FAQ: What EXACTLY is the “income tax” given everything posted on this site?

By ftsig-admin | March 6, 2025

QUESTION:

Can you explain what the true meaning is of the “income tax” explained in a way that integrates everything available on this sit into a cohesive whole?

ANSWER:

1. The “United States”

The “United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) is just a geographical overlay where public property is located subject to the jurisdiction of United StatesSMJ. It’s a PROPERTY layer managed by a national franchise people join through election. Those who don’t join are foreign and private. There are three domestic contexts:

  1. United StatesP: politically domestic. Relevant in international affairs.
  2. United StatesG: constitutionally domestic locality (not a jurisdiction per se) involving federal subject matter jurisdiction and express or implied federal preemption.
  3. United StatesSMJ: Any nexus with U.S. government property.

Item 3 above is the subject of the tax under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution and NOT Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. Item 2 is the geographical extent of the tax. Brilliant equivocation. But whether it’s within or without United StatesG (#2), it’s always domestic United StatesSMJ (#3), which means it’s a domestic SMJ issue anywhere in the universe!

In the tax, they try to give the illusion that the domestic source is geographical because that’s how the unsophisticated legal mind thinks. But it’s NOT as confirmed by the definition of “domestic” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4). The source is domestic, which is government/D.C., even though the geography itself could be ERRONEOUSLY construed as a domestic, constitutional zone for federal subject matter only. So the tax LOOKS like a constitutional tax under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 but in fact it ISN’T. Its a PROPERTY TAX or RENTAL FEE on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!

But the geography serves two LEGITIMATE purposes beyond the smoke screen it does afford the scheme:

  1. It delineates the domestic geographical extent for the purposes of establishing uniformity for indirect taxation;
  2. And most importantly, in areas of federal supremacy and preemption, the states themselves, and their unique jurisdictional character, CEASE TO BE RELEVANT—thus, they are disregarded for THOSE PURPOSES.

2. The VIRTUAL United StatesG: Federal Preemption

So the “United States” that is the target of the “income tax” is geographical, but encompasses only PROPERTY of the national government within that geography. Federal preemption FACILITATES the management of that property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. From the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on “federal preemption”:

“[W]herever [preemption] exists, federal law displaces state law, thereby ‘stifling state-by-state diversity and experimentation’ . . . .”

See Charles W. Tyler & Heather K. Gerken, The Myth of the Laboratories of Democracy, 122 COLUM. L. REV. 2187, 2230 (2022)

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

The above undesired or unintended consequence of federal preemption is described as follows by the U.S. Supreme Court. This case was heard during the socialist takeover of the United States by FDR with the implementation of his U.S. Supreme Court “court packing plan” to implement Social Security. This is also the time when the U.C.C. was implemented and the government started publishing regulations and the Federal Register under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 to begin the evolution of “The Administrative State”:

And since every addition to the national legislative power to some extent detracts from or invades the power of the states, it is of vital moment that, in order to preserve the fixed balance intended by the Constitution, the powers of the general government 295*295 be not so extended as to embrace any not within the express terms of the several grants or the implications necessarily to be drawn therefrom. It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation. The question in respect of the inherent power of that government as to the external affairs of the nation and in the field of international law is a wholly different matter which it is not necessary now to consider. See, however, Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 212; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 705 et seq.; Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 396.

The determination of the Framers Convention and the ratifying conventions to preserve complete and unimpaired state self-government in all matters not committed to the general government is one of the plainest facts which emerge from the history of their deliberations. And adherence to that determination is incumbent equally upon the federal government and the states. State powers can neither be appropriated on the one hand nor abdicated on the other. As this court said in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 — “the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National Government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.” Every journey to a forbidden end begins with the first step; and the danger of such a step by the federal government in the direction of taking over the powers of the states is that the end of the journey may find the states so despoiled of their powers, or — what may amount to the same thing — so 296*296 relieved of the responsibilities which possession of the powers necessarily enjoins, as to reduce them to little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain. It is safe to say that if, when the Constitution was under consideration, it had been thought that any such danger lurked behind its plain words, it would never have been ratified.

[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6690667556596791816]

The virtual United StatesG is the applicable locality in issues that involve United StatesSMJ. StateG is in play in areas of local jurisdiction and StateSMJ.

But as soon as United StatesSMJ is at issue…THE STATE BECOMES IRRELEVANT (in that context), and the applicable locality is now United StatesG.

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

  1. Federal law – United StatesG
  2. State law – StateG

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 StatesG 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.

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

3. Origin of authority to implement the income tax: Federal property and privileges

The so-called “income tax” in its present form has NOTHING to do with Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 authority for excise taxes or even the Sixteenth Amendment.

https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/ExciseTax.htm

It’s called “income tax” only because in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), the U.S. Supreme court held that privileges/franchises are implemented with excise taxes and the franchise fee is MEASURED by income from the voluntary activity.

“Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges…the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152]   privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking…

…It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable…

Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of private corporations.. the tax must be measured by some standard…”

[Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17853944152368373401]

The above case talks about taxation of PHYSICAL commodities, but not “CIVIL SERVICES” as we call them, such as Social Insurance services offered by the Social Security Administration. This seems to be why Black’s Law Dictionary says the income tax is NOT an “excise tax“:

“Excise tax.  A tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege.  Rapa v. Haines, Ohio Comm.Pl., 101 N.E.2d 733, 735.  A tax on the manufacture, sale, or use of goods or on the carrying on of an occupation or activity or tax on the transfer of property.  In current usage the term has been extended to include various license fees and practically every internal revenue tax except income tax (e.g., federal alcohol and tobacco excise taxes, I.R.C. §5011 et seq.)”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 563]

So technically the income tax is not an excise tax from a historical viewpoint because its not an excise tax on physical commodities. Nor is it a tax on private parties or even corporate privileges, but upon those who CONSENT to JOIN the government as a franchisee, agent, and officer and for whom “benefits and entitlements” become part of their “compensation for services”:

“Is it a franchise? A franchise is said to be a right reserved to the people by the constitution, as the elective franchise. Again, it is said to be a privilege conferred by grant from government, and vested in one or more individuals, as a public office. Corporations, or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known to our laws.”
[People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859)]

Consistent with the idea above that franchisees are OFFICES within the government, the bureau that collects them is called the INTERNAL Revenue Service and the franchise agreement is the INTERNAL Revenue Code. Recall that:

  1. Social Security is only available to people working WITHIN the national government. They can’t pay it to PRIVATE people in the states. Those who participate are called “federal personnel” in 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(13).
  2. To participate, you must fill out a W-4 and CONSENT to call your earnings “wages” and a “federal payment” under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p) and thereby ELECT to also be treated as a statutory “employee”.
  3. The Social Security Number is identified as being available only to government “employees” in 20 C.F.R. §422.103. Title 20 says “employees”.
  4. The income tax piggybacks on Social Security. The main function of Social Security is to produce more “taxpayers” for the income tax. That’s what the original Social Security Act identified as its purpose.

4. What the income tax REALLY PAYS FOR: CIVIL SERVICES

The franchise pays for privileges you ASK for, in this case “social insurance services” or “civil services“, and if you don’t ask for any privileges or benefits and reject them, you don’t pay anything. Otherwise, the government would be “unjustly enriched”. See:

How to Reject All Privileges in a Tax Return Filing, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-reject-all-privileges-in-a-tax-return-filing/

SOME but not ALL of the “benefits” appear in the franchise contract that is Title 26, such as:

  1. 2020 Recovery Rebates under 26 U.S.C. §6428(d)(1).
  2. Additional 2020 Recovery Rebates under 26 U.S.C. §6428A(d)(1).
  3. 2021 Recover Rebates under 26 U.S.C. §6428B(c)(1).
  4. Affordable Care Act (ACA) participation and mandates in 26 U.S.C. §5000A. See:
    Questions and answers on the individual shared responsibility provision, Question 7, IRS
    https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/individuals-and-families/questions-and-answers-on-the-individual-shared-responsibility-provision

HOWEVER, most of the “benefits” of the franchise are described in OTHER titles of the U.S. Code. This makes it more difficult to recognize the income tax as the franchise that it is.

The constitution doesn’t expressly authorize the national government to invade the states in violation of Article 4, Section 4 by setting up “private social insurance” business or a “private civil services business” that it has a monopoly on. The U.S. Supreme court, in fact, admitted that such activities were “extraconstitutional” when it stated the following in reference to Social Security:

“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments… This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.”
[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)]

Anything that is “free of all constitutional restraint” is therefore NOT governmental in nature, but private business activity. The very EXISTENCE of de jure government PRESUPPOSES that it exercises NO AUTHORITY not directly identified and delegated by the Constitution. Language similar to this by no less than Justice Harlan of the Supreme Court is also found in the case of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), so we certainly aren’t the only ones with this view.

To then try to protect this PRIVATE “social insurance” business AS IF it were a government monopoly protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity would be an abuse of judicial discretion and turn a government into a mafia and the courtroom into a beachhead for an invasion of the states. Sovereign immunity, after all, is itself not found in the Constitution and is a judicially created doctrine. Can you say “legislating from the bench”? Here’s the proof:

Najim v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d. 935 (2019)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2073950510665962726

The fact that “Federal preemption” and contract law are used to implement this non-geographical national franchise is proof of the existence of such a commercial invasion of the states, because the Constitution does not expressly authorize subject matter jurisdiction in Article 1, Section 8 to offer “benefits”, “entitlements”, “privileges”, “social insurance”, or “civil services” within the borders of the constitutional states. This also violates 4 U.S.C. §72, which requires all public offices to be exercised ONLY within the District of Columbia and not elsewhere. Worst yet, the national government EXEMPTS itself from the Sherman Antitrust Act provisions punishing and preventing such a monopoly. Technically the judiciary implements that government exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act because statutes can’t without exceeding powers expressly delegated by the Constitution. See:

The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040
https://sedm.org/product/the-government-benefits-scam-form-05-040/

This website shall not go into how to PROSECUTE the indiscretions above. Our website focuses exclusively on SELF-DEFENSE, not OFFENSE. By stating these things, we do want to remind you, however, that we live in a fallen world with greedy, covetous people. It’s morally dishonest and violates the Bible profoundly….but technically legal. Jesus will judge it righteously eventually. The government presently has a monopoly on prosecuting crime so there isn’t much you can do about it short of simply filing a complaint with the prosecutor. If prosecuting the crime that expands the tax to excluded subjects reduces his pay, as it would with crimes related to taxation, then he probably won’t do it anyway. That’s the problem with the Third Rail Issues discussed on this site, which focuses exclusively on such issues.

But until Jesus comes back, we feel a strong biblical duty to demonstrate how this works and teach people to be men and warriors in preserving their own autonomy and self-ownership. Claiming unconstitutional, criminal, identity theft, etc., is going to end up being a MASSIVE LOSS in the end and not “lift all boats” to a higher level with a rising tide as we intend.

In our mind, it would be enough to leave this world smiling to see everyone filing as a nonresident alien. That causes such a shit storm everywhere and takes all the wind out of the sails of the corruption that is eating our present government like a cancer. The corruption of the system is founded on the love of money (1 Tim. 6:10), and when you take away the money, you take away the corruption. You don’t need to kill the beast by prosecuting it. Starving the beast of its food is sufficient.

5. Extraterritorial application of the income tax

The national government sidesteps the geographical limitations of its territorial exclusive jurisdiction by implementing the franchise as a contract. The U.S. Supreme Court calls this a “quasi-contract” in Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935). It is a maxim of law that debt and contract are of “no particular place”:

Debitum et contractus non sunt nullius loci.
Debt and contract are of no particular place.

[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; https://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

Thus, debt and contract are enforceable outside the territorial jurisdiction of the place the party is domiciled and the franchise enforcement is “non-geographical”. Since the rights conveyed by the franchise are PUBLIC property, then legislative reach is extraterritorial under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the constitution.

The government also extends the franchise enforcement extraterritorially by making all those who participate effectively into “nonresident agents” for an office with a foreign domicile in the District of Columbia. Technically, however:

  1. The “profit-making” physical ACTIONS of the officer are exercised OUTSIDE of the District of Columbia and
  2. The national government controls the officer through federal preemption and by controlling the FRUITS or property associated with the office through administrative process. See:
    Administrative State: Tactics and Defenses Course, Form #12.041
    https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AdminState.pdf

Item 2 above is explained in Pennoyer v. Neff:

Thus the State, through its tribunals, may compel persons domiciled within its limits to execute, in pursuance of their contracts respecting property elsewhere situated, instruments in such form and with such solemnities as to transfer the title, so far as such formalities can be complied with; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no manner interferes with the supreme control over the property by the State within which it is situated. Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. 444; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25; Corbett v. Nutt, 10 Wall. 464.

[Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13333263776496540273]

6. Its Disguised to LOOK like a lawful and Constitutional income tax

The income tax “trade or business” franchise is administered consistent with the organic law, but the “CIVIL SERVICES” it pays for are not expressly authorized by that law. Those services include such things as socialist security and the entire output of “The Administrative States“. The Administrative state is designed ONLY to manage government property. This is evident by reading 5 U.S.C. §301, which says that heads of each department are ONLY authorized to manage personnel within the department and property OWNED by the department. The authority to manage such property therefore would NOT include PRIVATE property, by the way.

However, even the offering of these services is deceptive and unjust:

  1. The definition surrounding the delivery of these services are deceptively and nebulously called a “trade or business”. See:
    The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
  2. The offering of these “CIVIL SERVICES” as we call them is not expressly authorized by the constitution and therefore constitutes a commercial INVASION of the states in violation of Article 4, Section 4.
  3. Those signing up for the services are never informed that they have a choice and must consent. They falsely believe that paying for these “CIVIL SERVICES” is mandatory.

The feds know all the above, which is why they never expressly include constitutional states in any of the statutory definitions that are part of the franchise. See:

  1. Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
  2. Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407
    http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm

However, it is unwise for volunteer government franchisees, by consent or otherwise, to willingly break down the separation of powers at the heart of the constitution by consent or otherwise.

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf

Certainly, the commercial concerns that result from the implementation of franchise creates a financial conflict of interest in voters, jurists, judges, and government employees in implementing and obeying the dictates of the constitution. After all: Would you as a nonresident alien who is a non-person want to sit as defendant in a criminal tax trial where the entire jury consists of government benefit recipients who DEPEND on the taxes you pay to REDUCE their tax bill or INCREASE their benefits? If they vote against convicting you, they would reduce those benefits and increase their tax bill. This is why it is also unwise to make judges into “taxpayers” presiding over tax disputes. It’s also a crime to threaten, coerce, or create a financial conflict of interest on the part of any jurist, judge, witness, or government employee and for good reason. See 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, 28 U.S.C. §455. Franchises unavoidably CREATE such financial conflicts of interest. This is why God says the following about how the system gets corrupted:

23 Your princes [politicians] are rebellious,
And companions of thieves;
Everyone loves bribes [BENEFITS and entitlements],
And follows after rewards.
They do not defend the fatherless [or the “nontaxpayer”],
Nor does the cause of the widow come before them.

[Isaiah 1:23, Bible, NKJV]

And any judge who recognizes, facilitates, or protects any “election” by you or anyone else that might be employed to break down the separation of powers has a criminal financial conflict of interest, in fact. See the below for proof:

Microsoft Copilot: Is there a limit on what people can consent to if it destroys the separation of powers?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/microsoft-copilot-is-there-a-limit-on-what-people-can-consent-to-if-it-destroys-the-separation-of-powers/

So the “income” subject to tax is government revenue, and you have to voluntarily join the government to owe the tax. This is why the tax code is called the “INTERNAL Revenue Code” and the agency that collects the tax is the “INTERNAL Revenue Service”. By “INTERNAL” they do not mean INTERNAL to the constitutional geographical United StatesG, but rather the United StatesSMJ, which is synonymous with the national government itself. Brilliant equivocation, friends!

For example: Frank Brushaber in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad was receiving revenue from a government corporate instrumentality, a federal corporation chartered in a territory when it was formed. And he himself also FILED as a government instrumentality by filing a DOMESTIC rather than FOREIGN return.

But even if the Union Pacific Railroad was incorporated in any state of the Union, it would still be a United States corporation because it was organized by Congress—both a state and the United States under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4). Complete federal pre-emption.

7. Deception of the public to implement

To the legally ignorant, the income tax SEEMS to function like a constitutional national income tax consistent with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. But in fact, it is an imposter that is really just a donation program for the District of Columbia funded by legally ignorant but generous volunteers like you! In that sense the tax system is:

  1. Designed by geniuses. . .BUT
  2. Run by idiots. Or more particularly “useful idiots”.

DON’T be one of the “useful idiots” described above, folks! We’re here to educate you how NOT to be that “useful idiot”. That term was coined in the communist Soviet Union before its fall to describe ignorant people who blindly do what they are told because they don’t know better. The reason they don’t know better is because of their own apathy or because the government maliciously filters what they are allowed to know in their legal and tax publications.

Communism is based on the combination of socialism and propaganda:

  1. Socialism is defined as state ownership or control (usufruct) over all property.
  2. Propaganda is implemented by a combination of:
    2.1. Censorship of the information found on this site. We call the censored information “Third Rail Issues”.
    2.2. Equivocation of terms like “United States”, “State”, “Employee”, etc.
    2.3. Expansion of definitions through the abuse of the terms “includes” in violation of due process.
    2.4. Presumption that serves as a substitute for religious faith in a “superior being”/pagan deity called “government”.

The main difference between Soviet communism and American communism is that item 2 above is limited mainly to the legal field and is implemented by oligarchs called “judges” who are the organizers of such treasonous activities. The judges and corrupted legal profession have become a priesthood of sorts as described in the following video:

Devils Advocate: Lawyers, SEDM
https://sedm.org/what-we-are-up-against/

8. Corruption that the income tax causes that must and will end

God predicted this corruption in the Bible, when He said:

The Degenerate City

21 How the faithful city has become a harlot![Babylon the Great Harlot!]
It was full of justice;
Righteousness lodged in it,
But now murderers.
22 Your silver has become dross,
Your wine mixed with water.
2

24 Therefore the Lord says,
The Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel,
“Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries,
And take vengeance on My enemies.
25 I will turn My hand against you,
And thoroughly purge away your dross,
And take away all your alloy.
26 I will restore your judges as at the first,
And your counselors as at the beginning.
Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.”

[Isaiah 1:21-26, Bible, NKJV]

Notice that God identifies JUDGES and ATTORNEYS (counselors) as the origin of the corruption! And WHAT exactly is that corruption? Its all documented here:

Government Corruption, Form #11.401
https://sedm.org/home/government-corruption/

9. The only thing that United States law does is “create or organize” INJUSTICE, INEQUALITY, THEFT, SUBVERSION of the Constitution, and Mutiny against God

The foundation of the Constitution is equality of treatment under REAL law. By REAL law, we mean the common law and equity, not civil statutes that are all franchises. Below is a detailed explanation of the requirement for equality of TREATMENT rather than equality of RESULT.

Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf

Income tax, however, is a franchise or privilege ENGINEERED to ensure INEQUALITY of treatment. The franchisor holds all the gold and makes all the rules. It’s the GOLDEN RULE: He who has the gold makes all the rules. The only thing the franchisee can do is follow orders or be destroyed or starve to death. Franchises therefore DESTROY equality of treatment. Do you detect some DISSONANCE here? Welcome to the matrix, Neo.

Those who pursue a “domestic” status, on the other hand, seek to:

  1. Reject God by nominating a NEW “Creator”, the government.
  2. Reject God’s laws in favor of Caesar’s laws to “organize” their life.
  3. Thereby be “governed” by a man instead of God in an act of idolatry.

The above are evident by reading the definition of “domestic” in the I.R.C.:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(4)Domestic

The term “domestic” when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State unless, in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides otherwise by regulations.

You might think that the above only pertains to corporations and partnerships, but IN FACT, these are the ONLY lawful “persons” who can be the target of enforcement actions in the Internal Revenue Code, at 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and §7343. Thus, it is EVERYONE who chooses a “domestic” status.

To “elect”, meaning CONSENT to, a domestic status therefore implies:

  1. Consent to become the only lawful target of IRS enforcement under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and §7343.
  2. Consent to donate all your property to the government and thus convert it from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
  3. Firing God as your “lawgiver” and replacing him with Caesar. See Isaiah 33:22.
  4. Consent to be a “domesticated” animal on the government plantation. See:
    How to Leave the Government Farm, Form #12.020
    https://sedm.org/how-to-leave-the-government-farm-form-12-020/
  5. Consent to ANARCHY and injustice, because the government is almost entirely unaccountable and lawless. By working for them, you promote FURTHER lawlessness. See:
    Your Irresponsible, Lawless, Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf

Anyone who would do any or all of the above is a threat to their own well-being, a BAD “voter” and “jurist”, and brings a curse upon not only themselves, but the society they live in according to God:

Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]

“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES].  He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.  And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.

“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything,  therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you.  The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand,  a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system].  And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]

What God is describing is the scenario where government has REPLACED God as the owner and creator of everything who then simply “lends” or “grants” what it owns to others and places ANY condition on the grant that they want. In short: SOCIALISM. That’s what franchises implement and enforce: SOCIALISM.

The use of the word “eagle” in the above scripture is telling. Here is an admission by a judge that HE and the government he works for is the “eagle” mentioned in the above:

Clearly, this is not a case where a state reaches beyond its borders and fastens its tax talons upon an event having no factual connection with transactions within its borders whereby it is unable to confer anything in return for the exaction. Here instead the taxpayer is present through its extensive localized activities and enjoys, in return for any taxes exacted, the opportunities, protection, and benefits of a modern community serviced by a state government which maintains courts, police, roads, and other services of distinct advantage to the building and maintenance of the taxpayer’s tremendous sales volume (48 percent of its total sales volume) through business outlets within the state. It is not amiss to observe that the taxpayer, or its immediate predecessor under a prior incorporation, has already had occasion to seek the benefit and protection of our courts.

[State v. Northwestern States Portland Cement Co., 250 Minn. 32 (1957);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9259450114651710414]

The phrase “tax talons” is an analogy to an EAGLE swooping down and grabbing its prey.

talon

noun

tal·​on ˈta-lən 

1a

: the claw of an animal and especially of a bird of prey

[Merriam Webster Dictionary; SOURCE: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talon]

The implication is that if you ask the government for ANYTHING, they can swoop down from the sky like an Eagle and lawfully take WHATEVEVER THEY WANT regardless of your consent! What private business has UNLIMITED authority to charge WHATEVER they want for their product or service and take it from you without your permission or even having to go to court to force you to surrender it? NONE! That’s definitely NOT a society based on equality between the governed and the governors.

And WHAT behavior on your part facilitates this usurpation, you might ask?

  1. YOUR CONSENT to become “domestic” OR
  2. Being irresponsible to the point asking the government for ANYTHING and signing up for a franchise to GET that thing.

More on the above curse at:

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Government, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

Posted in FAQs