anyone’s private property or compel them to become agents or officers of the state for any purpose OTHER than voting and jury service.
7. The State and the body corporate/government must be SEPARATE and foreign with respect to each other and never allowed to join except for voting and jury service. Everything OTHER than voting and jury service must remain PRIVATE and FOREIGN or else “government” collapses into only a body corporate and dissolves itself. This is because the purpose of establishing government is to protect the private and the first step in that protection is to keep the two separate.
8. The goal of all franchises such as domicile, “U.S. person” status, and the ENTIRE civil code is to institute this collapse of government into a body corporate by making the formerly SOVEREIGN “People” into CIVIL rather than ONLY POLITICAL “citizens” and “residents” and therefore AGENTS of the body corporate for ALL practical purposes.
9. When the body corporate and body politic merge, all voters and members of the body corporate (synonymous) have a criminal financial conflict of interest and can’t vote objectively. This institutes the corruption of the government. See:
   Government Corruption, Form #11.401
   https://sedm.org/home/government-corruption/
10. A “U.S. person” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) is wholly within the body corporate/government and NOT the body politic. It is a creation of and property of the State. The goal of the “U.S. person” status is to maximize the amount of people into a public status so they can pay interest (profits) to a private banking cartel on a runaway national debt. All of this was done to usurp the intent of the constraints placed on the government regarding taxation by the Founders.
11. More on the above in:
    Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf

Below is a Microsoft Copilot description of what happens when the BODY CORPORATE and the BODY POLITIC are allowed to merge because people are allowed to use their power to vote to increase their own benefits or pay. Its based on the views expressed by former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan. None of these problems are even possible if government isn’t allowed to pay “benefits” to people because voters have to JOIN the body corporate to even RECEIVE said benefits:

In Loan Association v. Topeka, the U.S. Supreme Court held that congress cannot pay public monies (benefits) to private people.

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation.  ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’  ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’  Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’  See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St. 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”

[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, 664 (1874); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11723983271266386879]

So you have to BECOME a public officer to RECEIVE benefits or privileges. A “citizen” is always, always, ALWAYS political in nature. But said citizen relegates himself to public obligations through election. He is NO LESS a political citizen—he’s just slipped into the public sector through a clever statutory mechanism that equivocates political jurisdiction (no infirmity) with civil jurisdiction (prima facie evidence of a public nexus)—the latter being an unwitting election made by said citizen and resulting in a domestic election into the “corporation’s” property interest and CIVIL JURISDICTION when said citizen WRONGLY ASSUMED he was just affirming POLITICAL JURISDICTION.

Through this sophistry a political citizen becomes a public officer and agent of the body corporate, and they switch from PRIVATE to PUBLIC. If you ask for any kind of privilege or benefit as a private POLITICAL citizen, or seek to become a CIVIL citizen you therefore:

1. Destroy the MOST important form of separation between public and private, which is the separation between YOU and the government. See:
   Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
2. Reverse the hierarchy and place the body political under the servitude and supervision of the body corporate.
3. Create a conflict of interest as a jurist or voter because you want more benefits.
4. Corrupt and destabilize the democracy as indicated by Alan Greenspan above. See:
   Government Corruption, Form #11.401
   https://sedm.org/home/government-corruption/
5. Entice politicians to bribe you with more benefits during their campaign.
6. Corrupt judges, who become recruiters to grow the number of “taxpayers” to reduce their own tax bill.
7. Replace responsible individualism with collectivism, since you are now a legal member of a collective called the government for every scenario that matters. See:
   There are only TWO types of governments: Responsible Individualism and Collectivism, SEDM
   https://sedm.org/there-are-only-two-types-of-governments-responsible-individualism-and-collectivism/

Note that as long as you are pursuing PUBLIC privileges and benefits as a CIVIL citizen, you are putting SELF interest above PUBLIC interest. While you are doing that, you are engaging in criminal conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208. Such a criminal act cannot be an OFFICIAL act as a POLITICAL citizen. The STATE cannot injure itself. So by your crime, you make the exercise of POLITICAL duties as a PRIVATE party UNLAWFUL. It is ILLEGAL to “bribe” voters with “benefits”.  52 U.S.C. §10307(c). THIS is precisely why it is IMPERATIVE to maintain ABSOLUTE separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE and therefore between POLITICAL citizens and CIVIL citizens. A book on the common law explains what happens POLITICALLY when you allow the PRIVATE and the PUBLIC to become connected, which is to turn a REPUBLIC into a MONARCHY:

CHAPTER II.
CIVIL PERSON.

The state is represented in the person of its chief magistrate, who is at the same time a member of it. Thus the king or president possesses two kinds of rights, a university of rights as a corporation [PUBLIC rights], and individual rights [PRIVATE rights] as a man. As the former become more and more confounded with the latter, so government advances towards some form of monarchy. A bishop also is a sole corporation, but the man holding the office has also his individual rights. The word person neither according to its accurate meaning nor in law is identical with man. A man may possess at the same time different classes of rights. On the other hand, two or more men may form only one legal person, and have one estate, as partners or corporators. Upon this difference of rights between the person and the man, the individual and the partner, corporator, tenant in common, and joint tenant, depends the whole law of these several classes. The same person has perfect power of alienation, of forming contracts, of disposing by last will and testament of his individual estate, but not of the corporate, nor of his own share in it, unless such power be expressed or implied in the contract by which the university of rights and duties is created. The same distinction divides all public from private property, and distinguishes the cases in which the corporation or civil person may sue from those in which the individual alone can be the party ; – although there are instances in which the injury complained of may, in reference to the difference of character, be such as to authorize the suit to be instituted either by the civil person or the individual, or by both. Thus, violence to the person may be punished either as a wrong to the state or to the individual.

[The Theory of the Common Law, James M. Walker, 1852, pp. 17-20]

Those who transition from POLITICAL citizen to CIVIL citizen by election have fornicated with the Beast and joined the Harlot and transitioned from PRIVATE to PUBLIC. See:

Are you “playing the harlot” with the government?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/are-you-playing-the-harlot/

If those fornicating with The Beast then vote or serve on jury duty and are called to decide on any issue that could affect their “benefits”, they should recuse themselves. Or they should at least not be greedy or covetous–and above all, they need to be honest. That ain’t happening this side of death. As it is written:

“There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;’

[Romans 3:10-11]

More on the content of this section 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

3. Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54, 93 (1795) -talks about the organization of government and how CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizens” are acting on behalf of “the State” as a collective rather than in their individual capacity. Thus, they are part of a “Private Membership Association (PMA)”.

“But in a Republic, all the citizens, as such, are equal, and no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another, but in virtue of a power constitutionally given by the whole community, and such authority when exercised, is in effect an act of the whole community which forms such body politic. In such governments, therefore, the sovereignty resides in the great body of the people, but it resides in them not as so many distinct individuals, but in their politic capacity only.”

[Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54, 93 (1795); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2087407812516848096]

4. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 290-291 (1883) -talks about the organization of government and the relationship between the “state” and the “government”.

“In the discussion of such questions, the distinction between the government of a State and the State itself is important, and should be observed. In common speech and common apprehension they are usually regarded as identical; and as ordinarily the acts of the government are the acts of the State, because within the limits of its delegation of power, the government of the State is generally confounded with the State itself, and often the former is meant when the latter is mentioned. The State itself is an ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable. The government is an agent, and, within the sphere of the agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that, it is a lawless usurpation. The Constitution of the State is the limit of the authority of its government, and both government and State are subject to the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, and of the laws made in pursuance thereof. So that, while it is true in respect to the government of a State, as was said in Langford v. United States, 101 U.S. 341, that the maxim, that the king can do no wrong, has no place in our system of government; yet, it is also true, in respect to the State itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the State, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which, therefore, is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the State, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. It was upon the ground of this important distinction that this court proceeded in the case of Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, when it adjudged that the acts of secession, which constituted the civil war of 1861, were the unlawful acts of usurping State governments, and not the acts of the States themselves, inasmuch as “the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States;” and that, consequently, the war itself was not a war between the States, nor a war of the United States against States, but a war of the United States against 291*291 unlawful and usurping governments, representing not the States, but a rebellion against the United States. This is, in substance, what was said by Chief Justice Chase, delivering the opinion of the court in Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, when he declared, speaking of the Confederate government, that “it was regarded as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States.” The same distinction was declared and enforced in Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 192, and in Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, both of which were referred to and approved in Keith v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454, 465.”

[Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 290-291, 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3335705609810307048]

5. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1269 U.S. 649, 656-657 (1898)-talks about the relationship between domicile, nationality, and civil status.

In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” p. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: “The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another, by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.” And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which “the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, 657*657 must depend;” he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen,” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant;” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1269 U.S. 649, 656-657 (1898);SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765]

6. 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.

The most DANGEROUS thing you can do to your liberty is to fill out ANY kind of government form. This is because it will be interpreted by its recipient as a REQUEST for and CONSENT to PROCURE a privilege that will result in a waiver of private rights and private property in exchange for public property and public rights. See:

Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidingTrapsGovForms.pdf

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 States^SMJ (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 States^SMJ [federal corporation, not geography] or under the law of the United States^SMJ 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/

7. 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 no 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