Therefore, establishing a “domicile” or “residence” also establishes a “tax home” as well.  There are several problems with the above worldly approach that conflict with Christianity:

1.        Luke 16:13 above implies that those who demonstrate allegiance become “servants” of those they demonstrate “allegiance” towards.   There is a maxim of law to describe this fraud:

“Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio projectionem.
Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection. Co. Litt. 65.”

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

2.        God said we can serve only Him, and therefore we cannot have “allegiance” to anything but Him.

“Away with you , Satan!  For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him ONLY [NOT the government or its vain laws!] you shall serve.’”

[Matt. 4:10, Bible, NKJV]

3.        Serving anyone but God amounts to idolatry in violation of the first four commandments found in the Ten Commandments.  Idolatry is the worst of all sins documented in the Bible.  In the Old Testament book of Ezekial, God killed people and destroyed whole cities whose inhabitants committed idolatry.

4.        The government cannot compel us to consent to anything or to demonstrate “allegiance” toward it.  Allegiance must always be completely voluntary.

Therefore, Christians cannot be expected or required to either accept, consent to, or pay for protection that God says comes ONLY from Him.  They cannot allow government to assume an authority equal or superior to God in their lives, including in the area of protection.  The only purpose for government is “protection”.  Any government form that asks us what our “domicile” is indirectly is asking us to whom we have exclusive “allegiance”.  Any government that passes a law compelling “allegiance” or requiring us to consent to laws or a government or protection that we don’t want is:

1.        Implementing slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, 18 U.S.C. §1581, 18 U.S.C. §1583, and 42 U.S.C. §1994.

2.        Making themselves into an organized crime syndicate that earns its revenues from “protection”.  This is called a “protection racket” and it is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. §1951.

3.    Violating the antitrust laws at 15 U.S.C. §2 , by making themselves into a monopoly that is the only source of “protection”.

The Bible describes such an organized crime syndicate as “the Beast”, which Rev. 19:19  defines as “the kings of the earth”.  In modern times, this would be our political rulers.

8.  Affect of domicile on citizenship and synonyms for domicile

Now lets summarize what we have just learned so far to show graphically the affect that one’s choice of domicile has on their citizenship status.  Below are some authorities upon which we will base our summary and analysis.

“Domicile and citizen are synonymous in federal courts, Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., D.C. Pa., 55 F.Supp. 981, 982; inhabitant, resident and citizen are synonymous, Standard Stoker Co. v. Lower, D.C.Md., 46 F.2d 678, 683.”
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 311]

________________________________________________________________________________

"The term ‘citizen‘, as used in the Judiciary Act with reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, is substantially synonymous with the term ‘domicile‘. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Petrowsky, 2 Cir., 250 F. 554, 557."
[Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., 55 F.Supp. 981, D.C.PA. (1944)]

________________________________________________________________________________

The terms "citizen" and "citizenship" are distinguishable from "resident" or "inhabitant." Jeffcott v. Donovan, C.C.A.Ariz., 135 F.2d 213, 214; and from "domicile," Wheeler v. Burgess, 263 Ky. 693, 93 S.W.2d 351, 354; First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia v. New York Title & Mortgage Co., D.C.S.C., 59 F.2d 35j0, 351. The words "citizen" and citizenship," however, usually include the idea of domicile, Delaware, L.&W.R.Co. v. Petrowsky, C.C.A.N.Y., 250 F. 554, 557; citizen inhabitant and resident often synonymous, Jonesboro Trust Co. v. Nutt, 118 Ark. 368, 176 S.W. 322, 324; Edgewater Realty Co. v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., D.C.Md., 49 F.Supp. 807, 809; and citizenship and domicile are often synonymous.  Messick v. Southern Pa. Bus Co., D.C.Pa., 59 F.Supp. 799, 800.
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 310]

We will now present a table based on the above consistent with the entire content of the document which you can use for all future reference.  The term “Domestic National” in the table below refers to a person born in any state of the Union, or in a territory or possession of the United States:

Table  5-25: Affect of domicile on citizenship status

NOTES:

1.        American citizens who are domiciled outside of federal jurisdiction, either in a state of the Union or a foreign country, are “nationals” but not “citizens” under federal law.  They also qualify as "nonresident aliens" under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B).  See sections 4.11.2 of the Great IRS Hoax for details.

2.        Temporary domicile in the middle column on the right must meet the requirements of the “Presence test” documented in IRS publications.

3.    "FEDERAL ZONE"=District of Columbia and the territories of the United States in the above table.

4.     The term “individual” as used on the IRS form 1040 means an “alien” engaged in a “trade or business”.  All “taxpayers” are “aliens” engaged in a “trade or business”.  This is confirmed by 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3), 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii), and 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2).  Statutory “U.S. citizens” as defined in  8 U.S.C. §1401 are not “individuals” unless temporarily abroad pursuant to  26 U.S.C. §911 and subject to an income tax treaty with a foreign country.  In that capacity, statutory “U.S. citizens”  interface to the I.R.C. as “aliens” rather than “U.S. citizens” through the tax treaty.

Based on the above table, we can see that when a person within any government identifies you as a “citizen”, they presuppose that you maintain a “domicile” within their jurisdiction.  The same thing goes for the term “inhabitant”, which also describes a person with a domicile within the jurisdiction of the local government where he lives.  Note the use of the phrase “reside actually and permanently in a given place and has a domicile there” in the definition of inhabitant:

“Inhabitant.  One who reside actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there.  Ex parte Shaw, 145 U.S. 444, 12 S.Ct. 935, 36 L.Ed. 786.

The words "inhabitant," "citizen," and "resident," as employed in different constitutions to define the qualifications of electors, means substantially the same thing; and, in general, one is an inhabitant, resident, or citizen at the place where he has his domicile or home.  But the terms "resident" and "inhabitant" have also been held not synonymous, the latter implying a more fixed and permanent abode than the former, and importing privileges and duties to which a mere resident would not be subject.  A corporation can be an inhabitant only in the state of its incorporation.  Sperry Products v. Association of American Railroads, C.C.A.N.Y., 132 F.2d 408, 411.  See also Domicile; Residence.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 782]

The legal dictionary is careful to disguise the requirement for “domicile” in their definition of “resident”.  To admit that domicile was a prerequisite for being a “resident”, they would open the door for a mass exodus of the tax system by most people, so they beat around the bush.  For instance, here is the definition of “resident” from Black’s Law Dictionary:

Resident. “Any person who occupies a dwelling within the State, has a present intent to remain within the State for a period of time, and manifests the genuineness of that intent by establishing an ongoing physical presence within the State together with indicia that his presence within the State is something other than merely transitory in nature. The word “resident” when used as a noun means a dweller, habitant or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less, duration; it signifies one having a residence, or one who resides or abides.

[Hanson v. P.A. Peterson Home Ass’n, 35 Ill.App2d 134, 182 N.E.2d 237, 240] [Underlines added]

Word “resident” has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used. [Kelm v. Carlson, C.A.Ohio, 473, F2d 1267, 1271]
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1309]

The Law of Nations, which is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution and was used by the Founding Fathers to write the Constitution, is much more clear in its definition of “resident”, and does essentially admit a requirement for “domicile” in order for an “alien” to be classified as a “resident”:

“Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country.  Being bound to the society by reason of their [intention of] dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizenship.  They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them.  Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence.  They are a sort of citizen of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages.  Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.” 

[The Law of Nations, p. 87, E. De Vattel, Volume Three, 1758, Carnegie Institution of Washington; emphasis added.]

You can read the above yourself at:

Since the only definition of "resident" found anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code or the Treasury Regulations is that of a "resident alien", found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A), then we:

1. Are not "residents" because we are not "aliens" and do not have a "domicile" in the District of Columbia.  Therefore, we do not have a "residence".

2. Do not have a "residence", because only "aliens" can have a "residence" under 26 CFR §1.871-2(a).

3. Are "nonresident aliens" under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)

4. Are "nationals" but not "citizens" under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and/or 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B).

5. Are "transient foreigners":

"Transient foreigner.  One who visits the country, without the intention of remaining." 
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,, p. 1498]

If you want to read more about this “resident” scam, consult section 4.10 of our free Great IRS Hoax book.

9.  It is idolatry for a Christian to have a domicile within any man-made government or within anything other than God's Kingdom

Note also the use of the word “permanent home” in the definition of “domicile”.  According to the Bible, "earth" is NOT permanent, but instead is only temporary, and will eventually be destroyed and rebuilt as a new and different earth:

“But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.“

[2 Peter 3:7, Bible NKJV]

The legal definition of "permanent" also demonstrates that it can mean any length of time one wants it to mean:

8 U.S.C. §1101

(a)(31) The term ''permanent'' means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary, but a relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance either of the United States or of the individual, in accordance with law.

We believe what they are really describing above is the equivalent of a “protection contract” between you and the government, because the way it functions is that it is terminated when either you or the government insist, which means that while it is in force, your consent is inferred and legally “presumed”.  Below is how another author describes it, and note that the real meaning of “indefinitely” is “as long as he consents to a protector”:

“One resides in one’s domicile indefinitely, that is, with no definite end planned for the stay.  While we hear ‘permanently’ mentioned, the better word is ‘indefinitely’.  This is best seen in the context of a change of domicile.”

[Conflicts in a Nutshell by David D. Siegel and Patrick J. Borchers, ISBN 0-314-160669-3, 3^rd Edition, West Group, p. 16]

Christians define "permanent" the same way God does.  God is eternal so His concept of "permanent" means "eternal".  Therefore, no place on earth can be "permanent" in the context of a Christian:

"Do not love [be a permanent inhabitant or resident of] the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away [not permanent], and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever."

[1 John 2:15, Bible, NKJV]

Christians are only allowed to be governed by God and His laws found in the Bible.  Man’s laws are simply a vain substitute, but God’s laws are our only true and permanent source of protection, and the only type of protection we can consent to or intend to be subject to without violating our covenant and contract with God found in the Holy Bible.

“Away with you , Satan!  For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him ONLY [NOT the government or man’s vain laws or an atheistic democratic socialist “state”] you shall serve.’”
[Matt. 4:10, Bible, NKJV]

The main allegiance of Christians is exclusively to Him, and not to any man or earthly law or government.  We are citizens of Heaven, and not earth. The most we can be while on earth is "nationals", because "nationals" are not subject to man's laws and only "citizens" are.  See:

Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth can be our only “legal home” or “domicile” or “residence”.

"For our citizenship is [not WAS or WILL BE, but PRESENTLY IS] in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" 

 [Philippians 3:20, Bible, NKJV]

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."

[Hebrews 11:13, Bible, NKJV]

"Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims [temporarily occupying the world], abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul..."  

[1 Peter 2:1, Bible, NKJV]

"Do you not know that friendship [and citizenship] with the world is enmity with God?  Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [or "resident"] of the world makes himself an enemy of God. "  

[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. "

[Romans 12:2, Bible, NKJV]

The above scriptures say we are "sojourners and pilgrims", meaning we are perpetual travelers while temporarily here as God's ambassadors.  Legal treatises on domicile also confirm that while a person is "in transitu", meaning travelling and sojourning temporarily, he cannot choose a domicile and that his domicile reverts to his "domicile of origin".  The domicile of origin is the place you were created and existed before you came to Earth, which is Heaven:

§ 114. Id. Domicil of Origin adheres until another Domicil is acquired. - But whether the doctrine of Udny v. Udny be or be not accepted, the law, as held in Great Britain and America, is beyond all doubt clear that domicil of origin clings and adheres to the subject of it until another domicil is acquired. This is a logical deduction from the postulate that" every person must have a domicil somewhere." For as a new domicil cannot be acquired except by actual residence cum animo manendi, it follows that the domicil of origin adheres while the subject of it is in transitu, or, if he has not yet determined upon a new place of abode, while he is in search of one,--"quarens quo se conferat atque ubi constituat." Although this is a departure from the Roman law doctrine, yet it is held with entire unanimity by the British and American cases. It was first announced, though somewhat confusedly, by Lord Alvanley in Somerville v. Somerville:  "The third rule I shall extract is that the original domicil . . . or the domicil of origin is to prevail until the party has not only acquired another, but has manifested and carried into execution an intention of abandoning his former domicil and taking another as his sole domicil." The same idea has been expressed by Lord Wensleydale in somewhat different phrase in Aikman v. Aikman : "Every man's domicil of origin must be presumed to continue until he has acquired another sole domicil by actual residence with the intention of abandoning his domicil of origin. This change must be animo et facto, and the burden of proof unquestionably lies upon him who asserts the change." Lord Cranworth observed in the same case: "It is a clear principle of law that the domicil of origin continues until another is acquired; i.e., until the person has made a new home for himself in lieu of the home of his birth."  In America similar language has been used."
[Treatise on the Law of Domicil; M.W.Jacobs, 1887, pp. 174-175; Little, Brown, and Company;
SOURCE:  http://books.google.com/books?id=MFQvAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage]

To “consent” or “choose” to be governed by anything but God and His sacred Law is idolatry in violation of the first four Commandments of the Ten Commandments.  

“It is better to trust the Lord
Than to put confidence in man.
It is better to trust in the Lord
Than to put confidence in princes [or government, or the ‘state’].”

[Psalms 118:8-9, Bible, NKJV]

If you can’t put confidence in “princes”, which we interpret to mean political rulers or governments, then we certainly can’t have allegiance to them or put that allegiance above our allegiance to God.  We can therefore have no "legal home" or "domicile" or “residence” anywhere other than exclusively within the Kingdom of Heaven and not within the jurisdiction of any corrupted earthly government.  Our only law is God's law and Common law, which is based on God's law.  Below is an example of how the early Jews adopted this very attitude towards government from the Bible.

"Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people [the Jews, who today are the equivalent of Christians] scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from all other people’s [because they are God's laws!], and they do not keep the king’s [unjust] laws.  Therefore it is not fitting for the king to let them remain.  If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who do the work, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.”

[Esther 3:8-9, Bible, NKJV]

“Those people who are not governed [ONLY] by GOD and His laws will be ruled by tyrants.” 

[William Penn (after which Pennsylvania was named)]

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature [God and His laws], and not as the gift of their chief magistrate [or any government law]."  

[Thomas Jefferson : Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134]

Our acronym for the word BIBLE confirms the above conclusions:

B-Basic
I-Instructions
B-Before
L-Leaving
E-Earth

We are only temporarily here and the Kingdom of Heaven is where we intend to return and live permanently.  Legal domicile is based only on intent, not on physical presence, and it is only "domicile" which establishes one's legal and tax "home".  No one but us can establish our "intent" and this is the express intent.  Neither can we as Christians permit our “domicile” to be subject to change under any circumstances, even when coerced.  To admit that there is a "permanent home" or "place of abode" anywhere on earth is to admit that there is no afterlife, no God, and that this earth is as good as it gets, which is a depressing prospect indeed that conflicts with our religious beliefs.  The Bible says that while we are here, Satan is in control, so this is definitely not a place we would want to call a permanent home or a domicile:

"We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one."
[1 John 5:19, Bible, NKJV]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

^"Again, the devil took Him [Jesus] up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me. [Satan]"

^"Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve."'
^"Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him." 

[Matt. 4:8-11, Bible, NKJV]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

"I [Jesus] will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world [Satan] is coming, and he has nothing in Me. But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here."

[Jesus in John 14:30-31, Bible, NKJV]

Satan could not have offered the kingdoms of the world to Jesus and tempted Him with them unless he controlled them to begin with.  Satan is in control while we are here.  Only a fool or an atheist would intend to make a wicked earth controlled by Satan into a "permanent place of abode".

"He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world [on earth] will keep it for eternal life."  

[John 12:25, Bible, NKJV]

Only a person who hates this life and the earth as they are and who doesn't want to make it a "permanent place of abode" or "domicile" can inherit eternal life.

"If you were of the world [had a permanent home here], the world would love its own. Yet because you [Christians] are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world  hates you [who are a "stranger" and a "foreigner"]."

[John 15:19, Bible, NKJV. 
QUESTION:  How can you be "chosen out of the world" as Jesus says and yet still have a domicile here?]

"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world [and the governments, laws, taxes, entanglements, and sin in the world]."

[James 1:27, Bible, NKVJ]

“So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body [the physical body] we are absent from the Lord.  For we walk by faith, not by sight.  We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord [in the Kingdom of Heaven].”

[2 Cor. 5:6-8, Bible, NKJV]

Even Jesus Himself admitted that earth was not his "domicile" when He said:

Then a certain scribe came and said to Him, "Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go."   And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."  

[Matt. 8:19-20, Bible, NKJV]

When we become believers, we, like Jesus Himself, become God's "ambassadors" on a foreign mission from the Kingdom of Heaven according to 2 Cor. 5:20.  Our house is a foreign embassy:

"Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God."
[2 Cor. 5:20, Bible, NKJV]

The Corpus Juris Secundum Legal Encyclopedia says that ambassadors have the domicile of those who they represent, which in the case of Christians is the Kingdom of Heaven.

PARTICULAR PERSONS

4.  Public Officials and Employees; Members of the Armed Services

§31  Public Officials and Employees

Ambassadors, consuls, and other public officials residing abroad in governmental service do not generally acquire a domicile in the country where their official duties are performed, but retain their original domicile," although such officials may acquire a domicile at their official residence, if they engage in business or commerce inconsistent with, or extraneous to, their public or diplomatic character.
[Corpus Juris Secundum Legal Encyclopedia, Domicile, §31;
SOURCE:  http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Domicile-28CJS-20051203.pdf]

Another interesting aspect of domicile explains why the Bible symbolically refers to believers as the "children of God".  Below are examples:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name"
[John 1:2, Bible, NKJV]

"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God"
[Romans 8:16, Bible, NKJV]

"That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed."
[Romans 9:8, Bible, NKJV]

"Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! "
[1 John 3:1, Bible, NKJV]

"In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother."
[1 John 3:10, Bible, NKJV]

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments."
[1 John 5:2, Bible, NKJV]

The Corpus Juris Secundum Legal Encyclopedia says that those who are children, dependents, minors, or of unsound mind assume the domicile of the sovereign who is their "caretaker".  As long as we are called "children of God" and are dependent exclusively on Him, we assume His domicile, which is the Kingdom of God:

PARTICULAR PERSONS

Infants

§20 In General

An infant, being non sui juris, cannot fix or change his domicile unless emancipated.  A legitimate child's domicile usually follows that of the father.  In case of separation or divorce of parents, the child has the domicile of the parent who has been awarded custody of the child.
[Corpus Juris Secundum Legal Encyclopedia, Domicile, §20;
SOURCE:  http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Domicile-28CJS-20051203.pdf]

The Bible treats the government as God's steward for truth and justice under God's laws.  The passage below proves this, and it is not referring to ALL governments, but only those that are righteous, which are God's stewards, and who act in a way that is completely consistent and not in conflict with God's holy laws.

Submit to [Righteous] Government [and rebel against Unrighteous Government]

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.  For [righteous] rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. [However, unrighteous rulers ARE a terror to good works] Do you want to be unafraid of the [righteous] authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.  For he [ONLY the righteous, not the unrighteous ruler] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.  Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.  For because of this you also pay taxes, for they [the righteous, and not unrighteous rulers] are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.  Render therefore to all [those who are righteous and NOT unrighteous] their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."
[Rom. 13:1-7, Bible, NKJV]

The term "governing authorities" is synonymous with "God's ministers".  The Bible says that the government is on Jesus’ shoulders, and therefore God’s shoulders, not any man:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
[Isaiah 9:6, Bible, NKJV]

The Lord cannot be King where Satan is allowed to rule, even temporarily.  Those who are not God's ministers are NOT "governing authorities" but usurpers and representatives of Satan, not God.  They are "children of Satan", not God.  

“They have corrupted themselves;
They are not His children,
Because of their blemish:
A perverse and crooked generation.”
[Deut. 32:5, Bible, NKJV]

The Covenant Renewed

And He said: “Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD. For it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.  Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.  Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst.  But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images  (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),  lest you make a covenant [engage in a franchise, contract, or agreement] with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice,  and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.
[Exodus 34:10-16, Bible, NKJV]

“No outsider [person who has not taken the Mark of the Beast] shall eat the holy offering [revenues collected from involuntary human sacrifices to the pagan cult by the IRS or the SSA]; one who dwells with the priest [judges are the priests of the civil religion], or a hired servant [licensed attorneys, who are the deacons of the church appointed by the chief priests at the Supreme Court], shall not eat the holy thing.  But if the priest [the judge] buys a person with his money [his court order to induct a new cult member by compelling participation in excise taxable activities such as a “trade or business”], he may eat it; and one who is born in his [court] house [or is a fellow “public officer” of the government engaged in a “trade or business”] may eat his food.”
[Lev. 22:10-11, Bible, NKJV]

“He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”
[Exodus 22:20, Bible, NKJV]

"They shall no more offer their sacrifices to demons, after whom they have played the harlot. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.’
[Lev. 17:7, Bible, NKJV]

The result of the divorce of a righteous God from a Pagan government that has become a child of Satan and His competitor for the worship of the people is that God "hides his face", as the Bible says:

"And I will surely hide My face in that day because of all the evil which they have done, in that they have turned to other gods."
[Deut. 31:18, Bible, NKJV]

"I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faith."
[Deut. 32:20, Bible, NKJV]

"Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?’"
[Deut. 31:17, Bible, NKJV]

Those who follow pagan governments rather than God after the "divorce" become the children of Satan, not God and are practicing idolatry.  These people have misread Romans 13 and made government into a pagan substitute for God's protection and adopt the government as their new caretaker, and thereby shift their effective domicile to the government as its dependents and "children".  This is especially true when the government becomes socialist, abuses its power to tax as a means of wealth transfer, and pays any type of social welfare to the people.  At that point, the people become "dependents" and assume the domicile of their caretaker.  One insightful congressman said the following of this dilemma during the debates over the original Social Security Act:

Mr. Logan: "...Natural laws can not be created, repealed, or modified by legislation. Congress should know there are many things which it can not do..."

"It is now proposed to make the Federal Government the guardian of its citizens. If that should be done, the Nation soon must perish. There can only be a free nation when the people themselves are free and administer the government which they have set up to protect their rights. Where the general government must provide work, and incidentally food and clothing for its citizens, freedom and individuality will be destroyed and eventually the citizens will become serfs to the general government..."
[Congressional Record-Senate, Volume 77- Part 4, June 10, 1933, Page 12522;
SOURCE:  http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Sovereignty-CongRecord-Senate-JUNE101932.pdf]

Any attempt to think about citizenship, domicile, and residence any way other than the way it is described here amounts to a devious and deceptive attempt by the Pharisees [lawyers] to use the "traditions of men" to entrap Christians and churches and put them under government laws, control, taxes, and regulation, thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine.  The Separation of Powers Doctrine as well as the Bible itself both require churches and Christians to be totally separate from government, man's laws, and control, taxation, and regulation by government.  See Great IRS Hoax, sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.12 for further details on the competition between "church" and "state" for the love and affections  and allegiances of the people, and why separation of these two powers is absolutely essential.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage [to the government or the income tax or the IRS or federal statutes that are not "positive law" and do not have jurisdiction over us]." 

[Galatians 5:1, Bible, NKJV]

10.    Legal presumptions about domicile

It is important also to recognize that state and federal law often establishes certain rebuttable “presumptions” about one’s “residence” as an “alien”/”resident”.  Below is an example from the Arizona Revised Statutes:

Arizona Revised Statutes

Title 43: Taxation of Income

Section 43-104 Definitions

19. "Resident" includes:

(a) Every individual who is in this state for other than a temporary or transitory purpose.

(b) Every individual who is domiciled in this state and who is outside the state for a temporary or transitory purpose. Any individual who is a resident of this state continues to be a resident even though temporarily absent from the state.

(c) Every individual who spends in the aggregate more than nine months of the taxable year within this state shall be presumed to be a resident. The presumption may be overcome by competent evidence that the individual is in the state for a temporary or transitory purpose.

The above presumption is rebuttable, and the way to rebut it is to make our intentions known:

“This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. Law Nat. pp. 92, 93.”

[Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]

How do we make our “intentions” known to the protector we are nominating?:

1.        Sending the following form according to the instructions:

2.        Send the state a written notification of domicile, or a Department of Motor Vehicles change of address form.  Most change of address forms have a block for indicating one’s “residence”.  Line out the word “residence” and replace it with “domicile” or else you will establish yourself as a privileged alien.

3.        Whenever we write a physical address on any especially government or financial institution form, next to the address we should write "This is NOT my domicile."  This is a VERY important habit to get into that will avoid all false presumptions about your legal domicile.

4.   Revoking our voter registration.

We can also encourage other false presumptions by the government relating to our legal domicile based on the words we use to describe ourself.  For instance, if we describe ourself as either a “citizen” or a “resident” or “inhabitant” on any government form, then we are declaring ourself to be a “domiciliary” in respect to the government who is accepting the form.  Otherwise, we would be a “transient foreigner” outside of the jurisdiction of that government.  This is further explained in the following two articles:

1.  You’re not a “citizen” under the Internal Revenue Code:
   http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/NotACitizenUnderIRC.htm

2. You’re not a “resident” under the Internal Revenue Code:
   http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/Resident.htm

Within federal law, persons who are “citizens”, “residents”, or “inhabitants” are described as:

·         “Individuals”.  See 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2).

5 U.S.C. §552a(2) Records maintained on individuals

(2) the term ''individual'' means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence ["resident"];

·         “U.S. persons”.  See 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701.

Sec. 7701. - Definitions

 

(a)(30) United States person

 

 The term ''United States person'' means - 

     (A) a citizen or resident of the United States, 

     (B) a domestic partnership, 

     (C) a domestic corporation, 

     (D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and 

     (E) any trust if - 

        (i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the
           trust, and 

       (ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust. 

·         “domestic”.  Both “domicile” and “domestic” have the root “dom” as their source.  Both imply the same thing.  Within the Internal Revenue Code, “domestic” is defined as follows:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701.

Sec. 7701. - Definitions

(a) Definitions

(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.

Therefore, “domestic” means "subject to the laws of the United States”.  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17(b), you cannot be “subject” to the laws without having a domicile in the territory where those laws apply.

Those who are “nonresident aliens”, “nontaxpayers” and “transient foreigners” therefore cannot declare themselves as being either “citizens”, “residents”, “inhabitants”, “U.S. persons”, “individuals”, or “domestic” on any federal government form, or they forfeit their status and become “taxpayers”, “domiciliaries”, and “subjects” and tenants living on the king’s land.  For an important example of how the above concept applies, examine the IRS Form W-8BEN:

Block 3 is used by the applicant to declare both the entity type AND their legal domicile as well.  The declaration of “domicile” is “hidden” in the word “individual”.  Notice there is no block on the form for either “human being” or “transient foreigner”.  The only block a human being can fill out is “individual”.  5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2)  identifies an “individual” as either a “citizen” or a “resident”, and a person who is a nonresident alien cannot be either.  Therefore, the form essentially coerces the applicant into committing perjury by not providing an option to accurately describe themselves, such as a box for “transient foreigner” or “human being”.  This defect is remedied in the amended version of the form available below, which adds to Block 3 an option called “transient foreigner”:

The regulations relating to "aliens" also establish the following presumptions:

1.        All “aliens” are presumed to be “nonresident aliens” but this may be overcome upon presentation of proof:

Title 26: Internal Revenue
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
nonresident alien individuals
§ 1.871-4  Proof of residence of aliens.

(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.

(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.

(c) Presumption rebutted--(1) Departing alien. In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof--

2.        An "alien" who has acquired permanent residence retains that residence until he physically departs from the "United States", which is defined as the District of Columbia in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)  and not expanded anywhere else in the I.R.C. to include any other place.  The purpose for this presumption is to perpetuate the jurisdiction to tax aliens:

Title 26: Internal Revenue
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
nonresident alien individuals
§ 1.871-5   Loss of residence by an alien.

An alien who has acquired residence in the United States retains his status as a resident until he abandons the same and actually departs from the United States. An intention to change his residence does not change his status as a resident alien to that of a nonresident alien. Thus, an alien who has acquired a residence in the United States is taxable as a resident for the remainder of his stay in the United States.

If you are a “national” but not “citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1452, don’t let the above concern you, because you are not an “alien” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A), but rather an “nonresident alien” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B).

11.   How the government interferes with your ability to voluntarily choose a domicile and receive all the benefits of that choice

Based on the foregoing discussion, it ought to be obvious that the government doesn't want you to know any of the following facts:

1. That all income taxation is based primarily upon domicile.

2. That domicile is a voluntary choice.

3. That because they need your consent to choose a domicile, they can't tax you without your consent.

4. That domicile is based on the coincidence of physical presence and intent (consent) to permanently remain in a place.

5. That unless you choose a domicile within the jurisdiction of the government that has general jurisdiction where you live, they have no authority to institute income taxation upon you.

6. That no one can determine your domicile except you.

7. That if you don't want the protection of government, you can fire them and handle your own protection, by changing your domicile to a different place or choosing no domicile at all.  This then relieves you of an obligation to pay income taxes to support the protection that you no longer want or need.

Therefore, governments have a vested interest in hiding the relationship of "domicile" to income taxation by removing it or at least obfuscating it in their "codes".  They have done this by any of the following means:

1. Nowhere in Internal Revenue Code is the word “domicile” admitted to be the source of the government’s jurisdiction to impose an income tax, even though the U.S. Supreme Court admitted it is in Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954).  The word “domicile”, in fact, is only used in two sections of the entire 9,500 page Internal Revenue Code, Title 26.  This is no accident, but a very devious way for the government to avoid getting into arguments with persons who it is accusing of being “taxpayers”.  It avoids these arguments by avoiding showing Americans the easiest way to challenge federal jurisdiction, which is demanding proof from the government required by 5 U.S.C. §556(d), who is the moving party, that you maintain a domicile in the District of Columbia.  The two sections below are the only places where domicile is mentioned:

   1.1.   26 U.S.C. §7448(j)(1)(B)(vi):  Annuities to surviving spouses and dependent children of judges.

   1.2.   26 U.S.C. §6091: Defines where returns shall be submitted in the case of deceased “taxpayers”, which is the “domicile” of the decedent when he died.

2. They renamed the word "domicile" on government tax forms. They did this so that income taxation "appears" to be based entirely on physical presence, when in fact is also requires voluntary consent as well.  If you knew that the government needed your consent to become a "taxpayer", then probably everyone would "un-volunteer" and the government would be left scraping for pennies.  Below are some examples of other names they gave to "domicile":

   1.1  "permanent address"

   1.2  "permanent residence"

   1.3  "residence": defined above, and only applying to nonresident aliens.  There is no definition of "residence" anywhere in the I.R.C. in the context of a "citizen".  Below is how Volume 28 of the Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia, Domicile, describes the distinction between "residence" and "domicile":

Corpus Juris Secundum

§4 Domicile and Residence Distinguished

 

b. Use of Terms in Statutes

 

The terms "domicile" and "residence," as used in statutes, are commonly, although not necessarily, construed as synonymous. Whether the term "residence," as used in a statute, will be construed as having the meaning of "domicile," or the term "domicile" construed as "residence," depends on the purpose of the statute and the nature of the subject matter, as well as the context in which the term is used.32 It has been declared that the terms "residence" and "domicile" are almost universally used interchangeably in statute, and that since domicile and legal residence are synonymous, the statutory rules for determining the place of residence are the rules for determining domicile.34 However, it has been held that "residence," when used in statutes, is generally interpreted by the courts as meaning "domicile," but with important exception.

 

Accordingly, whenever the terms "residence" and "domicile" are used in connection with subjects of domestic policy, the terms are equivalent, as they also are, generally, where a statute prescribes residence as a qualification for the enjoyment of a privilege or the exercise of a franchise.  "Residence" as used in various particular statutes has been considered synonymous with "domicile." 39 However, the terms are not necessarily synonymous.40

[28 Corpus Juris Secundum, Domicile, §4 Domicile and Resident Distinguished]

3. By telling you that you MUST have a "domicile".  For instance, the Volume 28 of the Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia section on "Domicile" says the following on this subject:

Corpus Juris Secundum

§5 Necessity and Number

 

"It is a settled principle that every person must have a domicile somewhere.3 The law permits no individual to be without a domicile,42 and an individual is never without a domicile somewhere.13 Domicile is a continuing thing, and from the moment a person is born he must, at all times, have a domicile ."

[28 Corpus Juris Secundum, Domicile, §5 Necessity and Number]

_________________________________________

Corpus Juris Secundum

§9 Domicile by Operation of Law

"Whenever a person does not fix a domicile for himself, the law will fix one for him in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case; l2 and an infant's domicile will be fixed by operation of law where it cannot be determined from that of the parents.73"

[28 Corpus Juris Secundum, Domicile, §9 Domicile by Operation of Law]

Indirectly, what they are suggesting in the above by FORCING you to have a domicile is that:

3.1.   You cannot choose God as your sole Protector, but MUST have an earthly protector who cannot be yourself.

3.2.   Although the First Amendment gives you the right to freely associate, it does not give you the right to disassociate with ALL governments.  This is an absurdity.

3.3.   Government has a monopoly on protection and that individuals are not allowed to fire the government and provide their own protection, either individually or collectively.

4. By inventing new words that allow them to avoid mentioning "domicile" in their vague "codes" while giving you the impression that an obligation exists that actually is consensual.  For instance, in 26 U.S.C. §911 is the section of the I.R.C. entitled "Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad".   This section identifies the income tax liabilities of persons domiciled in the "United States" (federal zone) who are living temporarily abroad.  We showed earlier that if they have a domicile abroad, then they cannot be either "citizens" or "residents" under the I.R.C., because domicile is a prerequisite for being either.  In that section, they very deceptively:

4.1  Use the word “abode” in 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(3)  to describe one’s domicile so as to remove the requirement for “intent” and “consent” from consideration of the subject, even though they have no authority to ignore this requirement for consent in the case of anything but an “alien”.

4.2  Don't even use the word "domicile" at all, and refuse to acknowledge that what "citizens" or "residents" both have in common is a "domicile" within the United States. They did this to preserve the illusion that even after one changes their domicile to a foreign country while abroad, the federal tax liability continues, when in fact, it legally is not required to.  After domicile is changed, those Americans who changed it while abroad then are no longer called "citizens" under federal law, but rather "nationals" and "nonresident aliens".

4.3  They invented a new word called a "tax home", as if it was a substitute for "domicile", when in fact it is not.  A "tax home" is defined in 26 U.S.C. §911 as a place where a person who has a temporary presence abroad treats himself or herself as a privileged "resident" in the foreign country but still also maintains a privileged "resident" and "domicile" status in the "United States". 

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter N > PART III > Subpart B > § 911

§ 911. Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad

 

(d) Definitions and special rules For purposes of this section—

 

(3) Tax home

 

The term “tax home” means, with respect to any individual, such individual’s home for purposes of section 162 (a)(2) (relating to traveling expenses while away from home). An individual shall not be treated as having a tax home in a foreign country for any period for which his abode [domicile] is within the United States [federal zone].

The only way the government can maintain your status as a “taxpayer” is to perpetuate you in a “privileged” state, so they simply don’t offer any options to leave the privileged state by refusing to admit to you that the terms “citizen” and “resident” presume you made a voluntary choice of domicile within their jurisdiction.  I.R.C.  section 162  mentioned above is the section for privileged deductions, and the only persons who can take deductions are those engaged in the privileged "trade or business" excise taxable franchise.  Therefore, the only person who would derive any benefit from deductions is a person with a domicile in the “United States” (District of Columbia) and who has earnings from that place which are connected with a "trade or business", which means U.S. government (corporation) source income as a "public officer".

Even the legal encyclopedia tries to hide the nature of domicile.  For instance, Volume 28 of the Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) at:

which we quoted above does not even mention the requirement for “allegiance” as part of domicile, even though the U.S. Supreme Court said this was an essential part of it:

"Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter." 

[Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]

A number of irreconcilable conflicts of law are created by COMPELLING EVERYONE to have an earthly domicile.  For instance:

1.        If the First Amendment gives us a right to freely associate and also implies a right to DISASSOCIATE, how can we be compelled to associate with a “state” or the people in the locality where we live without violating the First Amendment?  It may not be presumed that we moved to a place because we wanted to associate with the people there.

2.        Domicile creates a duty of allegiance, according to the cite above.  All allegiance MUST be voluntary.  How can the state compel allegiance by compelling a person to have or to choose an earthly domicile?  What gives them the right to insist that the only legitimate type of domicile is associated with a government?  Why can’t it be a church, a religious group, or simply an association of people who want to have their own police force or protection service separated from the state?  Since the only product that government delivers is “protection”, why can’t people have the right to fire the government and provide their own protection with the tax money they would have paid the government?

3.        When one chooses a domicile, they create a legal or contractual obligation to support a specific government, based on the above.  By compelling everyone to choose an earthly domicile whose object is a specific government or state, isn’t the state interfering with our right to contract by compelling us to contract with a specific government for our protection?.  The Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 says no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts.  Implicit in this right to contract is the right NOT to contract.  Every right implies the opposite right.  Therefore, how can everyone be compelled to have a domicile without violating their right to contract? 

4.        The U.S. Supreme Court also said that income taxation based on domicile is “quasi-contractual” in nature.

“Even if the judgment is deemed to be colored by the nature of the obligation whose validity it establishes, and we are free to re-examine it, and, if we find it to be based on an obligation penal in character, to refuse to enforce it outside the state where rendered, see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 , 292, et seq. 8 S.Ct. 1370, compare Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 , 28 S.Ct. 641, still the obligation to pay taxes is not penal. It is a statutory liability, quasi contractual in nature, enforceable, if there is no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common-law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit. United States v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 , 31 S.Ct. 155; Price v. United States, 269 U.S. 492 , 46 S.Ct. 180; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227; and see Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 542; Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 493. This was the rule established in the English courts before the Declaration of Independence. Attorney General v. Weeks, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 223; Attorney General v. Jewers and Batty, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 225; Attorney General v. Hatton, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. [296 U.S. 268, 272]   262; Attorney General v. _ _, 2 Ans.Rep. 558; see Comyn's Digest (Title 'Dett,' A, 9); 1 Chitty on Pleading, 123; cf. Attorney General v. Sewell, 4 M.&W. 77. “

[Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935)]

The “quasi-contract” they are referring to above is your voluntary choice of “domicile”, no doubt.  How can they compel such a contract if the person who is the object of the compulsion refuses to “do business” with the state and also refuses to avail themselves of any of the benefits of membership in said state?  Wouldn’t that amount to slavery, involuntary servitude, and violate the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude?

Do you see how subtle this domicile thing is?    It's a very sneaky way to draw you into the world system and force you to adopt and comply with earthly laws and a government that are hostile towards and foreign to God’s laws.   All of the above deceptions and ruses are designed to keep you enslaved and entrapped to support a government that does nothing for you and which you may even want to abandon or disassociate with.  Keep these tricks in mind as you look at how they are implemented on the government forms we will show you in the next section.

12.   Domicile on government forms

There are several ways that you can inadvertently declare a domicile on federal territory on government forms.

1.        By declaring that you maintain a domicile or live in the “United States”, which is defined as federal territory and excludes states of the Union pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).  This is done by filling out anything in the block labeled “permanent address” or “residence” and indicating anything in that block other than the de jure republic you were born within or the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701.  [Internal Revenue Code]

Sec. 7701. - Definitions

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

(9) United States 

The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia. 

(10)State

The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

People born and domiciled within the de jure states of the Union are domiciled in the “United States of America” or in the name of their state.  For instance, under “country”, put “California Republic” instead of “United States”.

2.        By filling out a government form and indicating that you are a statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401  or “resident” or “permanent resident” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4)(B).  All such persons have a legal domicile on federal territory.  Collectively, these people are called “U.S. persons” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).

3.        By filling out a form that presumes you are a “U.S. person”, such as IRS form 1040.  That form is ONLY for use by “U.S. persons” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)  who have a legal domicile on federal territory.  If you are not domiciled on federal territory, the only correct form to use is the IRS form 1040NR.

1040A 11327A Each

U.S. Individual Income Tax Return

Annual income tax return filed by citizens and residents of the United States. There are separate instructions available for this item.  The catalog number for the instructions is 12088U.

W:CAR:MP:FP:F:I Tax Form or Instructions

[2003 IRS Published Products Catalog, p. F-15;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/IRS/IRSDoc7130.pdf]

4.        By requesting or using a Social Security Number on any government form.  Social Security Numbers can only lawfully be issued to persons with a legal domicile on federal territory.  20 CFR §422.104  says the number can only be issued to statutory “U.S. citizens” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401  or statutory “permanent residents”, both of whom have in common a domicile on federal territory.

26 CFR § 301.6109-1(g)

(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons--(1) General rule--(i) Social security number. A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen  or resident alien individual. A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual's social security number.

______________________________________________________________________________________

TITLE 20--EMPLOYEES' BENEFITS

CHAPTER III--SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

PART 422_ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES--Table of Contents

Subpart B_General Procedures

Sec. 422.104  Who can be assigned a social security number.

    (a) Persons eligible for SSN assignment.

We can assign you a social security number if you meet the evidence requirements in Sec. 422.107 and you are:

    (1) A United States citizen; or

    (2) An alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting you to work in the United States (Sec. 422.105 describes how we determine if a nonimmigrant alien is permitted to work in the United States); or

5.        By requesting or using a Taxpayer Identification Number on any government form, which makes you into a “resident alien” as described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A).  According to Treasury Regulations, these numbers can only be issued to aliens.  The only people who need them are “taxpayers” who are engaged in a “trade or business”/”public office” in the District of Columbia and therefore partaking of federal franchises.  All such persons have an effective domicile in the District of Columbia because they are representing a federal corporation, the “United States” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A)  and are officers of that corporation.  26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39), 26 U.S.C. §7408(d), and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 17(b)  all place their effective domicile in the District of Columbia and not within the place they physically occupy by virtue of the fact that they are acting in a representative capacity as a “public officer”.

26 CFR §301.6109-1(d)(3):  Identifying Numbers

(3) IRS individual taxpayer identification number –

(i) Definition. The term IRS individual taxpayer identification number means a taxpayer identifying number issued to an alien individual by the Internal Revenue Service, upon application, for use in connection with filing requirements under this title. The term IRS individual taxpayer identification number does not refer to a social security number or an account number for use in employment for wages. For purposes of this section, the term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States.

___________________________________________________________

26 CFR §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]

[SOURCE:  http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Resident-26cfr301.7701-5.pdf]

We will now spend the rest of the section talking about how to avoid the problem described in item 1 above.  There are many occasions on government forms, and especially tax forms, where we will be asked if we are “residents” and what our “residence” is and we must be very careful what we put on these forms.  If a "residence" must be established on a government form for any reason, the safest way to handle this situation as a Christian is as follows:

1.        Line out the word “residence” and replace it with “domicile”.

2.    In the block declaring “residence”, put “Kingdom of Heaven on Earth (not within any man made government)”.

3.        If they ask you if you are a “resident”, simply say “NO”.

4.        Put a note at the bottom saying:

“See and rebut the following web address for details, if you disagree:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/ChangeOfAddressAttachment.htm “

Any location of "residence" other than “Kingdom of Heaven on Earth” or a place not within the jurisdiction of any man-made government, however, will prejudice your rights, violate the Bible, and result in idolatry towards man/government.  In fact, we believe the word "residence" and “resident” were invented by the legal profession as a way to separate intent from the word "domicile" so that people would no longer have a choice of their legal home.  Christians should be very wary of this devious legal trap and avoid it as indicated above.

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose [rebuke] them.”

[Eph. 5:11, Bible, NKJV]

Our job while on earth as Christians, according to Jesus Christ Himself, is instead to keep ourselves "unspotted from the world" and the corrupted governments of the world:

"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world [and the governments, corruption, taxes, and citizenship obligations]."

[James 1:27, Bible NKJV]

There are also BIG advantages to declaring our domicile as being outside of federal jurisdiction in either the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth or a state of the Union, which is “foreign” with respect to the federal government.  For instance, one's domicile determines the rules of decision of every court in which a person is sued.  Below is an excerpt from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17(b) which proves this:

IV. PARTIES > Rule 17.

Rule 17. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity

(b) Capacity to Sue or be Sued.

The capacity of an individual, other than one acting in a representative capacity, to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the individual's domicile. The capacity of a corporation to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law under which it was organized. In all other cases capacity to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held, except (1) that a partnership or other unincorporated association, which has no such capacity by the law of such state, may sue or be sued in its common name for the purpose of enforcing for or against it a substantive right existing under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the capacity of a receiver appointed by a court of the United States to sue or be sued in a court of the United States is governed by Title 28, U.S.C., §§ 754 and 959(a).

The above may not seem like a big deal, until you consider that if a person declares "heaven" as their domicile, then the court has to use God's laws in the Holy Bible as the only rules of decision!  They cannot quote ANY federal statute or even court ruling as authority for what they are doing.  The only thing they can apply is God's law and the rulings of ecclesiastical courts on the subject.  We would LOVE to see this in a tax trial.  The government would get CREAMED!  This tactic is what we affectionately call "courtroom evangelism".

Below is an example of how to fill out a Change of Address for the state of California to remove any presumptions about “residence”.  If you don’t do this, the state will essentially legally “presume” that you are an “alien”, a “resident”, and a “taxpayer”, and this will grossly prejudice your Constitutional rights:

A number of legal factors are used in determining one's domicile.  The following facts and circumstances, although not necessarily conclusive, have probative value to support a claim of domicile within a particular state:

1. Continuous presence in the state.
2. Payment of ad valorem (property) taxes.
3. Payment of personal income taxes.
4. Reliance upon state sources for financial support.
5. Domicile in the state of family, or other relatives, or persons legally responsible for the person.
6. Former domicile in the state and maintenance of significant connections therein while absent.
7. Ownership of a home or real property.
8. Admission to a licensed practicing profession in the state.
9. Long term military commitments in the state.
10. Commitments to further education in the state indicating an intent to stay here permanently.
11. Acceptance of an offer of permanent employment in the state.
12. Location of spouse's employment, if any.
13. Address of student listed on selective service (draft or reserves) registration.

1. Voting or registration for voting.
2. The lease of living quarters.
3. A statement of intention to acquire a domicile in state.
4. Automobile registration; address on driver's license; payment of automobile taxes.
5. Location of bank or saving accounts.

To conclude this section, you may wish to look at a few of the government's forms that effectively ask you what your "domicile" is, so you can see what we are talking about in this section.  Before we do, we must emphasize that in some cases, the version of a form we choose to file, even if it says nothing on the form about "domicile", may determine our "residence"!  For instance, if we file a 1040NR form, we are claiming that we are not a “resident alien” and that we do not maintain a domicile in the District of Columbia.  Whereas, if we file a 1040 form, we are claiming that we are either a “resident” with a domicile in the District of Columbia, or are a “U.S. citizen” who is described as a “alien” coming under a tax treaty with the United States if we attach a form 2555 to the 1040 form.  Also keep in mind that only a "resident" can have a "residence", and that all "residents" are aliens under the tax code, as far as we understand it.  This is confirmed by our quote of 26 CFR §1.871-2 earlier in this section, which you may want to go back and read.  With these important considerations, below are a few of the forms that determine our “domicile”:

Table  25:  Example forms that determine domicile

When you fill out government forms to reflect a domicile that is in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, some ignorant or wicked or atheist clerks may decide to argue with you.  Below are the three most popular arguments you will hear, which are each accompanied by tactics that are useful in opposing them:

1. If you submit the government form to a private company or organization, they may say that they as have an unofficial "policy" of not accepting such forms.  In response to such tactics, find another company that will accept it.  If all companies won't accept it, then sue the companies for violation of First Amendment rights.

2. They may say that "domicile" is based on a physical place and that Heaven is not a physical place.  In response to this, we must remember that the First Amendment prevents the government from "establishing a religion".  Because of this prohibition, the government can't even "define" what a religion is:

   A problem common to both religion clauses of the First Amendment is the dilemma of defining religion.  To define religion is in a sense to establish it--those beliefs that are included enjoy a preferred constitutional status.  For those left out of the definition, the definition may prove coercive.  Indeed, it is in this latter context, which roughly approximates the area covered by the free exercise clause, where the cases and discussion of the meaning of religion have primarily centered.  Professor Kent Greeawalt challenges the effort, and all efforts, to define religion: "No specification of essential conditions will capture all and only the benefits, practices, and organizations that are regarded as religious in modern culture and should be treated as such under the Constitution." 

   [First Amendment Law, Barron-Dienes, West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-22677-X, p. 432]

   In order to determine that "Heaven" is not a physical place, they would be violating the separation of church and state and infringing upon your First Amendment right to practice your religion.  To even define what "Heaven" is or to say that it doesn't physically exist is effectively to establish a religion.

3. They may say that no place can qualify as a domicile that you didn't occupy at one point or another.  When they do this, the proper response is to say that they are interfering with your First Amendment religious rights and then to quote them the following scriptures, which suggest that we had an existence in Heaven before we ever came to earth and before time began:

"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, "

[Eph. 2:4-6, Bible, NKJV]

_________________________________________________

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations."
[Jeremiah 1:5, Bible, NKJV]

_________________________________________________

^"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before [earthly] time began,"

[2 Tim. 1:8-9, Bible, NKJV]

_________________________________________________

^"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

[Eph. 2:10, Bible, NKJV]

_________________________________________________

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The [earthly] days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How great is the sum of them!

[Psalms 139:14-17, Bible, NKJV]

Another approach that is useful against this tactic is to point out that the federal courts have ruled that:

"Similarly, when a person is prevented from leaving his domicile by circumstances not of his doing and beyond his control, he may be relieved of the consequences attendant on domicile at that place.  In Roboz (USDC D.C. 1963) [Roboz v. Kennedy, 219 F.Supp. 892 (D.D.C. 1963), p. 24], a federal statute was involved which precluded the return of an alien's property if he was found to be domiciled in Hungary prior to a certain date.  It was found that Hungary was Nazi-controlled at the time in question and that the persons involved would have left Hungary (and lost domicile there) had they been able to.  Since they had been precluded from leaving because of the political privations imposed by the very government they wanted to escape (the father was in prison there), the court would not hold them to have lost their property based on a domicile that circumstances beyond their control forced them to retain."

[Conflicts in a Nutshell, David D. Siegel and Patrick J. Borchers, West Publishing, p. 24]

We should always remember that we never chose to come here to earth, and our presence is involuntary.  Therefore, everything we do while here is a matter of compulsion rather than true choice.  This subject is covered more thoroughly earlier in sections 4.11.6 through 4.11.6.4 if you wish to investigate.   Therefore, we can be relieved of the consequences attendant to domicile if we do not wish to have one here.

If all the above arguments are ineffective or when the government refuses to recognize your choice of Heaven as a domicile, remember also that the First Amendment STILL prevents them from compelling you to associate with any group, including a state, and that they can't compel you to belong to or consent to any earthly government or law, to accept or pay for protection you don't want and don't need, and which you can even prove is harmful to you.  In effect, they cannot violate the very reason for their establishment, which is protecting you the way YOU, not THEM want to be protected.

13. The Drivers License Trap:  How the state manufactures privileged “residents”

We allege that the purpose of the vehicle code in your state is NOT the promotion of public safety, but to manufacture “residents” and “taxpayers”.  The main vehicle by which states of the Union, in fact, manufacture “residents”, who are privileged “public officers” that are “taxpayers” and aliens with respect to the government is essentially by compelling everyone to obtain and use state driver’s licenses.  This devious trap operates as follows:

1.        You cannot obtain a state driver’s license without being a “resident”.  If you go into any DMV office and tell them you are not a “resident”, then they are not allowed to issue you a license.  You can ask from them what is called a “Letter of Disqualification”, which states that you are not eligible for a driver’s license.  You can keep that letter and show it to any police officer who stops you and wants your “license”.  He cannot then cite your for “driving without a license” that the state refuses to issue you, nor can he impound your car for driving without a license!

California Vehicle Code

“14607.6.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in this section, a motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture as a nuisance if it is driven on a highway in this state by a driver with a suspended or revoked license, or by an unlicensed driver, who is a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment and has a previous misdemeanor conviction for a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 12500 or Section 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2, 14601.3, 14601.4, or 14601.5.

   (b) A peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason of determining whether the driver is properly licensed.

   (c) (1) If a driver is unable to produce a valid driver's license on the demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 12951, the vehicle shall be impounded regardless of ownership, unless the peace officer is reasonably able, by other means, to verify that the driver is properly licensed.  Prior to impounding a vehicle, a peace officer shall attempt to verify the license status of a driver who claims to be properly licensed but is unable to produce the license on demand of the peace officer.

   (2) A peace officer shall not impound a vehicle pursuant to this subdivision if the license of the driver expired within the preceding 30 days and the driver would otherwise have been properly licensed.

   (3) A peace officer may exercise discretion in a situation where the driver without a valid license is an employee driving a vehicle registered to the employer in the course of employment.  A peace officer may also exercise discretion in a situation where the driver without a valid license is the employee of a bona fide business establishment or is a person otherwise controlled by such an establishment and it reasonably appears that an owner of the vehicle, or an agent of the owner, relinquished possession of the vehicle to the business establishment solely for servicing or parking of the vehicle or other reasonably similar situations, and where the vehicle was not to be driven except as directly necessary to accomplish that business purpose.  In this event, if the vehicle can be returned to or be retrieved by the business establishment or registered owner, the peace officer may release and not impound the vehicle.

   (4) A registered or legal owner of record at the time of impoundment may request a hearing to determine the validity of the impoundment pursuant to subdivision (n).

   (5) If the driver of a vehicle impounded pursuant to this subdivision was not a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment, or if the driver of the vehicle was a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment but the driver does not have a previous conviction for a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 12500 or Section 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2, 14601.3, 14601.4, or 14601.5, the vehicle shall be released pursuant to this code and is not subject to forfeiture.

   (d) (1) This subdivision applies only if the driver of the vehicle is a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment. Except as provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (c), if the driver of a vehicle impounded pursuant to subdivision (c) was a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment, the impounding agency shall authorize release of the vehicle if, within three days of impoundment, the driver of the vehicle at the time of impoundment presents his or her valid driver's license, including a valid temporary California driver's license or permit, to the impounding agency.  The vehicle shall then be released to a registered owner of record at the time of impoundment, or an agent of that owner authorized in writing, upon payment of towing and storage charges related to the impoundment, and any administrative charges authorized by Section 22850.5, providing that the person claiming the vehicle is properly licensed and the vehicle is properly registered.  A vehicle impounded pursuant to the circumstances described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) shall be released to a registered owner whether or not the driver of the vehicle at the time of impoundment presents a valid driver's license.

   (2) If there is a community property interest in the vehicle impounded pursuant to subdivision (c), owned at the time of impoundment by a person other than the driver, and the vehicle is the only vehicle available to the driver's immediate family that may be operated with a class C driver's license, the vehicle shall be released to a registered owner or to the community property interest owner upon compliance with all of the following requirements:

   (A) The registered owner or the community property interest owner requests release of the vehicle and the owner of the community property interest submits proof of that interest.

   (B) The registered owner or the community property interest owner submits proof that he or she, or an authorized driver, is properly licensed and that the impounded vehicle is properly registered pursuant to this code.

   (C) All towing and storage charges related to the impoundment and any administrative charges authorized pursuant to Section 22850.5 are paid.

   (D) The registered owner or the community property interest owner signs a stipulated vehicle release agreement, as described in paragraph (3), in consideration for the nonforfeiture of the vehicle.   This requirement applies only if the driver requests release of the vehicle.

   (3) A stipulated vehicle release agreement shall provide for the consent of the signator to the automatic future forfeiture and transfer of title to the state of any vehicle registered to that person, if the vehicle is driven by a driver with a suspended or revoked license, or by an unlicensed driver.  The agreement shall be in effect for only as long as it is noted on a driving record maintained by the department pursuant to Section 1806.1.

   (4) The stipulated vehicle release agreement described in paragraph (3) shall be reported by the impounding agency to the department not later than 10 days after the day the agreement is signed.

   (5) No vehicle shall be released pursuant to paragraph (2) if the driving record of a registered owner indicates that a prior stipulated vehicle release agreement was signed by that person.

   (e) (1) The impounding agency, in the case of a vehicle that has not been redeemed pursuant to subdivision (d), or that has not been otherwise released, shall promptly ascertain from the department the names and addresses of all legal and registered owners of the vehicle.

   (2) The impounding agency, within two days of impoundment, shall send a notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to all legal and registered owners of the vehicle, at the addresses obtained from the department, informing them that the vehicle is subject to forfeiture and will be sold or otherwise disposed of pursuant to this section.  The notice shall also include instructions for filing a claim with the district attorney, and the time limits for filing a claim.  The notice shall also inform any legal owner of its right to conduct the sale pursuant to subdivision (g).  If a registered owner was personally served at the time of impoundment with a notice containing all the information required to be provided by this paragraph, no further notice is required to be sent to a registered owner.  However, a notice shall still be sent to the legal owners of the vehicle, if any.  If notice was not sent to the legal owner within two working days, the impounding agency shall not charge the legal owner for more than 15-days' impoundment when the legal owner redeems the impounded vehicle.

   (3) No processing charges shall be imposed on a legal owner who redeems an impounded vehicle within 15 days of the impoundment of that vehicle.  If no claims are filed and served within 15 days after the mailing of the notice in paragraph (2), or if no claims are filed and served within five days of personal service of the notice specified in paragraph (2), when no other mailed notice is required pursuant to paragraph (2), the district attorney shall prepare a written declaration of forfeiture of the vehicle to the state.  A written declaration of forfeiture signed by the district attorney under this subdivision shall be deemed to provide good and sufficient title to the forfeited vehicle.  A copy of the declaration shall be provided on request to any person informed of the pending forfeiture pursuant to paragraph (2).  A claim that is filed and is later withdrawn by the claimant shall be deemed not to have been filed.

   (4) If a claim is timely filed and served, then the district attorney shall file a petition of forfeiture with the appropriate juvenile, municipal, or superior court within 10 days of the receipt of the claim.  The district attorney shall establish an expedited hearing date in accordance with instructions from the court, and the court shall hear the matter without delay.  The court filing fee, not to exceed fifty dollars ($50), shall be paid by the claimant, but shall be reimbursed by the impounding agency if the claimant prevails.  To the extent practicable, the civil and criminal cases shall be heard at the same time in an expedited, consolidated proceeding.  A proceeding in the civil case is a limited civil case.”

[California Vehicle Code, Section 14607.6, Sept. 20, 2004]

Below is evidence showing how one person obtained a "Letter of Disqualification" that resulted in being able to drive perpetually without having a state -issued driver's license.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/DomicileBasisTaxationDL-20060522.pdf

2.        Most state vehicle codes define “resident” as a person with a domicile in the “State”.    Below is an example from the California Vehicle Code:

California Vehicle Code

516.  "Resident" means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis.  Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.

   The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration:

   (a) Address where registered to vote.

   (b) Location of employment or place of business.

   (c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.

   (d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.

   (e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.

   (f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.

   (g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.

   (h) Possession of a California driver's license.

   (i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.

[SOURCE:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=49966114921+5+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve]

________________________________________________________________________________

California Vehicle Code

12505.  (a) (1) For purposes of this division only and notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a person's state of domicile.  "State of domicile" means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which he or she has manifested the intention of returning whenever he or she is absent.

   Prima facie evidence of residency for driver's licensing purposes includes, but is not limited to, the following:

   (A) Address where registered to vote.

   (B) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.

   (C) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.

   (D) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.

   (2) California residency is required of a person in order to be issued a commercial driver's license under this code.

   (b) The presumption of residency in this state may be rebutted by satisfactory evidence that the licensee's primary residence is in another state.

   (c) Any person entitled to an exemption under Section 12502, 12503, or 12504 may operate a motor vehicle in this state for not to exceed 10 days from the date he or she establishes residence in this state, except that he or she shall obtain a license from the department upon becoming a resident before being employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways.

[SOURCE:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=49860512592+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve]

________________________________________________________________________________

516 .  "Resident" means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis.  Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.

   The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration:

   (a) Address where registered to vote.

   (b) Location of employment or place of business.

   (c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.

   (d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.

   (e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.

   (f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.

   (g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.

   (h) Possession of a California driver's license.

   (i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.

[SOURCE:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000&file=100-680]

3.        The term “State” is then defined in the revenue codes to mean the federal areas within the exterior limits of the state.    Below is an example from the California Vehicle Code:

California Revenue and Taxation Code

17017.  "United States," when used in a geographical sense, includes the states, the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.  

17018.  "State" includes the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.

4.        You must surrender all other state driver’s licenses in order to obtain one from most states.    Below is an example from the California Vehicle Code:

California Vehicle Code

12805.  The department shall not issue a driver's license to, or renew a driver's license of, any person:

[. . .]

(f) Who holds a valid driver's license issued by a foreign jurisdiction unless the license has been surrendered to the department, or is lost or destroyed.

________________________________________________________________________________

12511.  No person shall have in his or her possession or otherwise under his or her control more than one driver's license.  

Consequently, the vehicle code in most states, in the case of individuals not involved in “commercial activity”, applies mainly to “public officers” who are effectively “residents” of the federal zone with an effective “domicile” or “residence” there:

26 U.S.C. §7701

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

(39) Persons residing outside United States

If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—

(A) jurisdiction of courts, or

(B) enforcement of summons.

[SOURCE: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007701----000-.html]

These "U.S. persons" (as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)) are “taxpayers”.  They are Americans who have contracted away their Constitutional rights in exchange for government “privileges” are the only “persons” who inhabit or maintain a “domicile” or “residence” in the “State” as defined above.  Only people with a domicile in such “State” can be required to obtain a “license” to drive on the “highways”.  While they are exercising “agency” on behalf of or representing the government corporation, they are “citizens” of that corporation and “residents”, because the corporation itself is a “citizen” and therefore a person with a domicile in the place where the corporation was formed, which for the “United States” is the District of Columbia:

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made. One universal rule of law protects persons and property. It is a fundamental principle of the common law of England, that the term freemen of the kingdom, includes 'all persons,' ecclesiastical and temporal, incorporate, politique or natural; it is a part of their magna charta (2 Inst. 4), and is incorporated into our institutions. The persons of the members of corporations are on the same footing of protection as other persons, and their corporate property secured by the same laws which protect that of individuals. 2 Inst. 46-7. 'No man shall be taken,' 'no man shall be disseised,' without due process of law, is a principle taken from magna charta, infused into all our state constitutions, and is made inviolable by the federal government, by the amendments to the constitution."
[Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)]

________________________________________________________________________________

"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, Corporations, §886]

__________________________________________________

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

IV. PARTIES > Rule 17.

Rule 17. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity

(b) Capacity to Sue or be Sued.

The capacity of an individual, other than one acting in a representative capacity, to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the individual's domicile. The capacity of a corporation [or one REPRESENTING a PUBLIC CORPORATION called the government as a “public official”] to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law under which it was organized. In all other cases capacity to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held, except (1) that a partnership or other unincorporated association, which has no such capacity by the law of such state, may sue or be sued in its common name for the purpose of enforcing for or against it a substantive right existing under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the capacity of a receiver appointed by a court of the United States to sue or be sued in a court of the United States is governed by Title 28, U.S.C., §§ 754 and 959(a).

If you don’t want to be a “public officer” who has an effective “domicile” or “residence” in the District of Columbia, then you have to divorce the state, create your own “state”, and change your domicile to that new “state”.  For instance, you can form an association of people and choose a domicile within that association.  This association would be referred to as a “foreign jurisdiction” within the vehicle code in most states.  The association can become the “government” for that group, and issue its own driver’s licenses and conduct its own “courts”.  In effect, it becomes a competitor to the de facto state for the affections, allegiance, and obedience of the people.  This is capitalism at its finest, folks!

California Vehicle Code

12502.  (a) The following persons may operate a motor vehicle in this state without obtaining a driver's license under this code:

   (1) A nonresident over the age of 18 years having in his or her immediate possession a valid driver's license issued by a foreign jurisdiction of which he or she is a resident, except as provided in Section 12505.

[SOURCE:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=12001-13000&file=12500-12527]

As long as the driver’s licenses issued by the government you form meet the same standard as those for the state you are in, then it doesn’t matter who issued it. 

California Vehicle Code

12505.  (a) (1) For purposes of this division only and notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a person's state of domicile.  "State of domicile" means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which he or she has manifested the intention of returning whenever he or she is absent.

[. . .]

(e) Subject to Section 12504, a person over the age of 16 years who is a resident of a foreign jurisdiction other than a state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Canada, having a valid driver's license issued to him or her by any other foreign jurisdiction having licensing standards deemed by the Department of Motor Vehicles equivalent to those of this state, may operate a motor vehicle in this state without obtaining a license from the department, except that he or she shall obtain a license before being employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways.

[SOURCE:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=12001-13000&file=12500-12527]

As long as you take and pass the same written and driver’s tests as the state uses, even your church could issue it!  As a matter of fact, below is an example of a church that issues “Heaven Driver’s Licenses” called “Embassy of Heaven”:

You can’t be compelled by law to grant to your public “servants” a monopoly that compels you into servitude to them as a “public officer”.  In the United States, WE THE PEOPLE are the government, and not their representatives and “servants” who work for them implementing the laws that they pass.  Consequently, you and your friends or church, as a “self-governing body” can make your own driver’s license and in fact and in law, those licenses will by definition be “government-issued”.  To wit:

“The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives [they are the government, not their servants]. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. ..."

[Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)]

________________________________________________________________________________

"From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Government founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ.  Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens."
[Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.ed. 454, 457, 471, 472 (1794)]

Anyone who won’t accept such a driver’s license should be asked to contradict the U.S. Supreme Court and to prove that you AREN’T part of the government as a person who governs his own life and the lives of other members of the group you have created.  The following article also emphasizes that “We The People” are  the government, and that our servants have been trying to deceive us into believing otherwise:

If you would like to know more about this fascinating subject, see the following book:

14.  Summary and Conclusions

Based on the foregoing analysis and legally admissible evidence, we can safely conclude the following:

1.        Think of the “state” as a club:

1.1.      The “state” is the collection of all the sovereigns that occupy a specific territorial land mass.

1.2.      The “government” are the people contracted and under oath to service the needs of the “state” and execute the business of the “state”.  They are “protection contractors”.  The “government” and the “state” are two separate and distinct groups that are NOT synonymous or the same.  The “state” is the sovereign, while the “government” is the SERVANT of the sovereign.

1.3.      Those who are members of the club are called “citizens” if they were born somewhere within the country and “residents” if they were born in a different country.

1.4.      Those who are not members of the club are called “nonresidents” or “transient foreigners”.

1.5.      Whether you are a “member” or a “nonmember” is determined by how you describe your “residence”, “permanent address”, or “domicile” on usually government and financial forms.  No one but you can decide or control what you put on these forms.

1.6.      Taxes are your “club membership dues”.

1.7.      In return for membership, you are entitled to demand “services” or “benefits” from the government that serves the “state”.

1.8.      No one can force you to join the club.  The First Amendment protects your right to NOT join the club by prohibiting “compelled association”.  That is why the First Amendment is the first amendment:  Because the first and most important thing you must do when forming any “state” is to give everyone the right to NOT join!

1.9.      Since no one can force you to join the club, no one can compel you to accept the liabilities associated with membership in the club and they must prove that you voluntarily consented to join the club before they can legally enforce those liabilities against you.  Such liabilities include the duty to pay income taxes, to vote, and to serve as a jurist when summoned.

1.10.   Membership in the club confers civil jurisdiction of the courts in order to protect your civil rights.

1.11.   You do not need to be a member of the club in order for the government to enforce the criminal laws of the state against you.  All that must be proven in order to enforce the criminal laws is that you were physically situated on the territory associated with the “state” and that you committed a criminal or harmful act that injured a specific other fellow sovereign.

1.12.      There are TWO levels of club membership:  Premium and Unleaded.  The “Unleaded” version is basic domicile in the republic and not the “State” and this level buys you basic criminal protection and nothing more.  The “Premium” level of membership requires you to become a “public officer” of the government so they can lawfully pay you bribes called “benefits” with money they stole from your neighbor.  Because there are two levels of membership, then the “Premium” level violates the Constitution because it confers a “Title of Nobility”.  The only other way to view this level and still be consistent with the Constitution is to view all those who participate as employees of a PRIVATE corporation that is NOT a de jure government.  See:

2.    Domicile is legally defined as the coincidence of physical presence in a place now or in the past, and the intention to return to and permanently inhabit that place.  The Bible says that no place on earth is permanent and that the present earth will be destroyed, and therefore it is against God’s law to declare a domicile within any man-made political group on earth.

3.   The place where a person “lives” and their legal “domicile” can be and often are two completely different places.  Many people incorrectly confuse these two terms, and in so doing, unknowingly forfeit their right to choose whether they want to be subject to the civil laws where they are located.

4.        Domicile is ordinarily associated with “citizens”, while “residence” is associated with privileged “aliens”.  You can have only one “domicile” but as many “residences” as you want.  Residence, in turn, is a product of your right to contract.  When you sign up for a franchise such as the “trade or business”/income tax franchise, you become a “resident” within the statutes granting the privilege or franchise:

26 CFR §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]
[SOURCE:  http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Resident-26cfr301.7701-5.pdf]

5.   Those who have chosen a legal domicile outside of the place or state that they occupy at any given time are called “transient foreigners”. When you go on vacation temporarily to a place, you are a "transient foreigner" with respect to the government of that place.  It is perfectly lawful to ALSO choose to be a transient foreigner in the place of your birth and the place where you live or to choose a domicile within a political group of your own making, such as a church, family, or political group.  Those who do so have made a protected First Amendment choice to disassociate with what oftentimes is a corrupted government or state that is more harmful than protective of their personal interests.

6.        The purpose of selecting a domicile is to nominate a king or ruler to provide a substitute for God’s protection.  A choice of domicile amounts essentially to a contract to procure “protection” from a king or ruler to whom those protected owe “tribute” and “allegiance”.  Serving anyone but God is idolatry and idolatry is condemned as the most serious sin a believer can commit in the Bible.

“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and mammon.” 

[Jesus [God] speaking in Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV]]

7.        You can only have a legal domicile in ONE PLACE at a time, because you can only owe undivided allegiance to one ruler at a time.  As a consequence:

7.1.      You can only be a “citizen” in ONE PLACE at a time.

7.2.      If you are physically present in a place outside of your legal domicile, you are a “transient foreigner” and a “national” but not “citizen” in that place.  For instance, Mexicans visiting the United States for temporary and who have not changed their “domicile” to the United States are called “Mexican Nationals” while they are here.  When they return to the place of their domicile, they are called “Mexican citizens”.

7.3.      You cannot be a “citizen” under federal statutory law without having a domicile on federal territory.  States of the Union are NOT federal territory.

7.4  You can only owe income taxes to one government at a time.  This is consistent with the fact that you must have a federal tax liability before you can have a state liability.  It is also consistent with the conclusion that the states, when they collect state income taxes, are doing so in the capacity as federal territories and instrumentalities and not sovereign or independent governments.  This type of abuse is facilitated by the unconstitutionally administered Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. §106, and its implementation found in 5 U.S.C. §5517.  No state or federal constitution authorizes any state of the Union to act as a federal corporation, agency, territory, or instrumentality as described in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and any attempt to do so is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and an act of TREASON punishable by death under 18 U.S.C. §2381.

8.   Domicile constitutes your voluntary choice of the civil law system and the government you choose to live under.  The purpose of law is to protect people by preventing harm but not mandating good.  The purpose of government is to enforce and implement the law.  Therefore, the purpose of government is to protect.  You cannot be held responsible for obeying any civil law unless you voluntarily choose a legal domicile where it applies.  This includes the civil code and the family code in your state.

9.        Domicile is a First Amendment   voluntary choice of political affiliation.  The government cannot change your domicile without your consent.  What the law dictionary calls “intent” really amounts to consent, and they are trying to hide the voluntary nature of the transaction by choosing different words to describe it.  For instance:

9.1.      Only adults who have reached the age of majority can lawfully choose a legal domicile.

9.2.      Insane or incompetent persons cannot have a chosen domicile and take on the domicile of their caretakers.

9.3.      Children assume the domicile of their parents.

9.4.      Every government tax form in one way or another causes you to choose a domicile, and since the choice of form or the way you fill it out is your choice, then the domicile is also your choice.  For instance, IRS form 1040 causes you to choose a domicile in the District of Columbia.  IRS form 1040NR is filled out by persons who do not have a domicile in the District of Columbia.

10.        No court of law or government official may lawfully interfere with your choice of domicile because:

10.1.      Courts of justice may not lawfully involve themselves in “political questions”.

10.2.      Public servants in the political branches of the government, including the Executive and Legislative branches, may not interfere with your First Amendment right to freely associate or disassociate.

11.        A government that compels you to choose a domicile within their jurisdiction is engaging in unlawful slavery in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1994, involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, extortion, racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1951, and violating your First Amendment right of freedom from compelled association.

12.        Because choice of domicile is voluntary, income taxes based on it are also entirely voluntary and avoidable.  The government does NOT want you to know that you can avoid income taxes, and so they will avoid discussing this and persecute all those who reveal it to the public.

13.        Your domicile is whatever you say it is on a government form.  Other evidentiary methods of determining legal domicile are ordinarily only employed where evidence of your direct declaration of domicile on a government form is not available.  On government forms, “domicile” is synonymous with the terms “permanent address”.

14.        Within the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A  and all state revenue codes, a “resident” is an alien with a domicile, presence, or existence on federal territory.  A person who is not physically present on federal territory can become a “resident” there by engaging in “commerce” within the legislative jurisdiction of that forum.  This, in fact, is the main method by which the federal government manufactures “taxpayers” out of sovereign Americans domiciled in states of the Union.  The Social Security system causes them to conduct commerce within the legislative jurisdiction of the United States and thereby surrender sovereign immunity and become “resident aliens” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2) .  Those engaging in such commerce are called “public officers” who are “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States”.  All those engaged in a “trade or business” are “resident aliens” of the United States.  Older versions of the Treasury Regulations show this scam below:

26 CFR §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]

15.     Driver’s licenses issued by state governments are the method of choice for compelling persons to declare a legal domicile within a state.  Because the government cannot compel you to choose a domicile, they also cannot compel you to obtain or use a state driver’s license.

16.     Domicile is an abstract term that is difficult to legally prove.  Because it is difficult to prove, the government will avoid discussions of the term.  That is why the term only appears twice in the entire 9,500 page Internal Revenue Code.  They will also avoid discussing the term because they don’t want to acknowledge that they need your consent to both enforce the law against you and collect taxes from you.

17.     Those who want to divorce the state which controls the place where they live may do so by declaring a domicile outside of their place of abode.  Such persons are called:

17.1.   “Transient foreigners”.

17.2.   "Stateless persons" (in relation to the place they physically live).

18.     Those who do not want to assume the liabilities of “domicile” within a jurisdiction cannot

18.1.   Register to vote within that jurisdiction.

18.2.   Obtain a state driver’s license within that jurisdiction.

18.3.   Serve as a jurist within that jurisdiction.

18.4.   Indicate a “permanent address” on any government form that is within the jurisdiction of that government.

18.5.   Apply for any government benefit, including Social Security, Medicare, etc.

18.6.   Submit any form that implies a domicile there, such as the IRS form 1040, which is only for use by “U.S. persons” with a legal domicile in the District of Columbia.  Instead, the 1040NR is the only proper form for “stateless persons” and “transient foreigners” to use in the context of federal taxation.

19.     The only laws that may be enforced against “transient foreigners” are criminal laws.  Civil laws require a legal domicile within the jurisdiction where the law applies.  This is a result of the fact that the Declaration of Independence says that all just powers in a free government derive from the “consent of the governed” and that the only legitimate reason for the state to proceed against a person without his consent is when he is criminally injuring someone.

20.  The Bible commands believers to be separate and sanctified, and to come out of the corrupted government that has become Satan's whore, which the Bible calls "Babylon the Great Harlot".  In effect, God commands us to DISASSOCIATE.  We can do this legally and peacefully only by changing our domicile.

After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illuminated with his glory.

And he cried mightily with a loud voice saying, ‘Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for  every unclean and hated bird!’

“For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings [politicians, who load us with debt] of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.’

And I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive her plagues.

“For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.

“Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her.

“In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’

“Therefore her plagues [economic or stock market collapses] will come in one day—death and mourning and famine.  And she will be utterly burned with fire [looting from all the greedy people who mortgaged themselves to the hilt and put their children into debt slavery to pay for their luxuries], for strong is the Lord God who judges her.”

[Rev. 18:1-8, Bible, NKJV]

21.  If you want to divorce the state and become a "transient foreigner" wherever you go, we suggest the following resource:

Legal Notice of Change in Citizenship/Domicile Records and Divorce from the United States, Form #10.001

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

22.     The government is just like any other corporation.  The only product it delivers is “protection”.  Government does not have a monopoly on “protection”.  A government that compels you to procure or pay for its protection against your will is engaged in racketeering and organized crime.  If the cost of government protection exceeds its benefits, any person or group are free to divorce the state by abandoning their domicile, and to provide their own more cost effective protection.  Anyone may compete directly with the government in “the protection business” or elect to fire all protectors and instigate “front door justice”.  This is a direct result of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court said the essential purpose of the Constitution was to confer upon We the People the right to be LEFT ALONE by the government.

“The only protection I need is my Smith and Wesson.”

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting);  see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]

23.  All income taxes are based on legal “domicile”.  Income taxes support the police powers of the state, and the police powers of the state implement and enforce the law.  If you don’t have a domicile in a place, then you can’t be liable for income taxes in that place because you are not being personally protected by the laws of that place.

24.        Persons with a legal domicile in the District of Columbia, which is called the “United States” in the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), are called “U.S. persons”.  Persons with a domicile in a place are also called “inhabitants”.  Under the Internal Revenue Code sections 7701(a)(39) and 7408(d ), persons who declare a domicile in the District of Columbia are treated as virtual residents and “taxpayers” there regardless of where they physically live.  “U.S. persons” include statutory “citizens of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 and “residents” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A).

25.        Both “citizens” and “residents” have in common a “domicile” in a place and collectively are called “inhabitants”.  Those without a domicile are called “transient foreigners”.  IRS does NOT like people claiming they are “transient foreigners” because it destroys their ability to tax.  They therefore omit this as an option on ALL their tax forms so you can’t property declare your status as a “nontaxpayer”.  The only time that either “citizens” or “resident” can have a tax liability under I.R.C. Subtitle A is when they are temporarily abroad pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §911.  The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in Cook v. Tait that taxation of “U.S. persons” abroad was permissible in Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).  We have been able to identify NO provision of law that makes any statutory “citizen” or “resident” responsible for an income tax who is NOT temporarily abroad.  Even then, they must be voluntarily engaged in a “trade or business”, which is a “public office”, in most cases to have any tax liability at all.

26.        An “alien” or a “nonresident alien” with a domicile in the District of Columbia is called a “resident” in the Internal Revenue Code.  You cannot lawfully be a “resident” and a “citizen” within the same jurisdiction at the same time.

15.  Resources for further research and rebuttal

If you enjoyed this document and want additional supporting information, we highly recommend the following additional resources:

1.        Authorities on the word “domicile” -what the courts and the law say on the subject of “domicile”.  See:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/domicile.htm

2.        Legal Notice of Change in Citizenship/Domicile Records and Divorce From The United States, Form #10.001-allows you to politically and legally divorce the federal government and thereby become a nonresident alien, a “non-citizen national”, and a nontaxpayer.  See:

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

3.        Developing Evidence of Citizenship and Sovereignty-training course that shows you how to develop legally admissible evidence you can use to protect and defend your sovereignty in any court.  See item 2.3 in the link below:

http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm

4.        Why you are a “national” or a “state national” and not a “U.S. citizen”, Form #05.006-pamphlet that shows that the proper citizenship status of persons born in states of the Union is “non-citizen nationals” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)  and 8 U.S.C. §1452.  See:

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm