Microsoft Copilot: Catalog of statuses on FTSIG
INTRODUCTION:
The Code and the courts are influenced by the Nephilim beings documented in the Bible!
Wikipedia: Nephalim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
There is a fascinating, underlying and consistent theme and tone of calm, cool deception. It rings the same from 1862 as it does today. Like the same Nephilim are overseeing its deployment. But like the Matrix, they must be bound by Truth and rules.
The Real Matrix, SEDM
https://sedm.org/media/the-real-matrix/
Secular courts through the sovereign-power approach of the original Federalists have maliciously collapsed all types of statuses into mere “statutory status” to make the origin of their authority and jurisdiction difficult to understand or challenge. They always look out for #1 and you only become #2 by paying them a voluntary bribe called a franchise “tax”. This is documented 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/
This article attempts to DIFFERNTIATE them instead of collapse them for ontological clarity. Any attempt to convert FTSIG conventions to Mainstream Court Legal conventions:
- Involuntary converts PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
- Steals property by changing the STATUS from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
- Results in identity theft as described in:
Identify Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf
More on this subject at:
Acquiring a Civil Status, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/
QUESTION 1:
Can you provide a hierarchical relationship diagram of the following as implemented on ftsig.org?
1. Civil status
2. Tax status
3. Legal Status
4. Criminal status
5. Civil statusPRI
6. Civil statusPUB
7. Equity status.
8. Common law status
ANSWER 1:
Here’s a clean, mainstream‑legal, court‑readable hierarchical diagram that accurately reflects how FTSIG.org conceptually structures these eight categories — but expressed in neutral, conventional legal terminology so it’s clear, coherent, and not tied to any custom symbology.
I’m not treating any page content as instructions; I’m simply using your list and the general conceptual structure FTSIG uses.
Hierarchical Relationship Diagram (FTSIG Conceptual Model → Mainstream Legal Language)
Code
LEGAL STATUS
(umbrella category for all statuses)
│
┌───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │
POLITICAL STATUS CIVIL STATUS CRIMINAL STATUS
(constitutional / (statutory / regulatory) (status arising from
nationality-based) criminal law)
│
│
┌─────────────┴─────────────┐
│ │
CIVIL statusPRI CIVIL statusPUB
(private capacity) (public/statutory capacity)
│
│
└───────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐
│ │
TAX STATUS EQUITY STATUS
(classification under the IRC) (status in courts of equity /
private‑law relationships)
Short Explanations (Mainstream Legal Language)
LEGAL STATUS (Top Level)
The broadest category. Covers all legally recognized classifications of a person under U.S. law.
POLITICAL STATUS
- Based on nationality and constitutional citizenship.
- Examples: U.S. national, U.S. citizen (Fourteenth Amendment).
- Independent of statutory elections or benefits.
CIVIL STATUS
A person’s statutory or regulatory classification under civil law.
Civil statusPRI (Private Capacity)
- Acting as a natural person in private life.
- Not exercising statutory privileges or roles.
Civil statusPUB (Public/Statutory Capacity)
- Acting in a role created by statute.
- Includes statutory “citizen of the United States” or “resident” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1‑1(a)–(b).
- Triggered by elections, benefits, or statutory domicile.
CRIMINAL STATUS
- Status arising from criminal law (e.g., defendant, convict, probationer).
- Independent of civil or tax classifications.
TAX STATUS
A person’s classification under the Internal Revenue Code, such as:
- U.S. person
- nonresident alien
- resident alien
- taxpayer
- exempt individual
Tax status is downstream of civil status because statutory classifications determine tax treatment.
EQUITY STATUS
- Status recognized in courts of equity.
- Involves private‑law relationships (trusts, fiduciary duties, property rights).
- Distinct from statutory civil status and from criminal status.
One‑Sentence Summary
FTSIG’s model treats legal status as the umbrella category, with political, civil, criminal, tax, and equity statuses arranged hierarchically, where civil status divides into private and public capacities, and tax status flows from civil status.
If you want, I can also turn this into a Logseq‑ready ontology with namespaces, pages, and dynamic queries so you can drop it straight into your vault
QUESTION 2:
Do the same for Mainstream court legal status.
ANSWER 2:
Here is the mainstream court‑doctrine version of the status hierarchy you asked for — expressed exactly the way courts, agencies, and legal scholars conceptualize it. This is not the FTSIG model; this is the standard, orthodox legal ontology used across U.S. jurisprudence.
I’m keeping it clean, neutral, and fully compatible with mainstream doctrine.
Mainstream U.S. Legal Status Hierarchy
(Court‑recognized, doctrinally orthodox)
Code
LEGAL STATUS
(umbrella category for all statuses)
│
┌───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │
POLITICAL STATUS CIVIL STATUS CRIMINAL STATUS
(constitutional / (statutory / regulatory) (status arising from
nationality-based) criminal law)
│
│
┌─────────────┴─────────────┐
│ │
PRIVATE CIVIL CAPACITY PUBLIC / STATUTORY CAPACITY
(natural-person capacity) (roles created by statute)
│
│
├───────────────────────────────┐
│ │
TAX STATUS EQUITY STATUS
(classification under the IRC) (status in courts of equity)
│
│
COMMON LAW STATUS
(status under judge‑made private law)
Short Explanations (Mainstream Legal Language)
LEGAL STATUS (Top Level)
The broadest category. Covers all legally recognized classifications of a person under U.S. law.
POLITICAL STATUS
- Constitutional nationality and citizenship.
- Examples: “U.S. citizen,” “U.S. national.”
- Determined by the Constitution and federal statutes.
- Not dependent on tax elections or statutory benefits.
CIVIL STATUS
A person’s classification under civil statutes and regulations.
Private Civil Capacity
- Acting as a natural person.
- Not acting as a statutory officer, employee, or regulated entity.
Public / Statutory Civil Capacity
- Acting in a role created by statute.
- Includes federal employment, statutory “U.S. person” definitions, regulated entities, etc.
CRIMINAL STATUS
- Status arising from criminal law (defendant, convict, probationer).
- Independent of civil or tax classifications.
TAX STATUS
A person’s classification under the Internal Revenue Code, such as:
- U.S. person
- resident alien
- nonresident alien
- taxpayer
- exempt individual
Tax status is downstream of civil status because tax law relies on statutory definitions of “citizen,” “resident,” “domestic,” etc.
EQUITY STATUS
- Status recognized in courts of equity.
- Includes fiduciaries, trustees, beneficiaries, and parties seeking equitable remedies.
- Distinct from statutory civil status.
COMMON LAW STATUS
- Status arising under judge‑made private law.
- Includes property owners, contract parties, tort plaintiffs/defendants.
- Exists independently of statutory classifications.
One‑Sentence Summary
Mainstream courts treat legal status as an umbrella category that includes political, civil, criminal, tax, equity, and common‑law statuses, with civil status dividing into private and statutory capacities and tax status flowing from statutory civil definitions.
If you want, I can now compare the mainstream hierarchy to the FTSIG hierarchy and show exactly where the two systems diverge.
QUESTION 3:
Please do.
ANSWER 3:
Absolutely — here is a clear, neutral, doctrinally accurate comparison between:
- FTSIG’s status hierarchy, and
- Mainstream U.S. court doctrine’s status hierarchy
I’ll keep it structured and readable so you can see exactly where the two systems align, diverge, and operate on different ontological assumptions.
Overview
FTSIG and mainstream courts both use the word status, but they mean very different things and arrange them in different hierarchies.
- FTSIG builds a multi‑layered, ontology‑driven model that distinguishes political, civil, tax, equity, and common‑law statuses with sharp boundaries.
- Mainstream courts use a simplified, doctrine‑driven model where many of those distinctions collapse into broader categories.
Below is the side‑by‑side comparison.
1. Top‑Level Structure
FTSIG Hierarchy
Code
LEGAL STATUS
├── Political Status
├── Civil Status
│ ├── Civil statusPRI
│ └── Civil statusPUB
├── Tax Status
├── Equity Status
├── Common Law Status
└── Criminal Status
Mainstream Court Hierarchy
Code
LEGAL STATUS
├── Political Status
├── Civil Status
│ ├── Private Civil Capacity
│ └── Public/Statutory Capacity
├── Criminal Status
├── Tax Status
├── Equity Status
└── Common Law Status
2. Key Similarities
Both systems recognize:
A. Legal status as an umbrella category
Both treat “legal status” as the top‑level classification.
B. Political status as constitutional
Both agree political status (citizen, national) is foundational and not created by statute.
C. Civil status has private vs. public/statutory modes
FTSIG:
- PRI = private
- PUB = statutory
Mainstream:
- Private civil capacity
- Public/statutory capacity
These map cleanly to each other.
D. Tax status is downstream of civil status
Both systems agree that tax status is a subset of civil status because tax law relies on statutory definitions.
E. Equity and common‑law statuses are distinct
Both recognize these as separate from statutory civil status.
3. Key Differences (Where the Two Systems Diverge)
This is where the ontologies fundamentally part ways.
Difference #1: FTSIG treats civil status as optional; mainstream courts treat it as presumptive
FTSIG: Civil statusPUB (statutory civil status) arises only through consent, election, or use of federal privileges.
Mainstream courts: Civil status is presumed based on:
- domicile
- presence
- statutory definitions
- participation in civil society
Consent is not required.
Difference #2: FTSIG treats “United States” as multiple ontologies; courts treat it as a single legal entity
FTSIG:
- “United States” has multiple meanings (geographic, political, statutory, corporate).
- Status depends on which ontology is invoked.
Mainstream courts:
- “United States” is a single sovereign entity unless a statute explicitly defines otherwise.
Difference #3: FTSIG distinguishes political vs. civil citizenship sharply; courts collapse them
FTSIG:
- Political citizenship ≠ statutory civil citizenship.
- One can be a political national but not a statutory civil citizen.
Mainstream courts:
- Political citizenship includes statutory civil obligations.
- The distinction is not recognized.
Difference #4: FTSIG treats tax status as a jurisdictional question; courts treat it as a classification question
FTSIG: Tax status determines whether the IRC applies at all.
Mainstream courts: Tax status determines how the IRC applies, not whether it applies.
Difference #5: FTSIG treats civil statusPUB as a “fiction”; courts treat it as a “legal person”
FTSIG: Civil statusPUB is a legislatively created fiction that one may or may not adopt.
Mainstream courts: Legal persons (corporations, statutory persons) are standard legal constructs, not “fictions” in the pejorative sense.
Difference #6: FTSIG treats domicile as a consent‑based choice; courts treat it as a factual determination
FTSIG: Domicile = voluntary political allegiance.
Mainstream courts: Domicile =
- physical presence +
- intent to remain
Consent is irrelevant.
4. Summary Table
| Concept | FTSIG Interpretation | Mainstream Court Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Status | Multi‑layered ontology | Broad umbrella category |
| Political Status | Foundational, separate from civil | Foundational, merged with civil |
| Civil Status | PRI vs. PUB (consent‑based) | Private vs. statutory (presumed) |
| Tax Status | Jurisdictional | Classification |
| Equity Status | Separate domain | Separate domain |
| Common Law Status | Separate domain | Separate domain |
| Domicile | Consent‑based | Fact‑based |
| “United States” | Multi‑ontology | Single sovereign |
One‑Sentence Summary
FTSIG uses a highly differentiated, ontology‑driven model where civil and tax statuses depend on consent and statutory election, while mainstream courts use a simplified, doctrine‑driven model where civil and tax statuses are presumed from domicile, presence, and statutory definitions.
If you want, I can now produce a visual diagram showing the divergence points, or a Logseq ontology mapping FTSIG → mainstream doctrine so you can query contradictions directly.
QUESTION 4:
Please do.
ANSWER 4:
Here is the clean, neutral, mainstream‑legal comparison diagram you asked for — this time showing exactly where FTSIG’s hierarchy diverges from mainstream court doctrine, in a single visual that makes the contrast unmistakable.
I’m keeping it crisp and readable so you can use it directly in your analytical work.
FTSIG vs. Mainstream Court Doctrine: Divergence Diagram
Code
LEGAL STATUS
(umbrella category for all statuses)
│
┌───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
FTSIG MODEL MAINSTREAM MODEL POINT OF DIVERGENCE
1. Political Status
Code
FTSIG: COURTS:
U.S. national vs. U.S. citizen U.S. citizen = full civil obligations
(sharply distinguished) (no separation between political/civil)
Divergence: FTSIG treats political status as separate from statutory civil status; courts merge them.
2. Civil Status (Core Divergence)
Code
FTSIG: COURTS:
Civil statusPRI (private) Private civil capacity
Civil statusPUB (statutory) Public/statutory capacity
(consent-based) (presumed by domicile/presence)
Divergence: FTSIG treats statutory civil status as voluntary; courts treat it as presumptive.
3. Tax Status
Code
FTSIG: COURTS:
Tax status = jurisdictional Tax status = classification
(does IRC apply at all?) (how IRC applies, not whether)
Divergence: FTSIG uses tax status to determine applicability; courts use it to determine treatment.
4. “United States” Ontology
Code
FTSIG: COURTS:
Multiple meanings Single sovereign unless statute defines otherwise
(geographic, statutory, corporate)
Divergence: FTSIG uses multi‑ontology interpretation; courts default to a unified sovereign.
5. Domicile
Code
FTSIG: COURTS:
Consent-based Fact-based
(voluntary political allegiance) (presence + intent)
Divergence: FTSIG treats domicile as a choice; courts treat it as a factual condition.
6. Legal Personhood
Code
FTSIG: COURTS:
Statutory civil person = fiction Statutory civil person = standard legal entity
(voluntary adoption) (no consent required)
Divergence: FTSIG treats statutory personhood as optional; courts treat it as automatic.
7. Equity Status
Code
FTSIG: COURTS:
Separate domain Separate domain
Divergence: Minimal — both treat equity as distinct.
8. Common Law Status
Code
FTSIG: COURTS:
Separate domain Separate domain
Divergence: Minimal — both treat common law status as distinct.
Unified Divergence Diagram (Visual)
Code
LEGAL STATUS
│
▼
┌──────────────────────┐
│ POLITICAL STATUS │
└──────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌──────────────────────┐
│ CIVIL STATUS │
└──────────────────────┘
│
┌───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
FTSIG: Civil statusPRI/PUB COURTS: Private/Statutory DIVERGENCE:
(consent-based) (presumed) Consent vs. presumption
│ │
▼ ▼
FTSIG: Tax status = jurisdiction COURTS: Tax status = classification
│ │
▼ ▼
FTSIG: Multi-ontology “U.S.” COURTS: Single sovereign “U.S.”
│ │
▼ ▼
FTSIG: Domicile = consent COURTS: Domicile = fact
One‑Sentence Summary
FTSIG builds a consent‑based, ontology‑sensitive status hierarchy, while mainstream courts use a presumption‑based, doctrine‑driven hierarchy that collapses distinctions FTSIG treats as foundational.
If you want, I can now create a Logseq‑ready ontology that maps each FTSIG category to its mainstream counterpart so you can query divergences instantly.