1. Introduction

The purpose of this page is to present symbology consistently employed on this website to represent terms, situations, and entities to eliminate equivocation by both judges and the administrative state.

“It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules [of statutory construction and interpretation] and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.”
[Federalist Paper No. 78, Alexander Hamilton]

---

“Judicial verbicide is calculated to convert the Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper and to replace our government of laws with a judicial oligarchy.”
[Senator Sam Ervin, during Watergate hearing]

---

“When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.” 
[Confucius, 500 B.C.]

By using these conventions, we render it almost impossible to equivocate as a method to procure consent invisibly, usurp jurisdiction, destroy the separation of powers, steal private property, or deceive you, the reader, about the type or extent of jurisdiction being exercised. The many forms of deception resulting from NOT implementing these guidelines are further documented in:

Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf

None of the above forms of deception are accidental. They are a willful attempt to protect illegal acts with sophistry and word games. They constitute the “ink” mentioned by George Orwell below:

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
[Politics and the English Language, George Orwell]

An explanation of how this judicial and administrative “ink” works is found at:

1. Separating POLITICAL Jurisdiction v. CIVIL Jurisdiction During Litigation and on the Court Record, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/separating-political-jurisdiction-v-civil-jurisdiction/
2. PROOF OF FACTS: How Judges Usurp Jurisdiction When Enforcing CIVIL Statutory Obligations Without Demonstrating Consent, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-how-judges-usurp-jurisdiction-when-enforcing-civil-statutory-obligations/

2. Two Contexts for Legal Information

Throughout this site, there are TWO main contexts for presenting legal information:

1. PRIVATE:
   1.1. Civilly FOREIGN/EXTERNAL.
   1.2. Subject to the CRIMINAL law and COMMON law WITHOUT consent of any kind. We abbreviate these laws and the resulting status with the suffix “IP”.
   1.3. Indicated with the suffix of “PRI” at the end of the word or term used. For instance Person^PRI means a CONSTITUTIONAL or PRIVATE person created by God who has natural and private constitutional rights protected by the common law and is NOT subject to civil statutory franchise CODES.
   1.4. Deals with absolutely owned PRIVATE property or rights protected by the constitution and the Bill of Rights, and NEVER the civil statutory law. Defined below:
   Website Definitions, Section 3: Private, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/advanced/definitions/#3._Private
   1.5. Humans claiming this status consent to NOTHING the government offers and define all terms on all government forms to exclude the civil statutory context and include only the constitutional context.
2. PUBLIC:
   2.1. Civilly DOMESTIC/INTERNAL.
   2.2. Subject to all laws, including those that require consent, meaning the civil law, common law, and the criminal law. We abbreviate these laws and the resulting status with the suffix “VP”.
   2.3. Indicated with the suffix of “PUB” at the end of the word or term used. For instance Person^PUB means a civil statutory “person” legislatively created and owned by the government and therefore an OFFICER or PUBLIC OFFICER of the government.
   2.4. Synonymous with a CIVIL “person” or a STATUTORY “person” on this website.
   2.5. Deals only with PUBLIC property and PUBLIC officers legislatively created and therefore OWNED by a specific government in civil statutes.
   2.6. Subject to the CIVIL statutory law as voluntary members of the CIVIL social compact. That compact is a VOLUNTARY Private Membership Association (PMA) you join by ELECTING a CIVIL domicile. Members are public officers 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

Each of the above two contexts may NEVER be intermixed in any given discussion UNLESS the method of connecting them is explained in that discussion. This prevents sophist equivocation that lawyers and judges are famous for as explained below:

HOW TO: Successful Strategy for Litigation and Administrative Correspondence, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-successful-strategy-for-litigation-and-administrative-correspondence/

Below is a summary of the above two contexts:

#	Description	Private	Public
1	Foreign or domestic?	Foreign/EXTERNAL	Domestic/INTERNAL
2	Symbology suffix	PRI	PUB
3	Subject to criminal law?	Yes	Yes
4	Subject to common law?	Yes	No
5	Law system subject to	IP (involuntary protection)	VP (voluntary protection)
6	Creator/Origin/Owner (grantor)	God	The State
7	Your ownership	Absolute	Qualified (under conditions set by grantor)
8	Attach to	Land	Voluntary civil status of consenting people or otherwise private property
9	Unalienable?	Yes	No
10	Can be taken away without your consent?	No (unless you injure someone)	Yes (without any injury)
11	Vindicated in	Constitutional court	Legislative franchise court
12	Created in	Bible	Civil statutes or franchises
13	Synonyms	Unalienable rights	Privileges
14	You pay for  enforcement by	Court fees	Income taxes
15	Enforce inequality between you and government?	No	Yes
16	Surrender constitutional protections when invoked?	No	Yes
17	Must join the government as an officer to invoke?	No	Yes (not ALWAYS a “public officer”)
18	Implemented by	Common Law, Equity	Civil Law

NOTES:

1. For an explanation of all the reasons why the above cannot be lawfully collapsed into one and why they must remain perfectly separate, see:
   Microsoft Copilot: Why courts refuse to call those voluntarily subject to civil statutory law “public officers”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-why-courts-refuse-to-call-those-voluntarily-subject-to-civil-statutory-law-public-officers/
2. The ability to define anything or to assign a status to anything, which is also an act of definition, imply and require an ownership interest in ALL THINGS affected by the definition. This is covered in:
   Effect of Definitions Upon OWNERSHIP and CONTROL of Property, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/effect-of-definitions-upon-ownership-of-property/
3. You own yourself and YOU have the same right to define all terms affect yourself or your property. So you can write your own definitions of terms that affect your property. Where there is overlap because you are using the PUBLIC roadways and yet you are doing so privately, government cannot unilaterally FORCE a civil status on you without your consent. This is covered in:
   Microsoft Copilot: Secular court meaning of “private person”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-secular-court-meaning-of-private-person/
4. The above table deviates from secular court terminology. BOTH the terms PUBLIC and PRIVATE in a secular court context PRESUPPOSE and DOMESTIC/INTERNAL status and participation in VOLUNTARY civil protection.
5. Courts define PRIVATE as any CIVIL STATUTORY person who is not an incumbent in a public office and never refer to those subject to civil statutory franchise codes as “public officers”. Thus, even PRIVATE civil statutory “persons” are not truly FOREIGN because they have still pursued all forms of VOLUNTARY civil protection and occupy an office, although not a “public office”.
6. It is therefore dangerous to use the term “private” in court or administratively without invoking the definitions in this section, because there is a risk of being called “frivolous”.
7. Our definition of PRIVATE therefore helps to highlight how the word “PRIVATE” has been equivocated to in effect convert property protected by the CONSTITUTION to PUBLIC property. Courts don’t like talking about that. This definition FORCES them to talk about it.

Below is a table comparing CONVENTIONAL usage with OUR definitions here:

#	Our term	Secular Court Usage	Civil statutory protections?	Criminal law protections?	Constitutional protections?	Common law protections	Our equivalent terms
1	PUBLIC	PUBLIC	Yes	Yes	No	No	Officer, DomesticS
2	PRIVATE	None	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Constitutional “person”, ForeignS
3	PersonPRI	None	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Constitutional “person”
4	PersonPUB	Default civil usage of “person”		Yes	No	No	Officer, DomesticS
5	StatusPUB	Default usage of “status” or “civil status”	Yes	Yes	No	No	DomesticS, ForeignP
6	StatusPRI	None	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Foreign, ForeignS
7	Civil StatusPRI	None	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Constitutional “persons’ ForeignS
8	domicile or domicilePUB	“Domicile” defaults to civil ALWAYS	Yes	Yes	No	No	DomesticS
9	domicilePRI	None	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	ForeignS

NOTES:

1. Secular court usage refers to “public officers” ONLY as those lawfully elected or appointed, which would not encompass people consensually participating in commercial government franchises.
   1.1. The civil statutory law however, to the extent that it imposes duties on what secular usage calls “private persons”, functions as an office.
   1.2. Because that usage sidesteps and removes constitutional protections and accomplishes an ANTI-GOVERNMENTAL purpose, then it is PRIVATE business activity under the Clearfield Doctrine that technically is not a “public office” in a historical or constitutional sense. So technically it is a “private office” or a private municipal office and the private officer is a resident agent for an office domiciled in the District of Columbia. That office is legislatively created and owned by the government but managed by the same government in its PRIVATE equitable status. This is confirmed by:
   Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf
2. See the following for a description of the various law systems listed in the right columns:
   Four Law Systems Course, Form #12.039
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/FourLawSystems.pdf
3. For a rebuttal of those who claim there is no common law, see:
   Rebutted False Arguments About the Common Law, Form #08.025
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf

The purpose of establishing government is to:

1. Protect PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights.
2. Recognize PRIVATE rights, which is the BEGINNING of the task of protecting PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights.
3. Give REASONABLE notice required by the Constitution of how PRIVATE rights are CONSENSUALLY converted to PUBLIC rights.
4. Maintain the absolute legal separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE where no INFORMED or EXPESS consent has been given. See:
   Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
5. NEVER trick or deceive the people into converting the above through anything BUT EXPRESS INFORMED CONSENT. In other words, making consent EXPRESS rather than IMPLIED. See:
   How You Lose Constitutional or Natural Rights, Form #10.015
   https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/HowLoseConstOrNatRights.pdf
6. NEVER institute any kind of economic coercion to compel people to consent such as, for instance, depriving Government ID to those who refuse to declare a civil status or a domicile.
7. Use the CIVIL STATUTORY law to regulate and tax only people INSIDE the government who joined the government VOLUNTARILY through EXPRESS consent to become a “CIVIL STATUTORY PERSON^PUB“. That process can ONLY occur through a lawful oath or appointment . See:
   Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf

Because PRIVATE/CONSTITUTIONAL “persons^PRI” retain rights and may not be civilly regulated or taxed, those in government and especially those in the judicial profession who refuse to recognize and distinguish or even EQUIVOCATE WHICH of the two contexts they are discussing are COMMUNISTS. A communist, after all, is defined by Congress as anyone who refuses to acknowledge the limits placed by EITHER the Constitution or the Law on their behavior as a COMMUNIST. The MOST important limit is recognizing PRIVATE people who have real, unalienable rights and cannot be taxed or regulated through CIVIL statutes.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 841
Sec. 841. – Findings and declarations of fact

The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the [de jure] Government of the United States [and replace it with a de facto government ruled by the judiciary]. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion] within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and [FRANCHISE] privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution [Form #10.002].  Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of, Form #05.014, the tax franchise “codes”, Form #05.001] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding by the framing of Congressman Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination [in the public FOOL system by homosexuals, liberals, and socialists] with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined [by the IRS and a corrupted judiciary] to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members [ANARCHISTS!, Form #08.020].  The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence [or using income taxes].  Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States.  It is the means whereby individuals are seduced [illegally KIDNAPPED via identity theft!, Form #05.046] into the service of the world Communist movement [using FALSE information returns and other PERJURIOUS government forms, Form #04.001], trained to do its bidding [by FALSE government publications and statements that the government is not accountable for the accuracy of, Form #05.007], and directed and controlled [using FRANCHISES illegally enforced upon NONRESIDENTS, Form #05.030] in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed

Characteristics of communist behavior described above include the following tactics against those who insist on being PRIVATE:

1. Equivocating WHICH type of PERSON they are discussing to create the presumption that ALL “persons” are PUBLIC civil statutory “persons”. See:
   Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf
2. Falsely labeling them as anarchists.
3. Labelling them as “sovereign citizens”, refusing to define the term, and weaponizing police against them by falsely connecting ALL those claiming the status with violent activities. See:
   Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebFalseArgSovereignty.pdf
4. Compelling or presuming a civil domicile in violation of due process of law. See:
   Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
5. PRESUMING that terms on government forms have a CIVIL statutory context rather than a PRIVATE context. This amounts to a violation of the separation of powers because it requires members of the Executive Branch to exercise LEGISLATIVE authority in defining terms. You can prevent this by defining all terms on government forms as EXCLUDING the civil statutory context and replacing the definitions with those on the page below:
   Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
   https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf
6. Interfering with common law remedies or FORCING only civil statutory remedies ONLY. See:
   Rebutted False Arguments About the Common Law, Form #08.025
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf
7. Calling them “frivolous” without explaining why in violation of due process and the requirement for reasonable notice. See:
   Rebutted Version of the IRS “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”, Form #08.005
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/friv_tax_rebuts.pdf
8. Financially sanctioning those who refuse to elect a CIVIL STATUTORY status and thus become a PMA member. This happens when financial institutions refuse to open unenumerated nonresident alien accounts for unenfranchised American nationals or companies refuse to hire American nationals who submit a W-8SUB instead of a W-4.

A frequent refrain from corrupt government is to falsely accuse those who insist on exercising absolute ownership over themselves or their property under the constitution and the common law and the criminal law as being “anarchists”, or “lawless”. This sort of rhetoric relies on ignorant and presumptuous equivocation about the various types of “presence” one can have under our system of law, collapsing them all into one, and PRESUMING that avoiding any of them implies avoiding all of them. These various types of presence/jurisdiction are further elaborated later in section 9:

Section 9: Types of CIVIL Legal Presence

The many accusations these legally ignorant, presumptuous, arrogant, malicious jackasses make include those documented below. Every one of these disingenuous and slanderous and untrue remarks are rebutted in the following:

Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebFalseArgSovereignty.pdf

For methods of distinguishing the above two Private and Public contexts, see:

Private Right or Public Right? Course, Form #12.044
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PrivateRightOrPublicRight.pdf

3. Citizenship terms

3.1. Citizen* and Citizen**+D

In the context of this entire website:

1. The term Citizen* means someone who:
   1.1. Is born or naturalized to become the POLITICAL citizen mentioned in 8 U.S.C. §1401-1407, the Fourteenth Amendment, or 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
   1.2. Has a POLITICAL status but not CIVIL status within the context being discussed.
   1.3. Is called a “POLITICAL citizen” on this website
   1.4. Has an EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE status rather than a PUBLIC status and thus, is protected ONLY by the Constitution and the common law and never the CIVIL law.
   1.5. Has not surrendered NO PRIVATE rights under the Bill of Rights in exchange for PRIVILEGES created or granted by any civil legislation and thus remains EXCLUSIVELY private.
   1.6. Is also called a “CONSTITUTIONAL citizen” on this website in the case of American national born or naturalized within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union.
   1.7. Has NATIONALITY and is therefore a “NATIONAL” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).
   1.8. Is a “national of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22).
   1.9. Is a “U.S. national” under 22 C.F.R. §51.1 and 22 C.F.R. §51.2.
2. The term Citizen**+D means someone who:
   2.1. Has made a “domestic election” to join the state as its agent through consent to a privilege of some kind.
   2.2. The RESULT of the domestic election is to connect the human volunteer to a “trade or business within the United States^GOV” in 26 U.S.C. §864(b) and to “personal services” within the civil position of “person” in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343 working in connection with United States^GOV as its voluntary agent in exchange for privileged deductions under 26 U.S.C. §162.
   2.3. Is animated by the Citizen* above and therefore a SUBSET of it. This is because the Citizen* is the OFFICER and the Citizen**+D is the OFFICE and they are separate legal “persons”.
   2.4. Represents a CIVIL OFFICE or status as an agent of the state. This office is technically NOT a “public office” in a classical sense, but rather a FRANCHISE office.
   2.5. Is mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b) and most civil statutes.
   2.6. Has a PUBLIC status rather than a PRIVATE status and thus, is acting as an agent or officer of the government through a CIVIL act of Congress.
   2.7. Is someone born or naturalized in the COUNTRY and POLITICAL citizenship but who ALSO has either a domicile in a specific geographical place within the NATION United States* or who has consented or elected to become surety for a status or office that has said domicile such as that of “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen of the United States” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b), etc.
   2.8. Is referred to on this site as a STATUTORY citizen or a CIVIL citizen or sometimes a DOMICILED citizen.

You can only be ONE or the OTHER of the above and NEVER BOTH. This is because there must at all times be an absolute separation of PRIVATE and PUBLIC for the protection of BOTH types of property. The reason for this is explained in:

DEBATE: Confusion created by Citizen* and Citizen**+D nomenclature, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/debate-confuscion-created_by_citizen-nomenclature/

When you are dealing with sophist equivocators, you have to create a context where what it IS and what it IS NOT are BOTH defined. That’s what citizen* is: a POLITICAL citizen but NOT a CIVIL citizen. Kind of like a national who is not a civil citizen**+D. This is explained in:

HOW TO: Successful Strategy for Litigation and Administrative Correspondence, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-successful-strategy-for-litigation-and-administrative-correspondence/

The term “citizen” is subject to frequent equivocation throughout the legal community in order to impute or enforce CIVIL jurisdiction against non-consenting parties. Therefore, this site takes great pains to distinguish CIVIL from POLITICAL jurisdiction throughout.

Statutory Term	Origin	Our terminology	Mainstream court terminology
“citizen”	26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)	Citizen*	Statutory political class
“citizen” of the “United StatesG“	26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A) 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b)	Citizen**+D	Statutory domestic civil subclass of the statutory political class.

NOTES:

1. The “+D” at the end of “citizen**” in the above table means a “Domestic Election” that turns a purely political “citizen*” into a CIVIL statutory citizen INTERNAL to the United States^GOV.
2. The need for differences between Our Terminology and Mainstream Court Terminology is explained in:
   Microsoft Copilot: How do you suggest improving our terminology relating to “civil status” in order to reduce the possibility of frivolous accusations?, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-how-do-you-suggest-improving-our-terminology-relating-to-civil-status-in-order-to-reduce-the-possibility-of-frivolous-accusations/
3. For a detailed mapping of our terminology to mainstream court terminology, see:
   Writing Conventions on This Website, Section 11: Mapping of Site Terminology to Prevailing Legal Terminology
   https://ftsig.org/introduction/writing-conventions-on-this-website/#11._Mapping

3.2. Political v. Civil Citizen

To get a civil status, you have to add a CIVIL JURISDICTIONAL component to POLITICAL citizenship. That component is acquired by one or more of the following:

1. Domicile (States^G jurisdiction) for state purposes. It is:
   1.1. A type of geographical election.
   1.2. Associated with a specific MUNICIPAL jurisdiction.
   1.3. Usually relevant only in the case of state income taxation per Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932) [SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613].
2. United States^G through a CONSENSUAL CIVIL franchise status election such as “U.S. person”.
   2.1. This occurs through election, thereby waiving and preempting States^G jurisdiction.
   2.2. The franchise status has a DOMESTIC geographical domicile while those FILLING the franchise status can have a FOREIGN domicile per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).
   2.3. The civil franchise status can be CONSENSUALLY EXERCISED by the officer filling said status within or without (United States^G jurisdiction) for Federal purposes.
3. Through unilateral and coerced identity theft on the part of a government for financial gain, whether by malice or mistake. See:
   Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

The CIVIL jurisdiction conferred through the above methods is worldwide because it is Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ, domestic¹). States^G becomes United States^G because of Federal pre-emption. At that point, domicile of the officer acquiring the FEDERAL civil status becomes IRRELEVANT in determining or exercising federal jurisdiction.

Throughout this site, we take great pains to try to distinguish between CIVIL and POLITICAL jurisdiction as follows:

1. POLITICAL jurisdiction is not the same as CIVIL jurisdiction. See:
   Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf
2. To avoid confusion and equivocation, it is sometimes helpful to put the words POLITICAL or CIVIL in front of the word “citizen”. In that scenario, invoking POLITICAL in front of the term “citizen” then:
   2.1. EXCLUDES the civil context.
   2.2. EXCLUDES all elections.
   2.3. EXCLUDES presumption of domicile of any kind.
   We do this to avoid the use of the use of the word “SOVEREIGN” in front of “citizen” and retain the ability to use the word “citizen” to avoid accusations of being frivolous. CIVIL NON-CITIZEN, PURELY POLITICAL, or EXCLUSIVELY POLITICAL would be the same thing.
3. Since the CONSTITUTION is a political document, then replacing “POLITICAL” with “CONSTITUTIONAL” can sometimes be helpful to particularize the word “POLITICAL” so that STATE NATIONALS can be referenced by replacing it with CONSTITUTIONAL.
4. ADDING “of the United States^G” to the end of “citizen of United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A) is how the context changes from POLITICAL to CIVIL. To simplify things, you can AVOID having to preface citizenship terms with POLITICAL or CIVIL by employing United States^G symbology and ALWAYS interpreting “citizen” in its political context.
5. This site contains a mixture of the above approaches. We do this to avoid equivocation between POLITICAL and CIVIL terms or contexts.

The reason for the above approach is explained by the following court case. This case relates only to STATUTORY diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332, which is not the same as CONSTITUTIONAL diversity under Constitution Article III, Section 2, so it obviously relates to CIVIL jurisdiction rather than POLITICAL jurisdiction or to POLITICAL status:

“Citizenship and domicile are substantially synonymous. Residency and inhabitance are too often confused with the terms and have not the same significance. Citizenship implies more than residence. It carries with it the idea of identification with the state and a participation in its functions. As a citizen, one sustains social, political, and moral obligation to the state and possesses social and political rights under the Constitution and laws thereof. Harding v. Standard Oil Co. et al. (C.C.) 182 F. 421; Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S.Ct. 763, 32 L.Ed. 766; Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 476, 15 L.Ed. 691.”

[Baker v. Keck, 13 F.Supp. 486, 487 (1936);
SOURCE:https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4204593481858326209]

You can’t PARTICIPATE in the functions of the state or have CIVIL obligations WITHOUT a CIVIL DOMICILE. If you never make any elections or domicile, you can’t vote or serve on jury duty because both of these are PRIVILEGES, not RIGHTS.

Therefore, being a POLITICAL citizen makes you a CANDIDATE to participate, but not an actual PARTICIPANT. You need the addition of a DOMICILE election to actually participate. Try registering to vote WITHOUT a domicile like we did. They will laugh you out of the registrar’s office.

On this website, the term “POLITICAL citizen” is equivalent to:

1. Exclusively Private.
2. Legislatively Foreign.
3. Transient foreigner.
4. CIVIL Non-Citizen.
5. Political Citizen but Civil Non-Citizen.
6. EXCLUSIVELY POLITICAL citizen.
7. PURELY POLITICAL citizen.
8. Non-resident citizen.
9. American national.
10. Idiot, which is a pejorative term abused by the legal profession to discourage people from pursing sovereignty. See:
    Are you an “idiot”?, SEDM
    https://sedm.org/are-you-an-idiot-we-are/

Those who HAVE made any elections, including domicile, and thereby surrendered all the above statuses and their sovereignty and sovereign immunity are called “harlots” in the bible:

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

For information about how to AVOID all such elections and AVOID producing legal evidence of consent in any form, see:

Acquiring a Civil Status, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/

We emphasize that POLITICAL “membership” and CIVIL “membership” operate completely independently of each other.

1. POLITICAL membership is created by birth or naturalization, which are non-consensual beyond the point of acquiring them.
2. CIVIL membership is created by elections/consent with or without domicile.
3. Becoming a CIVIL member means you join the collective or “State” and owe CIVIL obligations that are PUBLIC property. See:
   Collectivism and How to Resist It, Form #12.024
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/Collectivism.pdf
4. You should NEVER join any collective, because you cease to absolutely own yourself or some portion of your property when you do. The reasons for this are explained in:
   Membership in a Specific Class, Status, or Group As a Cause for Loss of Rights, SEDM
   https://sedm.org/membership-in-a-specific-class-status-or-group-as-a-cause-for-loss-of-rights/

Judges go OUT OF THEIR WAY to equivocate these two forms of membership in order to unlawfully obtain CIVIL jurisdiction. The following article explains HOW they do this and how to fight their corrupt efforts.

Separating POLITICAL Jurisdiction v. CIVIL Jurisdiction During Litigation and on the Court Record, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/separating-political-jurisdiction-v-civil-jurisdiction/

The two forms of membership, POLITICAL (Citizen*) and CIVIL (Citizen**+D), should therefore NEVER be confused. The conventions documented in this section ensure that:

1. PUBLIC (government) and PRIVATE (you) are kept PERFECTLY and legally separated and never allowed to join together.
2. CIVIL status can never be presumed.
3. DOMICILE can never be presumed.
4. CIVIL JURISDICTION can never be presumed.
5. Any court attempting any CIVIL enforcement activity MUST satisfy the burden of proof of explicit written consent in some form before they can enforce.
6. You are left alone as justice requires.
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf
7. You are BLAMELESS and not a harlot before God.
   https://sedm.org/are-you-playing-the-harlot/

It is generally a VERY bad idea to claim EITHER a POLITICAL status or a CIVIL status on a government form. Doing either is typically only necessary to procure a privilege, which this site seeks entirely to avoid as indicated below. Simply claiming your nationality or American national status should be sufficient to AVOID all privileges or civil statuses, since a franchise ADDS to your nationality and nationality alone is not a privilege:

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

4. Site Symbology for Political Terms “United States”, “State”

SOURCE: https://ftsig.org/site-symbology-for-political-terms-united-states-state/

Throughout this site, we consistently employ the following symbology conventions for political terms. We emphasize that according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the POLITICAL sense is the PRINCIPAL sense of all words used in the constitution.

In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit, which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country.

[. . .]

But it is also used in its geographical sense, as in the clauses which require that a representative in Congress shall be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen, and that the trial of crimes shall be held within the State where committed.

And there are instances in which the principal sense of the word seems to be that primary one to which we have adverted, of a people or political community, as distinguished from a government.

[Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 721 (1869);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096]

HOWEVER, in CIVIL statutes RATHER than the constitution, the PRINCIPAL sense is the CIVIL sense. While is is true that income taxation is a “political matter” according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340, 345 (1954), the actual ENFORCEMENT and IMPLEMENTATION of it requires CIVIL STATUTES which acquire the “force of law” in the of U.S. nationals ONLY through DOMICILE, which is voluntary. DOMICILE, in turn, is the method of CONSENTING to JOIN the political group SUBJECT to the tax in question called “the State”.

4.1. “United States”

1. United States^P: Political/nation.
2. United States⁵⁰: 50 bodies politic. No USPI. Private and foreign and constitutionally protected.
3. United States^G: 50 States + DC in their geographical senses. Domestic^G locality with respect to United States^SMJ
4. United States^SMJ: All federal property, offices, agents, contracts, etc. Federal supremacy applies. USPI involved.

NOTES:

United States^G is the geography that includes the 50 states in the following cases:

1. Elections: Involve federal preemption originating in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 and NOT Article 1, Section 8: When you elect to receive federal privileges, meaning PUBLIC property, you surrender the protections of Article 1, Section 8 in favor of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 as a result of the Minimum Contacts Doctrine, the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine, and the Public Rights Doctrines of the U.S. Supreme Court.
   1.1. American nationals or aliens filing the 1040NR as “nonresident aliens” and “effectively connecting” by election as described in 26 U.S.C. §864(c). Congress by default doesn’t have civil jurisdiction over your property in a state so you have to make an election to CREATE that jurisdiction by your consent.
   1.2. American nationals or aliens filing the 1040 and making the “U.S. person” election under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) and thereby making their earnings taxable worldwide. American nationals and aliens have to MISREPRESENT their domicile or residence as being within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress to do so. Both should be filing the 1040NR. We conclude this from a careful reading of the following:
   U.S. v. Goelet, 232 U.S. 293 (1914) and U.S. v. Bennett, 232 U.S. 299 (1914), FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/u-s-v-goelet-232-u-s-293-1914-and-u-s-v-bennett-232-u-s-299-1914/
   In addition, aliens should be filing the 1040NR PLUS the Form 8840 to make a closer connection election in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(2)(C)(i) and 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2.
2. Privileged Alien Commerce within the COUNTRY United States*:
   2.1. Connected with the privileges of alienage by virtue of the foreign affairs functions of Congress under Article, 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
   2.2. Relates to aliens abroad NOT protected by the constitution.
   2.3. This too is a type of election, because the choice by an alien residing abroad to do business in our country automatically comes with international obligations enforced by the Law of Nations. These international obligations CANNOT and DO NOT apply within the country to nationals of that country.

The origin of item 1 above is explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in:

“It may be admitted that the reserved [PRIVATE, constitutional] rights of the States [as well as the People under the 10th Amendment], such as the right to pass laws, to give effect to laws through executive action, to administer justice through the courts, and to employ all necessary agencies for legitimate purposes of state [or even SELF] government, are not proper subjects of the taxing power of Congress. But it cannot be admitted that franchises [which are privileged PUBLIC property] granted by a State are necessarily exempt from taxation; for franchises are property, often very valuable and productive property; and when not conferred for the purpose of giving effect to some reserved power of a State, seem to be as properly objects of taxation as any other property.”

[Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 155-56 (1911) (citing Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533) (emphasis added); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17853944152368373401

The origin of item 2 above is described by the U.S. Supreme Court below. Notice the phrase “implied license”, which is synonymous with “privilege”. The origin of the word “foreign” in this ruling is the constitution and being POLITICALLY foreign, not CIVILLY foreign. This is because the constitution is a political document while civil statutes are CIVIL in nature and acquire the force of law by choosing a voluntary domicile within their venue:

The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption ‘from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found’ were stated as follows: ‘When private individuals of one nation [states of the Unions are “nations” under the law of nations] spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it.  The implied license, therefore, under which they enter, can never be construed to grant such exemption.’ 7 Cranch, 144.

In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction, rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war; and that the implied license, under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants, for purposes of business or pleasure, can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See, also, Carlisle v. U.S. (1872) 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877) 95 U.S. 210; Wildenhus’ Case (1887) 120 U.S. 1, 7 Sup.Ct. 385; Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. (1889) 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604, 9 Sup.Ct. 623.

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765]

All elections in item 1 above relating to American nationals or aliens residing on land protected by the Constitution in the 50 states are MISTAKEN because of the Fifth Amendment and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine and the fact that those rights are UNALIENABLE in relation to a real, de jure government. See:

USPI thru Changing the Status of Your PROPERTY to Domestic
Section 3: Consequences of making ALL government payments PUBLIC property AFTER they are received without your consent or permission
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/uspi-thru-domestic-source/#3._Consequences

United States^G is what we call the VIRTUAL United States^G. It is used in the following cases, which invoke federal supremacy under the Supremacy clause in Article VI, Clause 2 and cause federal law to preempt state law:

1. Federal subject matters enumerated in Constitution Article 1, Section 8.
2. Federal property control under Constitution Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 within the states of the Union, such as the “U.S. person” status found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).

Thus, United States^G is a physical place where USPI CAUSES federal preemption and a change in the choice of law governing specified property. Choice of law is further discussed in:

Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

United States^G is the relevant locality when discussing United States^SMJ. When Subject Matter Jurisdiction is in play, State^G is 100% irrelevant. The most clear explanation of this fact is found in the following court case:

“From the viewpoint of the Virgin Islands, citizens of the United States residing in the Virgin Islands must be considered as resident aliens, and citizens of the United States not residing in the Virgin Islands must be treated as nonresident aliens. With respect to the tax status of citizens of the United States who are residents of the Virgin Islands see Rev.Rul. 60-291, 1960-2 C.B. 407. With respect to the tax on nonresident alien individuals see section 871 of the Code.”

[Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d. 301 (1974); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18118242110028613875]

If we substitute United States for the Virgin Islands and vice versa, it would read as follows:

From the viewpoint of the United States, citizens [read domiciliaries not NATIONALS] of the Virgin Islands residing in the United States must be considered as resident aliens, and citizens of the Virgin Islands not residing in the United States must be treated as nonresident aliens. With respect to the tax status of citizens of the Virgin Islands who are residents of the United States see xxxxxxx. With respect to the tax on nonresident alien individuals see section 871 of the Code.

This is very helpful (not to mention authoritative) in explaining the purpose of the geographical sense and explaining who a “citizen” of the United States^G is—a political “citizen” who, through election, falls within the “domestic” taxing jurisdiction of the United States^G. We had NEVER seen the geographical sense called a “taxing jurisdiction.” before reading this case. We assumed it was, but that was pure speculation. Now we have something authoritative.

Furthermore, since the term “domestic” refers to both the governmental source of the franchise (domestic SMJ) and the United States^G (domestic taxing jurisdiction), we can conclude that my depiction of United States^G as a singular “red” entity, rather than a collection of 51 jurisdictions, is indeed correct. If it was regarded as a collection of 51 jurisdictions, you could not relate the term “domestic” to it.

Since we know that United States^G is in fact a domestic taxing jurisdiction under federal law, then ANY other component making up the “domestic” United States^G is distinct and therefore foreign—proving that tax status, whether foreign or domestic, is an election. We searched of the words “taxing jurisdiction” and found several references to the “taxing jurisdiction” of Montana, Oklahoma, New York, and Connecticut—just to name a few. This too proves that when it comes to CIVIL/DOMICILED persons (natural and juristic), tax status can be foreign or domestic through election.

Ultimately, all federal franchises must be implemented in United States^G using civil statuses domiciled in the District of Columbia (seat of government per 4 U.S.C. §72) but occupied by volunteers with a foreign domicile. Domicile of the franchisee is irrelevant once the OFFICE and the OFFICER become consensually connected. That legal connection between the OFFICE and the OFFICER the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “quasi-contract” in Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935). The OFFICER then becomes “clothed with a public interest” at that point. This consensual legal connection is why we say that the OFFICER becomes a “resident agent” for the office.

The virtual United States^G is the applicable locality in issues that involve United States^SMJ. State^G is in play in areas of local jurisdiction and State^SMJ. But as soon as United States^SMJ is at issue…THE STATE BECOMES IRRELEVANT (in that context), and the applicable locality is now United States^G.

Which geographical entity is “in play” is a function of which laws are in play:

1. Federal law – United States^G
2. State law – State^G

Both exist simultaneously. But only one is active at any given time FOR A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE or a SPECIFIC activity that is subject to regulation or taxation.

It’s errant to call United States^G a Local Jurisdiction (LJ) because that, we believe, would serve to destroy the separation of powers. But it does exist to provide a method of contrast with respect to preemption. The jurisdiction at issue is SMJ—not Local Jurisdiction, like the District of Columbia.

None of these nuances are ever going to be shared in statutory definitions or even court rulings. They are hidden to protect mainly “third rail issues” that might explain how the system works and truly empower you the reader. The statute writers want to confuse, confound, and subjugate the reader, not empower them.

In United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that PRIVATE property under the Fifth Amendment is not only a Federal Question, but a matter of LOCAL law and not federal law. This is proof that United States^G can’t include states of the Union or recognize their laws WITHOUT your consent and election. This is because United States^G deals ONLY with PUBLIC property, not PRIVATE property. It is also synonymous with what the courts call a “taxing jurisdiction” in Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d. 301 (1974); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18118242110028613875. It is a “public property domain” that is part of what the Causby court called “the public domain”.

See the delicate interplay between PUBLIC and PRIVATE? If its FOREIGN and PRIVATE and protected by the constitution, local law governs. If its PUBLIC and DOMESTIC, federal subject matter governs choice of law. What switches the choice of law is:

1. Your consent or election to convert the property from PRIVATE to PUBLIC and
2. The Public Rights Doctrine of U.S. Supreme Court that it triggers, and
3. Federal supremacy that excludes state law beyond that point.

All the above processes involve the laws of property and are governed by WHO the owner of the affected property is at each step: PRIVATE (you) or PUBLIC (government). This is proof that United States^G is distinct from the jurisdictions of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Lastly, another way of describing federal preemption is as follows:

You as the owner of yourself determine the “choice of law”. When you consent to something, you create jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction changes the law that applies to the scenario in which you are consenting. This is just like when you write a contract. The owner of the property being sold typically writes the contract. All good contracts, like all good franchises, dictate the “choice of law” applying to any dispute under that contract.

You might then describe this site essentially as “government contracting 101”. Choice of law is described in:

Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

For those who are curious, federal supremacy/preemption is discussed in:

Federal Preemption: A Legal Primer, Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45825

4.2. “State”

1. State^P (political/state)
2. State^G (geographical extent of body politic)
3. State^SMJ (state government, property, offices, agents, contracts, etc.)

4.3. Relationship of the above terms to each other

For a detailed exposition of how all the above terms relate to each other, see:

INTERNAL and EXTERNAL, DOMESTIC and FOREIGN terms, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/internal-and-external-domestic-and-foreign-terms/

4.4. Important Note about United States^SMJ

1. Since the government is just a collection of offices and property, and since offices ARE property, then government is just PUBLIC PROPERTY.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court calls the collection of PUBLIC PROPERTY that IS “the government” by the name “the national domain” in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 389 (1857).
3. Whether you call it PUBLIC PROPERTY or “government”, it’s therefore the SAME THING.
4. The constitution is just a trust indenture that manages this PUBLIC PROPERTY.
   4.1. The ORIGINAL beneficiaries of the trust are “we the people and our posterity”.
   4.2. The CURRENT LIVING beneficiaries are called “the STATE”, which is sovereign.
   4.3. The GRANTORS are “We the People” in states of the Union at the time the union was formed.
   4.4. The CORPUS is “the national domain”.
   4.5. The trust creates a corporation called “the body corporate” that all trustees serve within.
5. The trustees within the “body corporate” are broken into THREE groups:
   5.1. Executive
   5.2. Legislative
   5.3. Judicial
6. The TRUSTEES are the OFFICERS filling the OFFICES within the “body corporate”.
7. The property MANAGED by the trustees are called “PUBLIC PROPERTY” or the “public domain”.
8. If you volunteer for ANY civil statutory status such as “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, etc. you JOIN the trustees within the body corporate within the Executive Branch, whether you realize it or not.
9. Equivocation surrounding the use of United States^P and United States^G are used to deceive and recruit more volunteer SLAVES like you.

IMPORTANT: There is NO WAY TO AVOID becoming synonymous with “the government” if you:

1. Donate your property to the public by connecting it VOLUNTARILY to the SSN/TIN “franchise mark” or
2. Volunteer to become surety for a civil status that IS public property in order to seek privileges, benefits, or public property controlled or received by the status. Examples of such a civil statuses are CIVIL statutory “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, “person”, etc.

Ironically, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 389 (1857) mentioned above was about slaves as PROPERTY, which is EXACTLY what you effectively BECOME by adopting ANY CIVIL STATUTORY STATUS or pursuing any government privilege. WATCH OUT! For more on how these mechanisms work, see:

1. Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/GovFranchises.pdf
2. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

Franchises, in fact, are the MAIN method of implementing SOCIALISM in an otherwise free society. The consequences of doing so are that government becomes a pagan deity and everyone becomes SERFS as described in:

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf

The U.S. Supreme Court further described the scenario of the government owning everything in the following case:

Most modern legislation upon this subject has been directed (1) to the requirement that every citizen shall disclose the amount of his property subject to taxation and shall contribute in proportion to such amount; and (2) to the voidance of double taxation. As said by Adam Smith in his “Wealth of Nations,” Book V., Ch. 2, Pt. 2, “the subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. The expense of Government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interest in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called equality or inequality of taxation.“

[Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 US 194 (1905); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14163786757633929654]

The owner of the “great estate” above is the GOVERNMENT. They describe the NATION as a “great nation” but its individual members as mere CHATTEL. You’re just a TENANT on the King’s land who has to pay rent. After all, absolute ownership implies the RIGHT TO EXCLUDE. If you were the absolute owner of your PRIVATE property, you would have the ability to exercise the right to EXCLUDE the government from using or benefitting from it. Instead, the court effectively says you have to RENT it from them above as a tenant on the slave plantation. Your ownership is only an “equitable interest” but the REAL owner is the government. You’re just a slave or “sharecropper”. That plantation is described in:

1. The Jones Plantation Film
   https://jonesplantationfilm.com
2. The Jones Plantation
   https://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk
3. The Real Matrix
   https://sedm.org/media/the-real-matrix/

VELCOME TO AMERIKA, COMMUNIST PLANTATION SLAVE COMRADE! Communism, after all, consists of socialism plus propaganda. The government owns EVERYTHING and legal propaganda by the legal profession keeps you on the plantation. That propaganda is exhaustively described in:

Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said about the current sad state of affairs. He says basically that if you TRUST anything government says, a cage is reserved fro your on the government plantation:

“It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights… Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
[Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388]

For the MOST ACCURATE description of what it means to be a SLAVE from a CIVIL perspective by virtue of adopting a CIVIL STATUS crafted by the very IMPLEMENTERS of that system of slavery, the state of Virginia just before the Civil War, see:

What it Means to be a Slave from a Civil Perspective, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/CivilStatus-Bailey%20v.%20Poindexter_s%20Ex_r_%2055%20Va.%20132-Slave%20civil%20status.pdf

There are REMARKABLE similarities between the way most Americans live today and the way SLAVES lived back then. The slave mongers are the JUDGES who ENFORCE the legalized slavery against the legally ignorant and uninformed. If you say in court “I never consented and the Declaration of Independence says my consent is mandatory”, the judge gets the whip out. A more sophisticated understanding of law is mandatory to make him put the whip away. AND, the government slave mongers have made SURE you will NEVER acquire that legal knowledge in public school or even in LAW SCHOOL! VERY, VERY few lawyers we have ever met are aware of what is on this website. To even ADMIT that they knew any of this information would constitute an admission that they have been engaging in malpractice for nearly all of their legal career!

NOW do you understand why we say that the “citizen of the United States^SMJ” mentioned on the opening page is SYNONYMOUS with the FOLLOWING “citizen”?

“A federal corporation operating within a state is considered a domestic corporation rather than a foreign corporation.  The United States^SMJ government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” 
[19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §883 (2003)]

---

“A foreign corporation is one that derives its existence solely from the laws of another state, government, or country, and the term is used indiscriminately, sometimes in statutes, to designate either a corporation created by or under the laws of another state or a corporation created by or under the laws of a foreign country.”

“A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only.”
[19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §886 (2003)]

5. Domestic

“Domestic” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4))= Government Sourced AND within the Geographical jurisdiction. The term “domestic” has two contexts:

1. Domestic^S=Domestic Sourced or Government Sourced. Earned by a government created and owned civil statutory entity or status=USPI=United States^SMJ.
2. Domestic^G = relates to Domestic^S earned within the Federal locality (50 States & D.C. geographically) where said subject matter is relevant=“United States^G“.

Domestic^S describes the nature of government. United States^G describes the locality of government. But neither domestic^S nor United States^G means government. Domestic^S above is nested inside of domestic^G, leading the unwitting person to believe that it’s $$$ earned upon the land that is taxed, rather than Federal activity within or without its local taxing jurisdiction.

But it’s the Federal nexus (public property) that is taxed. And that nexus may occur in either a domestic locality (within the United States^G) or in a non-domestic locality (without the United States^G). The underlying gov source is always domestic —domestic^S. But it can occur within or without the United States^G —domestic^G.

We know domestic^S is government, because it’s tied to corporations and partnerships created under the laws of the United States. Once they establish that throughout the IRC implicitly, they subdivide such domestic^S activity as taking place either within or without United States^G, where:

1. Within United States^G = domestic^S activity occurring within the domestic^G locality; or
2. Without the United States^G = domestic^S activity occurring without the domestic^G locality.

But domestic^S is the unspoken default scenario throughout the IRC. This confusion is deliberate. So we’re over the target. This is why pictures and diagrams are helpful—critical in fact. In the diagram below:

1. Domestic^S relates to ALL government-connected subject matter=USPI=United States^SMJ
2. Domestic^G relates to the Federal locality (50 States & D.C. geographically) where said subject matter is relevant=United States^G

For a history of the definition for the word “domestic” in the Internal Revenue Code, see:

Microsoft Copilot: History of definitions for the word “domestic” and “United States” in the Internal Revenue Code, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-history-of-definitions-for-the-word-domestic-in-the-internal-revenue-code/

6. Foreign

There are TWO types of “foreign” you can be. Below is the symbology we use on this site for each:

1. Foreign^S=Foreign (private) Sourced. CIVILLY FOREIGN=Foreign DOMICILE OUTSIDE the venue in question=Outside the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise. Not subject to federal preemption. Described but not defined in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(2)(ii). Governed exclusively by STATE and not FEDERAL law.
2. Foreign^P=POLITICALLY FOREIGN=Foreign NATIONALITY=Outside the COUNTRY under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution. A matter of international affairs. Governed exclusively by the national government.

Note the central role of NATIONALITY and DOMICILE in determining what type of FOREIGN you are. We discuss the basis for each of these two components in:

Nationality v. Domicile, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/two-statuses/nationality-v-domicile/

Below is a diagram of the relationship between POLITICALLY foreign and CIVILLY foreign:

Lessons learned about “foreign”:

1. American nationals can ALWAYS make your person “foreign” by filing a 1040NR.
2. Making your property and earnings foreign by avoiding “effectively connecting” is more difficult.
3. Legislative control over PUBLIC property DOES NOT automatically imply control over the person in POSSESSION of said property. That control has to be acquired separately by a voluntary choice of domicile or a “U.S. person” election. Otherwise, they come under state law in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1652 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. See:
   Microsoft Copilot: Limits of federal authority in states of the Union derived from Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 jurisdiction and its affect on Constitutional/Private “persons”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-limits-of-federal-authority-in-states-of-the-union-derived-from-article-4-section-3-clause-2-jurisdiction-and-its-affect-on-constitutional-person/
4. Mere receipt of a government payment does not automatically make the payment “effectively connected”. It takes more than that. Only the OWNER of the payment can do that, and not the PAYOR. Specifically:
   4.1 CONSENT to effectively connect it voluntarily. You can’t do this for any of the things on the Schedule NEC, BTW. . .or
   4.2. The government must NOTICE you of a reserved property interest in the payment AFTER you receive it. That’s what 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(6) does AFTER you effectively connect it YOURSELF previously in the case of a deferred payment. However, this cannot be done in a constitutional state, because the geographical United States does not expressly include the states of the Union so that there is no notice of extraterritoriality mandated under 4 U.S.C. §72, 28 U.S.C. §1652, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, U.S. v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922) and Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949). So it fails due process.

The above are substantiated at:

PROOF OF FACTS: “Deferred earnings” paid in connection with government retirement earned as a “U.S. person” are not “foreign income” or taxable under I.R.C. 864(c), FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-deferred-retirement-earnings-not-taxable/

There are lots of reasons why the geographical “United States” defined at 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d) does not expressly include areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the constitutional states and why Congress has no legislative authority to notice you of extraterritorial application of the income tax within states of the Union as a result:

1. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to bestow any of the privileges or benefits that the income tax pays for so they can’t be offered there. This would:
   1.1. Be a commercial invasion of the states in violation of Article 4, Section 4.
   1.2. Violate the dual office prohibitions in state constitutions and state law.
   1.3. Corrupt voters, jurists, and government officers with a criminal financial conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455.
2. Congress cannot establish a trade or business in a state in order to tax it. License Tax Cases. The income tax is ONLY on this “trade or business” in fact.
3. It’s never been the case that you can unilaterally elect yourself into a lawfully established public office managing property received OFF duty. That’s ridiculous and it would produce a de facto office. Preventing this from happening is EXACTLY what the declaration of independence was about:
   
   “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”
   
   De ja vu all over. The officers are called “taxpayers” and “U.S. persons”. To suggest that public offices and a “trade or business” can be authorized in a constitutional state is to violate the above. Given that states are not within the geographical definitions and there is no presence test for serving in said offices that would permit preemption to operate like there is with aliens (26 U.S.C. §7701(b)), possessions (26 U.S.C. §937), and abroad (26 U.S.C. §911).

7. Foreign Person

In the context of 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(2)(ii), it’s not “foreign person”—it’s “foreign” and “person.” The meaning is contextual:

1. “foreign” is not domestic—whether domestic^S or domestic^G (see 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4) and (a)(5)).
2. “person” is a:
   2.1. Constitutional or PRIVATE “person”.
   2.2. Generic PUBLIC “person” under (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1)); or
   2.3. SPECIFIC PUBLIC “person” with a duty under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and /or 26 U.S.C. §7343.

In 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1, the only “persons” mentioned are aliens. Once you get to there, you’re a “foreign” and “person” generically AND a PUBIC “person” under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and/or 26 U.S.C. §7343 under federal preemption because of alienage in 2.3 above. You cannot be a PRIVATE person and a PUBLIC person at the same time and in the same context. It’s always ONE or the OTHER.

Same for “individual.” There’s an “individual” who is a person under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1) and that “individual” can become an “individual” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 with exposure to 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343.

There is LOTS of government equivocation surrounding the term “foreign” as indicated in the previous section. There is JUST as much equivocation by going on with the term “foreign person” because it can be used in its PUBLIC/PRIVILEGED/INTERNAL context or its PRIVATE/FOREIGN/EXTERNAL context. The following subsections provide tables summarizing the symbology for the term used on this site.

7.1. Components of the term “foreign person”

#	“Foreign” context	“Person” context	Constitutional protections?	Satisfies Presence Test I.R.C. 7701(b) (1)(A)?	Defined/ described In	Notes
1	ForeignS	PersonPRI	Yes	Yes	Bill of Rights	Aliens or American nationals in the country residing/domiciled on land protected by the Constitution in a state of the Union
2	ForeignP	PersonPUB	No	Yes	26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)	Aliens domiciled/residing within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and not protected by the Constitution
3	ForeignP	PersonPUB	No	No	26 C.F.R. §1.1441(c)(2) 26 C.F.R. §1.1441(c)(3)	Aliens abroad doing business in the COUNTRY
4	ForeignS	PersonPRI	Yes	Yes	Bill of Rights	Aliens residing abroad but visiting a state of the Union

NOTES:

1. I-9 Form pertains ONLY to privileged aliens, and never “nationals of the United States^P“. See:
   1.1. 8 U.S.C. §1324a (a)(1), (a)(4), (a)(7)
   1.2. 8 C.F.R. §274a.12 and 20 C.F.R. §422.105, §404.418(a)
   1.3. I-9 Form Amended, form #06.028
   https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/i-9Amended.pdf
2. Those who are born or naturalized anywhere in the country are “nationals of the United States^P“. This is a POLITICAL and PRIVATE status, not a CIVIL status. You CANNOT be a “national” and an “alien” at the same time in any act of Congress. It’s ONE or the OTHER.
3. For the definitions of “foreign person”, see:
   DEFINITIONS: “Foreign Person”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/definitions-foreign-person/
4. Those protected by the Constitution in column 6 may NOT be subjected to direct taxes under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. This includes aliens residing on land protected by the Constitution under rows 1 and 4. The “Bill of Rights” attaches to human beings standing on land protected by the Constitution, not to the status of the people ON that land. Even aliens present on said land enjoy constitutional protections because the Bill of Rights attaches to PRIVATE Persons^PRI, not to just “citizens”.
5. For articles dealing with the subject on this website:
   5.1. Microsoft Copilot: How does an “national of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22) become a “foreign person”?, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-how-does-an-national-of-the-united-states-under-8-u-s-c-1101a22-become-a-foreign-person/
   5.2. Microsoft Copilot: American nationals are not “foreign persons” for the purpose of I.R.C. Chapter 3 “foreign person” withholding in 26 U.S.C. 1441 and 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-american-nationals-are-not-foreign-persons-for-the-purpose-of-i-r-c-chapter-3-foreign-person-withholding-in-26-u-s-c-1441-and-26-c-f-r-1-1441-1/
   5.3. META AI: Is a “NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES” A “FOREIGN PERSON” under 26 U.S.C. 1441?, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/meta-ai-is-a-national-of-the-united-states-a-foreign-person/
   5.4. Lawfully Avoiding Foreign Person Withholding, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/lawfully-avoiding-foreign-person-withholding/

7.2. Types of “Foreign Persons”

#	Name	Nationality	Described but not defined in	Identifying Number	Type of “Foreign person”?	Symbol
1	Nonresident alien	American national	26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)	SSN	ForeignS PersonPRI	NRA50 NRAT&P
2	Nonresident alien	Alien	26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)	ITIN	ForeignS/P PersonPRI	NRAAlien
3	Non-Resident Alien	Alien	26 U.S.C. §874	ITIN	ForeignP PersonPUB
4	Individual	Alien ONLY	26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)	ITIN	ForeignP PersonPUB	NRAAlien
5	alien individual	Alien ONLY	26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i)	ITIN	ForeignP PersonPUB	NRAAlien
6	nonresident alien individual	Alien ONLY	26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii)	ITIN	ForeignP PersonPUB	NRAAlien
7	“nonresident alienP individualPUB“	Alien ONLY	26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b)(1)(i)	ITIN	ForeignP PersonPUB	NRAAlien
8	“nonresident alienS” + “individualPRI“	American National ONLY	26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b)(1)(i)	SSN	ForeignS PersonPRI	NRA50

NOTES:

1. Only “foreign^P persons^PUB” are subject to 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 withholding. American nationals are NOT “foreign^P persons^PUB” for the purposes of withholding, but instead are foreign^S persons^PRI as indicated above. This is because “foreign^P persons^PUB” withholding is implemented as a foreign affairs function under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution and American nationals do not come under the authority of foreign affairs within a constitutional state. See:
   1.1. META AI: Is a “NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES” A “FOREIGN PERSON” under 26 U.S.C. 1441?, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/meta-ai-is-a-national-of-the-united-states-a-foreign-person/
   1.2. Section 7 of this page.
2. U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens, IRS Publications 519, covers withholding for nonresident aliens and aliens who are ALL “aliens” and never “nationals”. NOWHERE does it mention “American nationals” or “U.S. nationals”, or “nationals of the United States” except dealing with deductions for dependents. Everything in this publication deals with the presence test under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) that only applies to “alien individuals”. Therefore, they are EXCLUDED from “foreign person” withholding under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1.
   https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519
3. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii) points back to 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) within its definition. However, 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii) only EXPRESSLY includes aliens and nowhere are “nationals” mentioned. Thus, they are purposefully excluded per the rules of statutory construction and interpretation.
4. Tax Guide for Individuals with Income from U.S. Territories, Publication 570 deals with taxation in territories
   https://www.irs.gov/publications/p570
5. Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) are issued ONLY to “aliens” and never “nationals” under the authority of 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(d). More at:
   About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012, Section 5.3.
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/AboutSSNsAndTINs.pdf
6. The Presence Test:
   6.1. Found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) and only applies to “alien individuals” and never “American nationals”.
   6.2. There is a separate “presence test” for possessions under 26 U.S.C. §937(a) and 26 C.F.R. §1.937-1 that also applies to U.S. citizens and American nationals.
   6.3. Courts try to EQUIVOCATE/DECEIVE LEGALLY present with PHYSICALLY present. An “effectively connected” election makes you LEGALLY present but not PHYSICALLY present. See 26 C.F.R. §301.7701-5 (1999) and  Walby v. United States, 957 F.3d. 1295 (2020).
   
   26 C.F.R. §301.7701-5 Domestic, foreign, resident, and nonresident persons.
   
   A domestic corporation is one organized or created in the United States, including only the States (and during the periods when not States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii), and the District of Columbia, or under the law of the United States or of any State or Territory. A foreign corporation is one which is not domestic. A domestic corporation is a resident corporation even though it does no business and owns no property in the United States. A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident foreign corporation, and a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident foreign corporation. A partnership engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident partnership, and a partnership not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident partnership. Whether a partnership is to be regarded as resident or nonresident is not determined by the nationality or residence of its members or by the place in which it was created or organized.
   [Amended by T.D. 8813, Federal Register: February 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 21), Page 4967-4975]
   [IMPORTANT NOTE!:  Whether a “person” is a “resident” or “nonresident” has NOTHING to do with the nationality or residence, but with whether it is engaged in a “trade or business”]

8. Types of Nonresident Aliens

The table below summarizes the various types of nonresident aliens and the symbology used on this site to represent them.

#	Symbology	Description	U.S. national?	Federal preemption applies?	Constitutional protections?
1	NRAA	Foreign national	N	Y	N
2	NRA50	“citizen” of one of the 50 states	Y	N	Y
3	NRAt	“citizen” of an organized territory	Y	N	Y
4	NRAp	non-“citizen” national of American Samoa (unorganized possession);	Y	N	N
5	NRAt+w	“citizen” of CNMI who has elected non-“citizen” national status (i.e., waiver of “citizen” status)	Y	N	N
6	NRAT	“citizen” of Palmyra Atoll (an unorganized incorporated Territory—Constitution applies in full)	Y	N	Y

We do think it’s important to be as accurate as possible and lead people to think critically about these statuses, what they mean, and what the exceptions are. Examples of how they could be misapplied to invite frivolous accusations:

1. “The Bill of Rights applies only in the 50 States and D.C.”. This is wrong because it also applies to the Palmyra Atoll which was part of the incorporated Territory of Hawaii, but was excepted from Hawaii when it was granted statehood.
2. “Everybody from an organized territory is a “citizen” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).” No. What about domiciliaries of the CNMI who have elected to be treated as non-citizen nationals?

The classes in the above table are each unique and different. Therefore they are treated differently. Breaking the types of NRAs down into the above categories:

1. Helps people better understand the different nuances of citizenship, nationality, and tax status.
2. Gives people a better understanding of the implications of a term that defines what something is not.
3. Provides a way to DEFLECT frivolous accusations by sophists in what Mark Twain called “the District of Criminals” that divert discussion to red herring issues.

Third rail issues about this subject the government doesn’t like to discuss and hides as much as possible include:

1. That most Americans will never be able to understand the difference between citizenship and nationality.
   1.1. They know most Americans just blindly adopt “U.S. citizen.”
   1.2. If any tax professional tells them that a U.S. national is the folks from the items 3-6 because they’re not part of the 50 States or D.C. (a dangerous partial truth for them), they’ll accept it and not look back. After all, they’re just “colonists”—not citizens.
   1.3. Nationality is political status.
   1.4. Civil status is imputed through citizenship + domicile.
2. In the case of a domestic election (citizen**+D), it’s the domicile of the franchisor that is relevant. The local status (domicile) of the citizen is no longer relevant, and he becomes a citizen**+D of the United States^G by federal preemption through the federal franchise.
3. That NRA⁵⁰
   3.1. Must make a CIVIL citizen**+D election to owe a tax if they know they are nonresident aliens by default.
   3.2. Is political citizens* who have not made a domestic election to become CIVIL citizens**+D.
   3.3. Are U.S. nationals also per 22 C.F.R. §51.1.
4. Table Items 3-6 are:
   4.1. NRAs forthrightly exposes the fact that the NRA status is not limited to foreign nationals, aka—aliens.
   4.2. U.S. nationals. They have chosen the necessary truth that exposes the scheme the least.

More like the above third rail list in:

Catalog of Elections and Entity Types in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 5: How the IRS HIDES elections so you will MISTAKENLY make them, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/catalog-of-elections-in-the-internal-revenue-code/#5._How

9. Types of CIVIL Legal Presence

Government enforcement jurisdiction requires “PRESENCE” of some kind during the assertion of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ). That presence can be GEOGRAPHICAL and Involuntary (IP, or INVOLUNTARY PROTECTION) in the case of criminal and common law or it can be LEGAL and Voluntary (VP, or VOLUNTARY PROTECTION) in the case of the CIVIL statutes. Those receiving only INVOLUNTARY Protection (IP) are FOREIGN. Those receiving VOLUNTARY Protection (IP) in addition to INVOLUNTARY Protection are DOMESTIC.

This subject is a third rail issue, because judges who are arrogant get uncomfortable when you know where there jurisdiction comes from and use that knowledge to limit their authority and power.

This site recognizes and identifies SEVEN distinct methods of creating “PRESENCE”, whether GEOGRAPHICAL or LEGAL, that give rise to enforcement jurisdiction by a specific court. Any given legal scenario can often have MORE THAN ONE type of legal “presence” as the origin of the court’s jurisdiction.

1. Presence^GC: Geographical(G) presence under ONLY the Common(C) law or criminal law but not civil statutes. Protection is INVOLUNTARY and nonconsensual because it is limited to the common law and the criminal law.
2. Presence^G: Geographical(G) presence by virtue of civil franchise participation. Protection is VOLUNTARY and consensual in the case of the CIVIL statutes.
3. Presence^D: Legal presence through civil Domicile (D). Protection is VOLUNTARY and consensual in the case of the CIVIL statutes.
4. Presence^F: Legal presence through Franchise (F) participation as a COMPONENT of domicile. Franchises area a SUBSET of civil domicile. Protection is VOLUNTARY and consensual in the case of the CIVIL statutes.
5. Presence^CC: Legal presence through the Minimum Contacts Doctrine under the Common law and Criminal law (CC). Protection is INVOLUNTARY and nonconsensual because it is limited to the common law and the criminal law.
6. Presence^CS: Legal presence through the Minimum Contacts Doctrine under Civil Statutes (CS) by virtue of a counterparty domicile. Protection is VOLUNTARY and consensual in the case of the CIVIL statutes.
7. Presence^I: Legal presence through involuntary presumption or Identity theft (I). Protection is INVOLUNTARY and those protected are legal hostages and victims.

Below is a tabular summary of the above types of legal presence, the symbology to represent each, and the authorities upon which it is based:

#	Name	Origin	Geographical or Legal/Corporate	Foreign or Domestic	Protection type	Applicable Law	Notes
1	PresenceGC	Common law or Constitutional protections attaching to LAND without consent	Geographical	ForeignS	Involuntary Protection (VP)	Common law, Bill of Rights	See: Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
2	PresenceG	Geographical area where a franchise is legislatively imposed	Geographical	DomesticS	Voluntary Protection (IP)	Franchise contract or quasi-contract	United StatesG is an example.
3	PresenceD	Civil domicile	Legal	DomesticS	Voluntary Protection (VP)	Civil statutes	See: Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
4	PresenceF	Franchise election	Legal	DomesticS	Voluntary Protection (VP)	Franchise contract or quasi-contract	See: Government Instituted Slavery using Franchises, Form #05.030
5	PresenceCC	Commercial activity under Minimum Contacts Doctrine	Legal	ForeignP, ForeignS	Involuntary Protection (IP)	Minimum Contacts Doctrine, U.C.C., Common Law, Contract governing parties	See: 1. Minimum Contacts Doctrine; 2. Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
6	PresenceCS	Commercial activity under Minimum Contacts Doctrine involving domiciled counterparty	Legal	DomesticS, ForeignP	Voluntary Protection (VP)	Minimum Contacts Doctrine, U.C.C., Civil statutes	See: 1. Minimum Contacts Doctrine; 2. Uniform Commercial Code 3. Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
7	PresenceI	Presumption or Identity Theft	Legal	ForeignS	Involuntary Protection (IP)	Presumption or Identity Theft	See: Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020

NOTES:

1. The “Protection Type” column above deals with the type of protection the party is subject to:
   1.1. IP=Involuntary protection. Consists of common law, Constitution, and criminal law.
   1.2. VP=Voluntary Protection. Adds the CIVIL statutes to Involuntary Protection.
2. Item 1 above is the Default for all Americans at birth. Franchise elections remove you from this Presence to LEGAL presence to one of the other types of Presence through the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine and the Public Rights Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, consent or election cause federal preemption to supersede common law or constitutional jurisdiction. See:
   Catalog of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrines, Litigation Tool #10.020
   https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/SCDoctrines.pdf
3. Item 1 deals with the de jure government of the United States in its LEGISLATIVELY foreign relationship to Person^PRI.
4. Item 3 is the mode the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitles A and C is voluntarily exercised.
5. Items 4 and 5 above are explained in:
   Acquiring a “Civil Status”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/
6. Items 2 through 6 are the only methods available to interact with the CORPORATE “United States”. They are described in:
   Sources of Extraterritorial CIVIL Jurisdiction, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/sources-of-extraterritorial-civil-jurisdiction/
7. You should identify in every petition or response during litigation WHICH of the above types of subject jurisdiction are being asserted.
8. Government enforcement authority is further described in:
   Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook, Form #09.082
   https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf
9. For an example of how you can use AI to apply the above criteria to any specific case and have it correctly describe the attributes of the case, see:
   Microsoft Copilot: Comparison of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916) with Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924), FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-comparison-of-brushaber-v-union-pacific-railroad-240-u-s-1-1916-with-cook-v-tait-265-u-s-47-1924/

10. Emphasizing information

We add emphasis by using intensity of emphasis: italic, underline, bold, and bold underlined to add “nuance or intonation” to the text. The following is the hierarchy of emphasis used on this site:

1. Italic is the least “loud”.
2. Underline.
3. Bold.
4. Bold underline
5. CAPITAL LETTER.
6. BOLD CAPITAL.
7. BOLD CAPITAL UNDERLINE.
8. Red italic: Used for words that come from quotes in some original text.
9. Red underline,
10. Red bold.
11. Everything in red.

11. Mapping of Site Terminology to Prevailing Legal Terminology

This section maps terminology found on this site to prevailing legal terminology. The purpose is to reduce or eliminate any possibility that our approach could be mischaracterized as frivolous or ambiguous. This table derives from:

Microsoft Copilot: How do you suggest improving our terminology relating to “civil status” in order to reduce the possibility of frivolous accusations?, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-how-do-you-suggest-improving-our-terminology-relating-to-civil-status-in-order-to-reduce-the-possibility-of-frivolous-accusations/

Terminology Alignment Table

Description	Original FTSIG Term / Phrase	Proper Legal‑Industry Term / Phrase
Status created by statute; participation in a regulatory program	civil status (PUB)	statutory classification or public‑law statutory capacity
Status arising from constitutional or common‑law rights	civil status (PRI)	private‑law status or constitutional status
Human being acting outside statutory programs	personPRI	natural person acting in a private capacity
Individual acting within a statutory program or holding a statutory role	personPUB	statutory person or individual acting in a public‑law capacity
Government‑created benefit or regulatory program	civil franchise	statutory benefit program or regulatory program
Entering a statutory role or triggering statutory obligations	consent to civil status	elect into a statutory classification or trigger statutory obligations
Government mislabeling someone as holding a statutory status they did not elect	identity theft (government identity theft)	statutory misclassification or erroneous statutory designation
Status determined by domicile within a civil jurisdiction	civil status based on domicile	domicile determines applicable statutory classifications
Distinction between public and private roles	public vs. private status	public‑law vs. private‑law capacity
Participation in federal civil law	civil service franchise contract	regulatory program requiring statutory participation
Person outside federal civil jurisdiction	foreign to civil law	outside the scope of the statutory scheme
Person not subject to statutory obligations	not a civil person	not within the statutory class defined by the statute
Becoming subject to public obligations	clothed with a public interest	subject to regulatory obligations under statutory law
Filing forms or accepting benefits as a trigger	civil election	statutory election or regulatory opt‑in
Government benefits or payments	paymentPUB	statutory benefit payment or public‑law payment
Private earnings not arising from statutory privilege	paymentPRI	private‑law income or common‑law earnings
Person outside federal civil jurisdiction but within constitutional protections	standing on land protected by the Constitution	acting in a private‑law capacity under constitutional protections
Civil status created by statutory participation	civil statutory status	statutory classification