SOURCE:
Federal and State Withholding Options for Private Employers, section
12, ver. 1.81
1. Definitions
The purpose of establishing
government is solely to provide “protection”. Those who wish to be
protected by a specific government must expressly consent to be protected
by choosing a domicile within the civil jurisdiction of that specific
government.
-
Those who have made such a choice and thereby become
“customers” of the protection afforded by government are called
by any of the following names under the civil laws of the
jurisdiction they have nominated to protect them:
1.1
“citizens”, if they were born somewhere within the country
which the jurisdiction is a part.
1.2 “residents” (aliens)
if they were born within the country in which the jurisdiction is a
part
1.3 "inhabitants", which
encompasses both "citizens", and "residents" but excludes foreigners
1.4 "persons".
1.5 "individuals".
-
Those who have not
become “customers” or “protected persons” of a specific government are
called by any of the following names within the civil laws of the
jurisdiction they have refused to nominate as their protector and
may NOT be called by any of the names in item 1 above:
2.1 “nonresidents”
2.2 “transient foreigners”
2.3 "stateless
persons"
2.4 "in transitu"
2.5 "transient"
2.6 "sojourner"
In law, the process of
choosing a domicile within the jurisdiction of a specific government is
called “animus manendi”. That choice makes you a consenting
party to the “civil contract”, “social compact”, and “private law” that
attaches to and therefore protects all “inhabitants” and things
physically situated on or within that specific territory, venue, and
jurisdiction. In a sense then, your consent to a specific jurisdiction
by your choice of domicile within that jurisdiction is what creates the
"person", "individual", "citizen", "resident", or "inhabitant" which is
the only proper subject of the civil laws passed by that government. In
other words, choosing a domicile within a specific jurisdiction causes
an implied waiver of sovereign immunity, because the courts admit that
the term "person" does not refer to the "sovereign":
“Since in common usage, the term person does not include the
sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily
construed to exclude it.”
[United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941)]
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not
subject to law for it is the author and source of law;”
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]
“There is no such thing as a power of
inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In
this country sovereignty resides in the People, and
Congress can exercise no power which
they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is
withheld.”
[Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)]
Those who have become customers of
government protection by
choosing a domicile within a specific government then owe a duty to pay
for the support of the protection they demand. The method of paying for
said protection is called “taxes”. In earlier times this kind of
sponsorship was called “tribute”.
Both state and federal income
taxation is based almost entirely upon what is called “domicile”.
Domicile is a choice we make that requires our consent and
participation, and because it requires our consent, then becoming a
“taxpayer” who owes a tax requires our consent. We will explain
this shortly. An examination of the Internal Revenue Code and
implementing regulations confirms that there are only two proper legal
“persons” who are the subject of the I.R.C., and that these two
“persons” have a “domicile” in the District of Columbia.
By “District of Columbia” as used in this document, we mean the
government of the “United States” and not the District of Columbia in
the geographical sense as used in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10):
Table 3: Taxable persons under I.R.C.
|
# |
Proper
legal
person? |
Tax status |
Place of inhabitance |
Declared domicile |
Conditions under which subject to I.R.C. (if they
volunteer)? |
Notes |
|
1 |
Yes |
“citizen” |
District of
Columbia |
District of
Columbia |
Earnings
connected with a “trade or business” within the District of
Columbia while abroad. |
File using
IRS Form 2555. See 26 CFR §1.1-1(c )for imposition of tax.
“citizens” living abroad and outside of federal jurisdiction are
referred to as “nationals” but not “citizens” under 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)(B). |
|
2 |
Yes |
“resident” |
District of
Columbia |
District of
Columbia |
All income
earned within the District of Columbia connected with a “trade
or business” |
See 26 CFR
§1.1-1(c ) for imposition of tax. See 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)
for definition of “resident” |
|
3 |
No |
“nonresident
alien” |
Outside of
District of Columbia |
Foreign
country, including states of the Union |
Income from
within the District of Columbia under
26 U.S.C. §871. |
File using
form 1040NR. See 26 U.S.C. §871 for taxable sources.
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) for definition of “nonresident
alien” |
|
4 |
No |
“alien” |
District of
Columbia |
Foreign
country, including states of the Union |
Only subject
to income taxes on “income” from foreign country connected with
a “trade or business” and coming under an income tax treaty with
the foreign country. |
Do not
file. Not subject to the I.R.C. because not domiciled in the
District of Columbia |
Options 1 and 2 above have “domicile” within the
District of Columbia as a prerequisite. People born in and domiciled
within states of the Union fall under status 3. If “nationals” (who are
not “citizens” under
8 U.S.C. §1401) living in states have no earnings
from the District of Columbia, then even if they choose to volunteer,
they cannot be “liable” to pay any of their earnings to the IRS. Note
also that the “aliens” mentioned in option 4 above, even if they live in
the District of Columbia, are not even mentioned in the I.R.C. They
only become subject to the code by either becoming involved in a "trade
or business", which is a public office, which is a voluntary activity
involving federal contracts and employment, or by declaring the District of Columbia to be
their legal “domicile”. Making the District of Columbia into their
“domicile” or engaging in a "trade or business" (which is
defined as a public office) are the only two activities that can transform “aliens” into “residents”
subject to the Internal Revenue Code.
“Aliens” or “nonresident
aliens” may voluntarily elect (choose) to treat the District of Columbia
as their domicile and thereby become “residents” in accordance with the
following authorities:
1.
26 U.S.C. §6013(g) or (h).
2.
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4)(B).
3.
26 CFR §1.871-1(a).
4.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C.
§1605(a)(2), which says that those who conduct “commerce” within the
legislative jurisdiction of the United States (in the federal zone)
surrender their sovereign immunity.
TITLE 28 >
PART IV >
CHAPTER 97 > § 1605
§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a
foreign state
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune
from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of
the States in any case—
(2) in which
the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the
United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the
United States in connection with a commercial activity of the
foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the
United States in connection with a commercial activity of the
foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the
United States;
We also
caution that a “nonresident alien” can also unwittingly become a “U.S.
person” with an effective domicile in the District of Columbia by incorrectly
declaring his or her citizenship status on a government form as that of
either a statutory “U.S. citizen” under
8 U.S.C. §1401 or a statutory “resident alien” under
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) , instead of a “national” but not a citizen
under
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and
8 U.S.C. §1452. This results in a
surrender of sovereign immunity under
28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3), which says that “U.S. citizens” and
“residents” may not be treated as “foreign states”. This is by far
the most frequent mechanism that your unscrupulous government uses to
maliciously destroy the sovereignty of persons in states of the Union
and undermine the
Separation of Powers Doctrine: Using ambiguous terms on government
forms and creating and exploiting legal ignorance of the people. This
process by public servants of systematically and illegally destroying
the separation of powers is thoroughly documented below:
Domicile is legally defined as follows. We also
include the definition of “situs” to help clarify its meaning:
"domicile.
A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true,
fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to
which whenever he is absent he has the intention of
returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310m 213 A.2d 94.
Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention
to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a
"domicile" therein. The permanent residence of a person or the
place to which he intends to return even though he may
actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one
residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a
person is important since it, rather than the actual residence,
often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and
determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and
other legal rights and privileges."
[Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, p. 485]
______________________________________________________
"Situs.
Lat. Situation; location; e.g. location or place of crime or
business. Site; position; the place where a thing is considered,
for example, with reference to jurisdiction over it, or the right or
power to tax it. It imports fixedness of location. Situs of
property, for tax purposes, is determined by whether the taxing
state has sufficient contact with the personal property sought to be
taxed to justify in fairness the particular tax. Town of Cady v.
Alexander Const. Co., 12 Wis.2d 236, 107 N.W.2d 267, 270."
Generally,
personal property has its taxable "situs" in that state where owner of
it is domiciled. Smith v. Lummus, 149 Fla. 660, 6 So.2d 625, 627, 628.
Situs of a trust means place of performance of active duties of
trustee. Campbell v. Albers, 313 Ill.App. 152, 39 N.E.2d 672, 676."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1387]
Notice in the definition of
"domicile" above the absence of the word "consent" and replacing it with
the word "intent" to disguise the true nature of what they are saying.
Lawyers and politicians don't want you to know that they need your
consent to make you into a "taxpayer" with a "domicile" within their
jurisdiction, even though this is in fact the case. More on this
later.
An exhaustive academic
treatise on the subject of domicile also candidly admits that there is
no all encompassing definition for "domicile".
§57.
Difficulty of Defining Domicil.--The difficulty, if not
impossibility, of arriving at an entirely satisfactory definition of
domicile has been frequently commented upon. Lord
Alvanley, in Somerville v. Somerville, praised the wisdom of
Bynkershoek in not hazarding a definition; and Dr. Lushington, in
Maltass v. Maltass, speaking of the various attempts of jurists in
this direction, considered himself justified in the remarkable
language of Hertius: "Verum in iis definiendis mirum est quam sudant
doctores." Lord Chelmsford, speaking, as late as 1863, in the
case of Moorhouse v. Lord, says: "The difficulty of getting a
satisfactory definition of domicil, which will meet every case, has
often been admitted, and every attempt to frame one has hitherto
failed."
[Treatise on the Law of Domicil, §57, pp. 93-98;M.W. Jacobs, 1887;
Little Brown and Company
SOURCE:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MFQvAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage]
The above admission is not
surprising, given the fact that the main purpose for inventing the
concept of domicile is to infer or imply consent of the subject to the
civil law that has never expressly been given in writing and cannot be
proven to exist. No government or judge is going to give a
definition, because then people would use that definition to prove that
they DON'T have a domicile and that would destroy the source of all the
government's civil and taxing authority over the people who employ the
definition to break the chains that bind them to their pagan tyrant
rulers.
The concept of domicile we
inherit primarily from the feudal Roman law system in which the king or
emperor or lord claimed ownership over all territory entrusted to him or
her by divine right. Everyone occupying said territory therefore
became a "subject" of the king and owed him "allegiance" as compensation
for the "privilege" or franchise associated with use of his property.
That allegiance expressed itself as "tribute" paid to the king, which we
know of today as "taxes". What were once "subjects" of the king in
Great Britain and the Roman Empire are now called "citizens", and we
fired the King when the Declaration of Independence declared all men
equal. At that point, everyone became equal and the sovereign
transitioned from the former King of England to "We the People" as
individuals. Consequently, we no longer have a landlord and the
government that serves us cannot therefore lawfully charge us "rent" for
the use of the land or territory that we occupy if we own it.
"The people of
this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled
to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his
prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may
exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have
been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in
conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions
which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the
U.S."
[Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)]
"In the United
States the people are sovereign, and the government cannot sever its
relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship."
[Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US 253 (1967)]
"Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the
absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation;
and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of
its public functionaries, is in
the people of the state.
2 Dall. 471"
[Bouv.
Law Dict (1870)]
"The sovereignty of a
state does not reside in the persons who fill the different
departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the
government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion.
Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and
not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to
the federal and state government."
[Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F. 939 @ 943]
"In Europe, the
Executive is almost synonymous with the Sovereign power of a State;
and, generally, includes legislative and judicial authority. When,
therefore, writers speak of the sovereign, it is not necessarily in
exclusion of the judiciary; and it will often be found, that when
the Executive affords a remedy for any wrong, it is nothing more
than by an exercise of its judicial authority. Such is
the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too
commonly acquired by force, or fraud, or both, and seldom by
compact. In America, however, the case is widely different.
Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty
was, and is, in the people. It was entrusted by them, as
far as was necessary for the purpose of forming a good government,
to the Federal Convention; and the Convention executed their trust,
by effectually separating the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive
powers; which, in the contemplation of our Constitution, are each a
branch of the sovereignty. The well-being of the whole depends upon
keeping each department within its limits."
[Glass v. Sloop Betsey, 3 U.S. 6, 3 Dall. 6, 1 L.Ed. 485 (1794)]
The U.S. Supreme Court
describes the relationship of domicile to taxation as follows:
"Thus, the Court has frequently
held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence
in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including
income, property, and death taxes. 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. Of
course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the
citizenship, domicile, or residence of the owner, the most obvious
illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the
realty is located."
[Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland,
347 U.S. 340 (1954)]
“This right to protect persons having a
domicile, though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on
the firm foundation of justice, and the claim to be protected is
earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at
liberty to disregard. Such domiciled citizen pays the
same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens
pay for theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country
of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same
penalties. He owes the same obedience to the civil laws.
His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as
theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government. In
nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties and
burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”
[Fong Yue Ting v.
United States,
149 U.S. 698 (1893)]
The first thing to notice
about the above ruling is that the essence of being a “citizen” is one’s
domicile, not just their place of birth or naturalization. The U.S.
Supreme Court admitted above that an alien with a domicile in a place is
treated as a native or naturalized “citizen” in nearly every respect.
Note also the key role of the word “intention” within the meaning of
domicile. A person can have many “abodes”, which are the place they
temporarily “inhabit”, but only one legal “domicile”. You cannot have a
legal “domicile” in a place without also having an intention (also
called “consent”) to live there “permanently”, which implies allegiance
to the people and the laws of that place.
“Allegiance and protection [by the
government from harm] are, in this connection, reciprocal
obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for
protection and protection for allegiance.”
[Minor v.
Happersett,
88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 166-168 (1874)]
What the supreme Court essentially is describing
above is a contract to procure the civil protection of a specific
government, and it is giving that contract a name called “domicile”.
What makes the contract binding is the fact that each party to the
contract both gives and receives specific and measurable
“consideration”. You give “allegiance” and the support (e.g. “taxes”)
that go with that allegiance, and in return, the government has an
implied legal duty to protect and serve you. All contracts require both
mutual consent and mutual consideration. Without both
demonstrated elements, the contract is unenforceable. The contract is
therefore only enforceable if both parties incur reciprocal duties that
are enforceable in court as “rights”.
Now let's look at the
domicile “protection contract” or “protection franchise”. Does it meet
all the requisite legal elements of a legally enforceable contract? In
fact, after you declare your exclusive allegiance to the “state” by
declaring a “domicile” within that state so that you can procure
“protection”, ironically, the courts continue to forcefully insist that
your public SERVANTS STILL have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect you!
This is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the traitor, calls “The New
Deal”, and what we call “The RAW Deal”. Below is the AMAZING truth
right from the horse’s mouth, the courts, proving that police officers
cannot be sued if they fail to come to your aid after you call them when
you have a legitimate need for their protection:
Consequently, the “protection contract” is unenforceable as a duty upon
you because it imposes no reciprocal duty upon the government. On the
one hand, the government throws people in jail for failing to pay for
protection in the form of “taxes”, while on the other hand, it refuses
to prosecute police officers for failing to provide the protection that
was paid for, even though their willful or negligent refusal to protect
us could have far more injurious and immediate effects than simply
failing to pay for protection. This is a violation of the equal
protection of the laws. If it is a crime to not pay for protection,
then it ought to equally be a crime to not provide it! Who would want
to live in a country or be part of a “state” that would condone such
hypocrisy? That is why we advocate “divorcing the state”. It is
precisely this type of hypocrisy that explains why prominent authorities
will tell you that taxes are not “contractual”: because the courts
treat it like a contract and a criminal matter to not pay taxes for
“taxpayers”, but refuse to hold public servants equally liable for their
half of the bargain, which is protection:
"A tax is not regarded
as a debt in the ordinary sense of that term, for the reason that a
tax does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer and there is no
express or implied contract to pay taxes. Taxes are not contracts
between party and party, either express or implied; but they are the
positive acts of the government, through its various agents, binding
upon the inhabitants, and to the making and enforcing of which their
personal consent individually is not required."
[Cooley, Law of Taxation,
Fourth Edition, pp. 88-89]
The above is a deception at
best and a LIE at worst. A “taxpayer” is legally defined as a person
liable, and it is true that for such a person, taxes are not
consensual or in any way "voluntary". HOWEVER, the choice about whether one wishes to BECOME a
“taxpayer” as legally defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) is based on domicile
and the excise taxable activities one voluntarily engages in, both of
which in fact ARE voluntary
actions and choices. By their careful choice of words, they have misrepresented the
truth so they could get into your pocket. What else would you expect of
greedy LIARS, I mean “lawyers”? We would also like to
take this opportunity to clarify for whom taxes are "voluntary" in order
to further clarify the title of this document:
-
Income taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle A are not voluntary for
"taxpayers".
-
Income taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle A are not voluntary for
everyone, because some subset of everyone are "taxpayers".
-
Income taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle A are voluntary for those
who are "nontaxpayers", who we define here as those persons who are
NOT the "taxpayer" defined in 26 U.S.C.
§§7701(a)(14) and 1313.
“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees,
instrumentalities, and elected officials of the Federal
Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American
Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Federal Government]. The latter are without their scope. No
procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is
made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of
law. With them [non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal
and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal
revenue laws.”
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]
Some other points to
consider about this “Raw Deal” scam:
1.
You can’t be a “citizen” or a “resident” without having a legally
enforceable right to protection.
2.
Since the government won’t enforce the rendering of the ONLY
consideration required to make you a “citizen” or a “resident”, then the
protection contract is unenforceable and technically, you can’t lawfully
therefore call yourself a “citizen”.
3.
Since you can’t be a member of a “state” without being a “citizen”, then
technically, there is no de jure “state”, no de jure government that
serves this “state”, and no “United States”. It’s just “US”, friends,
cause there ain’t no “U.S.”!
4.
The implication is that your government has legally abandoned you and
you are an orphan, because they didn’t complete their half of the
protection contract bargain. Without a government, God is back in
charge. The Bible says He owns the earth anyway, which leaves us as
“nonresidents” and “transient foreigners” in respect to any jurisdiction
that claims to be a “government” because we know they’re lying.
5.
The Bible says of this “Raw Deal” the following: You've been HAD,
folks!
For thus
says the LORD: “ You have sold yourselves for nothing, And you shall
be redeemed without money.”
[Isaiah
52:3, Bible, NKJV]
The U.S.
Supreme Court has also held that “allegiance” is completely incompatible with any
system of “citizenship” in a republican form of government, and that it
is “repulsive”. Ironically, allegiance is exactly what we currently
base our system of citizenship on in this country. Apparently, this is
yet one more symptom that our government has become corrupted.
“Yet, it is to be
remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its
artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands,
and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which
has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a
substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of
things. Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost
every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact
[CONTRACT!]; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.
Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.
Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of
inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.
Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is
communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be
relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential
differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system
of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to
elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law
of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most
pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations that
demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which,
under every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent
rights of man…..The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due
to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the
strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous,
sovereign….”
[Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S.
133 (1795)]
Consequently, we must conclude that allegiance to anything but God is
therefore to be avoided at all costs. Notice also that they say that
citizenship is the effect of “compact”, which is a type of contract. If
“domicile” is the basis of citizenship, and citizenship is the effect of
“compact”, then “domicile” amounts to the equivalent of a “contract”.
This leads us right back to the conclusion that the voluntary choice of
one’s “domicile” is a “contract” to procure man-made protection and fire
God as our protector:
“Compact,
n. An agreement or contract between persons, nations, or states.
Commonly applied to working agreements between and among states
concerning matters of mutual concern. A contract between parties,
which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and
contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and
independent characters. A mutual consent of parties concerned
respecting some property or right that is the object of the
stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. See also
Compact clause; Confederacy; Interstate compact; Treaty.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, p. 281]
The Bible is consistent with
the Supreme Court above in its disdain for “allegiance”. It has a name
for those expressing "allegiance": It is called an "oath". When a
person becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, he must by
law (see
8 U.S.C. 1448) take an “oath” of "allegiance" and be "sworn in".
When a person signs an income tax return, he must swear a perjury oath.
Jesus, on the other hand, commanded believers not to take "oaths" to
anything but God, and especially not to earthly Kings, and said that
doing otherwise was essentially Satanic:
"Again you have
heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not swear
falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say
to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's
throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem,
for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by
your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let
your "Yes' be "Yes,' and your "No,' "No.' For whatever is more
than these is from the evil one [Satan]."
[Matt.
5:33-37, Bible, NKJV]
God also commanded us to take
oaths ONLY in His name and no others:
"You shall fear
the LORD your God and serve [only] Him, and shall take oaths
in His name."
[Deut.
6:13, Bible, NKJV]
"If a man makes
a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by some
agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all
that proceeds out of his mouth."
[Numbers
30:2, Bible, NKJV]
Israel's first King, Saul, in
fact, distressed the people because one of his first official acts was
to try to put the people under oath to him instead of God.
"And the men of
Israel were distressed that day, for Saul had placed the people
under oath"
[1
Sam. 14:24, Bible, NKJV]
God's
response to the Israelites electing a King/protector to whom they would
owe "allegiance", in fact, was to say that they sinned:
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together
and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "Look, you are old,
and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to
judge us like all the nations [and be OVER them]".
But the thing displeased Samuel when they said,
"Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the
Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the
people in all that they say to you; for they have rejected Me [God], that
I should not reign over them. According to all the works
which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of
Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and
served other gods [Kings, in this case]—so they are doing to you
also [government becoming idolatry]. Now therefore, heed
their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and
show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them."
So
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him
for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the
king who will reign over you: He will take [STEAL] your sons and
appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some
will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his
thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his
ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and
equipment for his chariots. He will take [STEAL] your daughters to
be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take [STEAL] the best
of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them
to his servants. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your grain and your
vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take
[STEAL] your male servants, your female servants, your finest young
men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work [as SLAVES]. He will
take [STEAL] a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants.
And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have
chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”
Nevertheless the people refused to obey the
voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over
us, 20 that we also may be like all the
nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and
fight our battles.”
[1
Sam. 8:4-20, Bible, NKJV]
Notice above the words "He
[the new King] will take...". God is really warning them here that
the King they elect will STEAL from them, which is exactly what our
present day government does! Some things never change, do they?
Another very important observation is in order at
this point, which is that our choice of "domicile" is a strictly
political and not legal matter. It is a matter of
our political choice and affiliation. The Supreme Court
has ruled that no government may dictate our choice of political
affiliations, as revealed in the American Jurisprudence Legal
Encyclopedia:
“The right to associate or not to associate with
others solely on the basis of individual choice, not being
absolute,
[1]
may conflict with a societal interest in requiring one to associate
with others, or to prohibit one from associating with others, in
order to accomplish what the state deems to be the common good.
The Supreme Court, though rarely called upon to examine this
aspect of the right to freedom of association, has nevertheless
established certain basic rules which will cover many situations
involving forced or prohibited associations. Thus, where a
sufficiently compelling state interest, outside the political
spectrum, can be accomplished only by requiring individuals to
associate together for the common good, then such forced association
is constitutional.
[2]
But the Supreme Court has made it clear that compelling an
individual to become a member of an organization with political
aspects, or compelling an individual to become a member of an
organization which financially supports, in more than an
insignificant way, political personages or goals which the
individual does not wish to support, is an infringement of the
individual's constitutional right to freedom of association.
[3]
The First Amendment prevents the government, except in the most
compelling circumstances, from wielding its power to interfere with
its employees' freedom to believe and associate, or to not believe
and not associate; it is not merely a tenure provision that protects
public employees from actual or constructive discharge.
[4]
Thus, First Amendment principles prohibit a state from compelling
any individual to associate with a political party, as a condition
of retaining public employment.
[5]
The First Amendment protects nonpolicymaking public employees from
discrimination based on their political beliefs or affiliation. [6]
But the First Amendment protects the right of political party
members to advocate that a specific person be elected or appointed
to a particular office and that a specific person be hired to
perform a governmental function.
[7]
In the First Amendment context, the political patronage exception to
the First Amendment protection for public employees is to be
construed broadly, so as presumptively to encompass positions placed
by legislature outside of "merit" civil service. Positions
specifically named in relevant federal, state, county, or municipal
laws to which discretionary authority with respect to enforcement of
that law or carrying out of some other policy of political concern
is granted, such as a secretary of state given statutory authority
over various state corporation law practices, fall within the
political patronage exception to First Amendment protection of
public employees.
[8]
However, a supposed interest in ensuring effective government and
efficient government employees, political affiliation or loyalty, or
high salaries paid to the employees in question should not be
counted as indicative of positions that require a particular party
affiliation.
[9]”
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional law,
§546: Forced and Prohibited Associations ]
One’s choice of "domicile" certainly has
far-reaching legal consequences and ramifications, but our choice of
domicile is not a legal matter to be decided by any court. No court
whether it be a federal or state court, has jurisdiction over
strictly political matters. Below is what the U.S. Supreme
Court has to say on this very subject:
"But,
fortunately for our freedom from political excitements in judicial
duties, this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] can never with
propriety be called on officially to be the umpire in questions
merely political. The adjustment of these questions belongs to
the people and their political representatives, either in the State
or general government. These questions relate to matters not to
be settled on strict legal principles. They are adjusted
rather by inclination, or prejudice or compromise, often.
[. . .]
Another
evil, alarming and little foreseen, involved in regarding these as
questions for the final arbitrament of judges would be that, in such
an event, all political privileges and rights would, in a dispute
among the people, depend on our decision finally. We would possess
the power to decide against, as well as for, them, and, under a
prejudiced or arbitrary judiciary, the public liberties and popular
privileges might thus be much perverted, if not entirely prostrated.
But, allowing the people to make constitutions and unmake them,
allowing their representatives to make laws and unmake them, and
without our interference as to their principles or policy in doing
it, yet, when constitutions and laws are made and put in force by
others, then the courts, as empowered by the State or the Union,
commence their functions and may decide on the rights which
conflicting parties can legally set up under them, rather than about
their formation itself. Our power begins after theirs [the
Sovereign People] ends. Constitutions and laws precede the
judiciary, and we act only under and after them, and as to disputed
rights beneath them, rather than disputed points in making them.
We speak what is the law, jus dicere, we speak
or construe what is the constitution, after both are made, but we
make, or revise, or control neither.
The disputed rights beneath
constitutions already made are to be governed by precedents, by
sound legal principles, by positive legislation [e.g.
"positive
law"], clear contracts,
moral duties, and fixed rules; they are per se questions of law, and
are well suited to the education and habits of the bench.
But the other disputed points in making constitutions, depending
often, as before shown, on policy, inclination, popular resolves and
popular will and arising not in respect to private rights, not what
is meum and tuum, but in relation to politics, they belong to
politics, and they are settled by political tribunals, and are too
dear to a people bred in the school of Sydney and Russel for them
ever to intrust their final decision, when disputed, to a class of
men who are so far removed from them as the judiciary, a class also
who might decide them erroneously, as well as right, and if in the
former way, the consequences might not be able to be averted
except by a revolution, while a wrong decision by a political forum
can often be peacefully corrected by new elections or instructions
in a single month; and if the people, in the distribution of powers
under the constitution, should ever think of making judges supreme
arbiters in political controversies when not selected by nor,
frequently, amenable to them nor at liberty to follow such various
considerations in their judgments as [48 U.S. 53] belong to mere
political questions, they will dethrone themselves and lose one of
their own invaluable birthrights; building up in this way -- slowly,
but surely -- a new sovereign power in the republic, in most
respects irresponsible and unchangeable for life, and one more
dangerous, in theory at least, than the worst elective oligarchy in
the worst of times. Again,
instead of controlling the people in political affairs,
the judiciary in our system was designed
rather to control individuals, on the one hand, when encroaching, or
to defend them, on the other, under the Constitution and the laws,
when they are encroached upon. And if the judiciary
at times seems to fill the important station of a check in the
government, it is rather a check on the legislature, who may attempt
to pass laws contrary to the Constitution, or on the executive, who
may violate both the laws and Constitution, than on the people
themselves in their primary capacity as makers and amenders of
constitutions."
[Luther v. Borden,
48 U.S. 1 (1849)]
Consequently, no court of law
can interfere with your choice of legal domicile, which is a strictly
political matter. To do otherwise would constitute compelled
association in violation of the First Amendment as well as direct
interference in the affairs of a political party, which is YOU.
You are your own independent political party and a sovereignty separate
and distinct from the federal or state sovereignties. A court of
law is certainly not the proper forum, for instance, in
which to question or politically ridicule one's choice of domicile,
whether it be in front of a jury or a judge.
"Petitioners
contend that immunity from suit in federal court suffices to
preserve the dignity of the States. Private suits against
nonconsenting States, however, present "the indignity of subjecting
a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the
instance of private parties," In re Ayers, supra,
at 505; accord, Seminole Tribe,
517 U. S., at 58 , regardless of the forum. Not only must a
State defend or default but also it must face the prospect of being
thrust, by federal fiat and against its will, into the disfavored
status of a debtor, subject to the power of private citizens to levy
on its treasury or perhaps even government buildings or property
which the State administers on the public's behalf.
[. . .]
"Underlying
constitutional form are considerations of great substance.
Private suits against nonconsenting States--especially suits for
money damages--may threaten the financial integrity of the States.
It is indisputable that, at the time of the founding, many of the
States could have been forced into insolvency but for their immunity
from private suits for money damages. Even today, an unlimited
congressional power to authorize suits in state court to levy upon
the treasuries of the States for compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, and even punitive damages could create staggering burdens,
giving Congress a power and a leverage over the States that is not
contemplated by our constitutional design. The potential national
power would pose a severe and notorious danger to the States and
their resources. "
[Alden v. Maine,
527 U.S. 706 (1999)]
The Supreme Court said that
the sovereignty of We The People is every bit as sacred as that of the
states, so why should they not merit the same level of sovereign immunity
from suit and dignity, especially in their choice of domicile, as that of the
States? To wit:
“The rights of individuals and the justice
due to them, are as dear and precious as those of states.
Indeed the latter are founded upon the former; and the great end and
object of them must be to secure and support the rights of
individuals, or else vain is government.”
[Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed 440 (1793)]
“We The People” certainly
cannot be “Sovereign” in any sense of the word if legal process can
be maliciously and habitually abused by the government at great
financial injury and inconvenience to them in the process of questioning
or ridiculing their choice of domicile. In spite of this fact, this
very evil happens daily in state and federal courts in the context of
tax trials. We cannot restore the sovereignty of the people unless and
until this chronic malicious abuse of legal and judicial process is
ended immediately.
Below is the ONLY
definition of “residence” found anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.
The definition does not begin with qualifying language such as “for the
purposes of this section” or “for the purposes of this chapter”.
Therefore, it is a universal definition that applies throughout the
Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations. Note also that the
definition is provided ONLY in the context of an “alien”. Therefore,
“citizens” or "nationals" cannot have a “residence”. This is VERY important and is
completely consistent with the fact that the only kind of “resident”
defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code (see
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)) is an “alien”:
Title 26: Internal Revenue
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
nonresident alien individuals
§ 1.871-2 Determining residence of alien individuals.
(b)
Residence defined.
An alien actually present in the United States
who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United
States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a
transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length
and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention,
indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not
sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United
States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a
resident. One who comes to the United States
for a definite
purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a
transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended
stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the
alien makes his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a
resident, though it may be his intention at all times to
return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has
been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United
States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is
not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this
section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
The phrase "definite purpose"
is important in the definition of "residence" above. Those who have
a definite purpose because of their eternal covenant with God and their
contractual relationship to Him described in the Bible and who know they
are only here temporarily can only be classified as
"transients" above. This explains why our rulers in government want to
get God out of the schools and out of public life: so that the sheep
will have no purpose in life other than to serve them and
waste themselves away in vain and sinful material pursuits.
"Then I hated
all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must
leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows
whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my
labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under
the sun. This also is vanity. Therefore I turned my heart
and despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun.
For there is a man whose labor is with wisdom, knowledge, and
skill; yet he must leave his heritage to a man who has not labored
for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. For what has
man for all his labor, and for the striving of his heart with which
he has toiled under the sun? For all his days are sorrowful, and his
work burdensome; even in the night his heart takes no rest. This
also is vanity."
[Eccl.
2:18-23, Bible, NKJV]
Only you, the
Sovereign, can determine your “intention” in the context of
"residence". Notice the words “definite
purpose”, “transient” and “temporary” in
the definition of "residence" above are nowhere defined in the law, which means
that you, and not your public servants, define them. If you do not intend to
remain in the “United
States”, which is defined as ONLY the District of Columbia in
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and not expanded elsewhere in
Subtitle A to include any other place, then you can’t be counted as a
“resident”, even if you are in fact an “alien”. The government cannot
determine your intention for you. An intention that is not voluntary is
not an intention, but simply a reaction to unjust external authority.
This is the basis for why the Supreme Court said:
“The citizen cannot complain [about the
laws or the tax system], because he has voluntarily submitted
himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to
the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective
spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to
its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its
own jurisdiction.”
[United States v. Cruikshank,
92 U.S. 542 (1875) [emphasis added]]
The California Election Code, Section 349 further
clarifies the distinctions between “domicile” and “residence” as follows:
California Election Code, section 349:
349. (a) "Residence"
for voting purposes means a person's domicile.
(b) The
domicile of a person is
that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the
person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or
she is absent, the person has the intention of returning. At a
given time, a person may have only one domicile.
(c) The
residence of a person
is that place in which the person's habitation is fixed for some
period of time, but wherein he or she does not have the intention of
remaining. At a given time, a person may have more than one
residence.
The above definition is
consistent with the analysis earlier in this section, but don't make the
false assumption that the above definitions apply within income tax
codes, because they DON'T. Only statutory "citizens" who have a
domicile within the forum can be the subject of the above statute
relating to voting and elections, while the Internal Revenue Code
Subtitle A applies exclusively to privileged aliens who have a domicile
or tax home on federal territory: two COMPLETELY different audiences of
people, for which the terms are NOT interchangeable. A "residence" in
the I.R.C. is the temporary abode of a privileged alien, while a
"residence" in the election code is the temporary abode of a
non-privileged Sovereign American National. The worst mistake that you
can make as a person born in your country is to believe or think that
laws written only for "aliens" or "resident aliens" apply to you. The
only types of persons the federal government can write laws for in a
state of the Union, in fact, are aliens.
In accord with ancient
principles of the international law of nation-states, the Court in
The Chinese Exclusion Case,
130 U.S. 581, 609 (1889), and in Fong Yue Ting v. United States,
149 U.S. 698 (1893), held broadly, as the Government describes
it, Brief for Appellants 20, that the power to exclude aliens is
"inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal
international relations and defending the country against foreign
encroachments and dangers - a power to be exercised exclusively by
the political branches of government . . . ." Since that time, the
Court's general reaffirmations of this principle have
[408
U.S. 753, 766] been legion.
The Court without exception has sustained Congress'
"plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to
exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has
forbidden." Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
387 U.S. 118, 123 (1967). "[O]ver no conceivable subject is the
legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over" the
admission of aliens. Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan,
214 U.S. 320, 339 (1909).
[Kleindienst
v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)]
If you are born in a state of the Union and have a domicile there and
not on federal territory, federal laws CANNOT and DO NOT apply to you.
The only exception is if you contract away your rights and sovereignty
by pursuing a federal government benefit, such as Social Security,
Medicare, federal employment, etc. Otherwise, We the People
are Sovereign over their public servants:
"The ultimate authority
... resides in the people alone."
[James Madison,
The Federalist, No. 46.]
"... The
governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have
no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But
the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have
delegated and intrust to whom they please. ...The sovereignty in
every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter
and change their form of government at their own pleasure."
[Luther v. Borden,
48 U.S. 1, 12 LEd 581 (1849)]
"While sovereign powers
are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains with
the people.."
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356 (1886)]
"There is no such thing
as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United
States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and
Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their
Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld."
[Juilliard v. Greenman,
110 U.S. 421 (1884)]
“In the United States***,
sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs
established by the Constitution. [cites omitted] The Congress
as the instrumentality of
sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf
of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution
ordains. The Congress
cannot invoke the sovereign
power of the people to override their will as thus declared.”
[Perry
v. United States,
294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]
“The rights of the individual are not
derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state
or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently
in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed
in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they
have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies
of government. The people's rights are not derived from the
government, but the government's authority comes from the
people.*946 The Constitution but states again these rights already
existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or
municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the
duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary
relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual
liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the
public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and
the more successful the democracy.”
[City of Dallas v
Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 (1922)]
The law and government
that a person voluntarily consents or “intends” to be subject to
determines where their “legal home” is under this concept. This
choice must be completely voluntary and not subject to coercion or
intimidation because all just powers of any free government derive from
the "consent of the governed", as the Declaration of Independence
indicates. This form of consent is called "allegiance" in the
legal field. A voluntary choice of allegiance to a place amounts
to a choice to join or associate with a group of people called a "state"
and to respect, be subject to, and obey all positive laws passed by the
citizens who dwell there. The First Amendment guarantees us
a right of free association, and therefore, only we can choose the group
of people we wish to associate with and be protected by as a result of
choosing a "domicile". The First Amendment also guarantees us a
right of freedom from "compelled association", which is the act of
forcing a person to join or be part of any group, including a "state".
Just as there is
freedom to speak, to associate, and to believe, so also there is
freedom not to speak, associate, or believe. "The right to speak
and the right to refrain from speaking [on a government tax return,
and in violation of the
Fifth Amendment when coerced, for instance] are complementary
components of the broader concept of 'individual freedom of mind.''
Wooley v. Maynard [430 U.S. 703] (1977). Freedom of conscience
dictates that no individual may be forced to espouse ideological
causes with which he disagrees:
"[A]t the
heart of the
First Amendment is the notion that the individual should be
free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one's
beliefs should be shaped by his mind and by his conscience
rather than coerced by the State [through illegal enforcement of
the revenue laws]."
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education [431 U.S. 209] (1977)
Freedom
from compelled association is a vital component of freedom of
expression. Indeed, freedom from compelled association
illustrates the significance of the liberty or personal autonomy
model of the
First Amendment.
As a general
constitutional principle, it is for the individual and not for the
state to choose one's associations and to define the persona which
he holds out to the world.
[First
Amendment Law, Barron-Dienes, West Publishing, ISBN
0-314-22677-X, pp. 266-267]
Therefore, no
government has lawful authority to compel us to choose a "domicile" that
is within its legislative jurisdiction or to have allegiance towards it,
because that would be compelled association. The right to
choose what political group or country we wish to join and have
allegiance to and protection from also implies that we can reject all
the earthly options and simply elect to join God's followers and be
subject ONLY to His laws. This type of government would be called
a "theocracy". This, in fact, is the goal of this entire
publication: Establishing an ecclesiastical state separate from the
corrupted governments that plague our land. It is a stark reality
that what you define as protection might amount to its opposite
for someone else. Therefore, each person is free to:
-
Define
what "protection" means to them.
-
Choose to
join a political group or country that agrees most with their
definition of "protection". This makes them into "nationals"
of that country who profess "allegiance" to the "state" and thereby
merit its protection.
-
Choose a
"domicile" within that country or group, and thereby become subject
to its laws and a
benefactor of its protection.
The notion of freedom
to choose one's allegiances is a natural consequence of the fact that a
"state" can consist of any number of people, from one person to millions
or even billions of people.
The political landscape
constantly changes precisely because people are constantly exercising
their right to change their political associations. A single
person is free to create his own "state" and pass his own laws, and to
choose a domicile within that created state. The boundaries of
that created "state" might include only himself, only his immediate
family, or encompass an entire city, county, or district. He might
do this because he regards the society in which he lives to be so
corrupt that it's laws, morality, and norms are injurious
rather than protective. Such a motive, in fact, is
behind an effort called the "Free State Project", in which people are
trying to get together to create a new and different type of state
within the borders of our country. The U.S. Supreme Court, in
fact, has ruled that when the laws of a society become more injurious
than protective to us personally, then we cease to have any
obligation
to obey them and may lawfully choose other allegiances and
domiciles that afford
better protection. To wit:
"By the surrender, the
inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British
government and were bound by such laws and such only as it chose to
recognize and impose. From the nature of the case, no other
laws could be obligatory upon them, for where there is no protection
or allegiance or sovereignty, there can be no claim to obedience.”
[Hanauer v. Woodruff,
82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 439 (1872)]
If a person decides that the
laws and the people of the area in which he lives are injurious of his
life, liberty, and property, then he is perfectly entitled to withhold
his allegiance and shift his domicile to a place where better protection
is afforded. When a person has allegiance and domicile to a place or
society other than where he lives, then he is considered
"foreign" in that society and all people comprising that society become
"foreigners" relative to him in such a case. He becomes a "transient
foreigner" and the only laws that are obligatory upon him are the
criminal laws and no other. Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court said
about the right of people to choose to disassociate with such
"foreigners" who can do them harm. Note that they say the United States
government has the right to exclude foreigners who are injurious. This
authority, it says, comes from the Constitution, which in turn was
delegated by the Sovereign People. The People cannot delegate an
authority they do not have, therefore they must individually ALSO have
this authority within their own private lives of excluding injurious
peoples from their legal and political life by changing their domicile
and citizenship. This act of excluding such foreigners becomes what we
call a “political divorce” and the result accomplishes the equivalent of
“disconnecting from the government matrix”:
"The government, possessing the powers which are to be
exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to
determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth;
and its determinations, so far as the subjects affected are
concerned, are necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and
officers. If, therefore, the government of the United States,
through its legislative department, considers the presence of
foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not
assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their
exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no
actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are
subjects. The existence of war would render the necessity of
the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity,
in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist, and
the same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must
also determine it in the other. In both cases its determination is
conclusive upon the judiciary. If the government of the country of
which the foreigners excluded are subjects is dissatisfied with this
action, it can make complaint to the executive head of our
government, or resort to any other measure which, in its judgment,
its interests or dignity may demand; and there lies its only remedy.
The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the
country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such
exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances,
[130 U.S. 581, 607]
and never denied by the executive or legislative
departments.
[. . .]
The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident
of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a
part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the
right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the
government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be
granted away or restrained on behalf of any one. The powers
of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are
incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned
or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be hampered, when needed for
the public good, by any considerations of private interest. The
exercise of these public trusts is not the subject of barter or
contract."
[Chae Chan Ping v. U.S.,
130 U.S. 581 (1889)]
Notice above the
phrase:
"If the
government of the country of which the foreigners excluded are
subjects is dissatisfied with this action, it can make complaint to
the executive head of our government, or resort to any other measure
which, in its judgment, its interests or dignity may demand; and
there lies its only remedy."
The court is tacitly
admitting that there is NO legal remedy in the case where a foreigner is
expelled because the party expelling him has an absolute right to do so.
This right to expel harmful
foreigners is just as true of what happens on a person’s private
property as it is to what they want to do with their ENTIRE LIFE,
property, and liberty. This same argument applies to us
divorcing ourselves from the state where we live. There is
absolutely no legal remedy in any court and no judge has any discretion
to interfere with your absolute authority to divorce not only the state,
but HIM! This is BIG, folks! You don't have to prove that a
society is injurious in order to disassociate from it because your right
to do so is absolute, but if you want or need a few very good
reasons why our present political system is injurious that you can show
to a judge or a court, read through chapter 2 of our free Great IRS Hoax
book:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
If we divorce the society
where we were born, do not abandon our nationality and allegiance to the
state of our birth, but then choose a domicile in a place other than where we
physically live and which is outside of any government that might have
jurisdiction in the place where we live, then we become "transient foreigners"
and "de facto stateless persons" in relation to the government of the
place we occupy.
"Transient
foreigner. One who visits the country, without the
intention of remaining."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition, p. 1498]
A "de facto stateless
person" is anyone who is not entitled to claim the
protection or aid of the government in the place where they live:
Social Security
Program Operations Manual System (POMS)
RS 02640.040 Stateless Persons
A.
DEFINITIONS
[. . .]
DE FACTO—Persons
who have left the country of which they were nationals and no longer
enjoy its protection and assistance. They are usually political
refugees. They are legally citizens of a country because its laws do
not permit denaturalization or only permit it with the country's
approval.
[. . .]
2. De Facto Status
Assume an individual is de facto stateless if he/she:
-
says he/she is stateless but cannot establish he/she is
de jure stateless; and
-
establishes that:
-
he/she has taken up residence [chosen a legal
domicile] outside the country of
his/her nationality;
-
there has been an event which is hostile to him/her,
such as a sudden or radical change in the government, in the
country of nationality; and
NOTE: In
determining whether an event was hostile to the individual,
it is sufficient to show the individual had reason to
believe it would be hostile to him/her.
-
he/she renounces, in a sworn statement, the
protection and assistance of the government of the country
of which he/she is a national and declares he/she is
stateless. The statement must be sworn to before an
individual legally authorized to administer oaths and the
original statement must be submitted to SSA.
De facto status stays in effect only as long as the conditions
in b. continue to exist. If, for example, the individual returns
[changes their domicile back] to his/her country of
nationality, de facto statelessness ends.
[SOURCE:
Social Security Program Operations Manual System (POMS), Section RS
02640.040 entitled "Stateless Persons"
https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0302640040]
Notice the key attribute of a
"de facto stateless person" is that they have abandoned the protection
of their government because they believe it is hostile to him or her and
is not only not protective, but is even injurious. Below is how the
Supreme Court describes such persons:
The writers
upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in
a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied
with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter
is styled by Vattel [in his book The Law of Nations as] "domicile,"
which he defines to be "a habitation fixed in any place, with an
intention of always staying there." Such a
person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society at
least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of the
inferior order from the native citizens, but is, nevertheless,
united and subject to the society, without participating in
all its advantages. 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. Grotius
nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between
those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their
affairs, or from any other temporary cause, and those who reside
there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers,"
and the latter, "subjects." The rule is thus laid down by
Sir Robert Phillimore:
There is a
class of persons which cannot be, strictly speaking, included in
either of these denominations of naturalized or native citizens,
namely, the class of those who have ceased to reside [maintain a
domicile] in their native country, and have taken up a permanent
abode in another. These are domiciled inhabitants [in relation
to the country of their new domciile]. They have
not put on a new citizenship through some formal mode enjoined by
the law or the new country. They are de facto, though not de jure,
citizens of the country of their [new chosen] domicile.
[Fong Yue Ting v. United States,
149 U.S. 698 (1893)]
We must remember that
in America, the People, and not our public servants, are the Sovereigns.
We The People, who are the Sovereigns, choose our associations and
govern ourselves through our elected representatives.
“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 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)]
When those representatives
cease to have our best interests or protection in mind, then we have not
only a moral right, but a duty, according to
our Declaration of Independence, 1776, to alter our form of
self-government by whatever means necessary to guarantee our future
security.
“But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is
their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security.”
[Declaration of Independence]
The lawful and most
peaceful means of altering that form of government is simply to do one
of the following:
1.
Form our own self-government based on the de jure constitution and
change our domicile to it. See:
2.
Choose an existing government or country that is already available
elsewhere on the planet as our protector.
3.
Choose a domicile in a place that doesn’t have a government. For
example, choose a domicile somewhere you have been in the past that
doesn’t have a government. For instance, if you have legal evidence
that you took a cruise, then choose your domicile in the middle of the
ocean somewhere where the ship went.
4.
Use God's laws as the basis for your own self-government and protection,
as suggested in this book.
By doing one of the above, we are “firing” our local servants in
government because they are not doing their job of protection
adequately, and when we do this, we cease to have any obligation to pay
for their services through taxation and they cease to have any
obligation to provide any services. If we choose God and His laws as
our form of government, then we choose Heaven as our domicile and our
place of primary allegiance and protection. We then become:
1.
“citizens of Heaven”.
2.
“nationals but not citizens” of the country in which we live.
3.
Transient foreigners.
4.
Ambassadors and ministers of a foreign state called Heaven.
Below is how one early state court described the absolute right to
"divorce the state" by choosing a domicile in a place other than where
we physically are at the time:
"When a change of
government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican
government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it,
and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to
refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being
a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not
entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the
majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall
prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and
results from it. It is not a rule upon mankind in their natural
state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those
prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by
his fellowmen without his consent"
[Cruden
v. Neale, 2 N.C., 2 S.E. 70 (1796)]
How do we officially
and formally notify the “state” that we have made a conscious decision
to legally divorce it by moving our domicile outside its jurisdiction?
That process is documented in the references below:
1.
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions
Online, Form #10.004, Step 3.13
entitled: Correct Government Records documenting your citizenship
status. Available free at:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/3.13ChangeUSCitizenshipStatus.htm
2.
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual,
Form #10.005, Section
2.5.3.13. Same as the above item. Available free at:
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3.
By sending in the Legal Notice of Change in
Citizenship/Domicile Records and Divorce from the United States. See:
4.
After accomplishing either of the above items, which
are the same, making sure that all future government forms we fill out
properly and accurately describe both our domicile and our citizenship
status, in accordance with section 12.12
later.
5.
By making sure that at all times, we use the proper
words to describe our status so that we don’t create false presumptions
that might cause the government to believe we are “residents” with a
domicile in the District of Columbia:
5.1.
Do not describe ourselves with the following words:
5.1.1 “indivdiual” as
defined in 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2) and 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3)
5.1.2.
“taxpayer” as defined in
26 U.S.C.
§7701(a)(14).
5.1.3.
“U.S. person” as defined in 26
U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).
5.1.4.
“resident” as defined in 26
U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A).
5.1.5.
“alien”
5.2.
Describe ourselves with the following words and phrases:
5.2.1.
“nontaxpayer” not subject to the Internal Revenue Code.
See:
5.2.1.1.
“Taxpayer” v. “Nontaxpayer”, Which One Are You?:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/TaxpayerVNontaxpayer.htm
5.2.1.2.
Your Rights as a “nontaxpayer”, item 5.8
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm
5.2.2.
“nonresident alien” as defined in
26 U.S.C.
§7701(b)(1)(B).
5.2.3.
The type of “nonresident alien” defined in 26 CFR
§1.871-1(b)(1)(i)
but who is NOT an
“individual” within that regulation.
5.2.4.
“national” under
8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(21), but not
“citizen” as defined in
8 U.S.C. §1401. This person
is also described in
8 U.S.C. §1452.
5.2.5.
Not engaged in a “trade or business” as defined in
26 U.S.C.
§7701(a)(26).
5.2.6.
Have not made any “elections” under
26 U.S.C.
§7701(b)(4)(B),
26 U.S.C. §6013(g) or (h), or
26 CFR §1.871-1(a).
5.2.7. A “stateless
person” who does not satisfy any of the criteria for diversity of
citizenship described in 28 U.S.C. §1332 and who therefore cannot be
sued in federal court. See Newman-Green
v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989):
“In order to be
a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity
statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the
United States and be domiciled within the State. See
Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648-649 (1878); Brown v.
Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 (1834). The problem in this case is
that Bettison, although a United States citizen, has no
domicile in any State. He is therefore "stateless" for
purposes of § 1332(a)(3). Subsection 1332(a)(2), which
confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of
a State sues aliens only, also could not be satisfied
because Bettison is a United States citizen. [490 U.S. 829]”
[Newman-Green
v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)]
We emphasize that it isn’t one’s citizenship but
one’s choice of legal “domicile” that makes one sovereign and a
“nontaxpayer”. The way we describe our citizenship status is
affected by and a result of our choice of legal
“domicile”, but changing one’s citizenship status is not the nexus for
becoming either a “sovereign” or a “nontaxpayer”.
The only legal requirement for changing our
domicile is that we must reside on the territory of the sovereign to
whom we claim allegiance, and must intend to make membership in the
community established by the sovereign permanent. In this context, the
Bible reminds us that the Earth was created by and owned by our
Sovereign, who is God, and that those vain politicians who claim to
“own” or control it are simply “stewards” over what actually belongs to
God alone. To wit:
The
heavens are Yours [God’s], the earth also is Yours;
The world and all its fullness, You have founded them.
The north and the south, You have created them;
Tabor and Hermon rejoice in Your name.
You have a mighty arm;
Strong is Your hand, and high is Your right hand.”
[Psalms 89:11-13 , Bible, NKJV]
________________________________________
“I have
made the earth,
And created man on it.
I—My hands—stretched out the heavens,
And all their host I have commanded.”
[Isaiah 45:12, Bible, NKJV]
________________________________________
“Indeed heaven and the
highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all
that is in it.”
[Deuteronomy 10:14, Bible, NKJV]
Some misguided Christians will try to quote Jesus,
when He said of taxes the following in relation to “domicile”:
"Render therefore to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
[Matt. 22:15-22, Bible,
NKJV]
However, based on the scriptures above, which
identify God as the owner of the Earth and the Heavens, we must ask
ourself:
“What is left that belongs to Caesar if
EVERYTHING belongs to God?”
The answer is NOTHING, except that which he STEALS
from the Sovereign people and which they don’t force him to return.
Jesus knew this, but he gave a very indirect answer to keep Himself out
of trouble when asked about taxes in the passage above. Therefore, when
we elect or consent to change our domicile to the Kingdom of Heaven, we
are acknowledging the Truth and the Authority of the Scripture and Holy
Law above and the sovereignty of the Lord in the practical affairs of
our daily lives. We are acknowledging our stewardship over what
ultimately and permanently belongs ONLY to Him, and not to any man.
Governments and civilizations come and go, but God’s immutable laws are
eternal. To NOT do this as a Christian amounts to mutiny against God.
Either we honor the first four commandments of the Ten Commandments by
doing this, or we will be dethroned as His Sovereigns and Stewards on
earth.
"Because you [Solomon, the wisest man who
ever lived] have done this , and have not kept My covenant and My
statutes [violated
God's laws], which I
have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom [and
all your
sovereignty] away from you and give it to your [public]
servant."
[1
Kings 11:9-13, Bible, NKJV ]
By legally divorcing the “state” in changing our
domicile to the Kingdom of Heaven or to someplace on earth where there
is not man-made government, we must consent to be governed
exclusively by God’s laws and express our unfailing allegiance to Him as
the source of everything we have and everything that we are. In doing
so, we escape the constraints of earthly law and achieve the nirvana
described by the Apostle Paul when he very insightfully said of this
process of submission to God the following:
“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not
under the law [man’s law].”
[Gal. 5:18, Bible, NKJV]
The tendency of early Christians to do the above
was precisely the reason why the Romans persecuted the Christians when
Christianity was in its infancy: It lead to anarchy because Christians,
like the Israelites, refused to be governed by anything but God’s laws:
"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]
Christians who are doing and following the will of
God are “anarchists”. An anarchist is simply anyone who refuses to have
an earthly ruler and who instead insists on either self-government or a
Theocracy in which God, whichever God you believe in, is our only King,
Ruler, Lawgiver and Judge:
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin
anarchia, from Greek, from
anarchos
having no [earthly] ruler,
from an- + archos
ruler -- more at
ARCH-
[Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary]
“For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is
our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us.”
[Isaiah 33:22, Bible, NKJV]
For a fascinating read
on this subject, see:
Christians who are doing
the will of God by changing their domicile to Heaven and divorcing the
“state” are likely to be persecuted by the government and privileged
501(c )(3) corporate churches just as Jesus was because of their
anarchistic tendencies because they render organized government
irrelevant and unnecessary:
“If the world hates you, you know that it hated
Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would
love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I
chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember
the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his
master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.
If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all
these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do
not know Him who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them,
they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.
He who hates me hated My father also. If I had not
done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no
sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father.
But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written
in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’”
[John
15:18-25, Bible, NKJV]
Being “chosen out of the
world” simply means, in legal terms, that we do not have a domicile here
and are “transient foreigners”.
Those who do choose God as their sole source of law and civil (not
criminal) government:
1. Become
a “foreign government” in respect to the United States government and
all other governments.
2. Are committing themselves to the ultimate First
Amendment protected religious practice, which is that of adopting God
and His sovereign laws as their only form of
self-government.
3. Are taking the ultimate step in personal
responsibility, by assuming responsibility for every aspect of their
lives by divorcing the state and abandoning all government franchises:
4. Effectively become their own self-government
and fire the government where they live in the context of all civil
matters.
5. Are protected by the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Part IV, Chapt. 97.
6. Are protected by the Minimum Contacts Doctrine
and therefore exempt from the jurisdiction of federal and state courts
except as they satisfy the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act or the “Longarm Statute” passed by the state where they
temporarily inhabit.
7. Are internationally protected persons pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §112.
8. Are on an equal footing with any other nation and
may therefore assert sovereign immunity in any proceeding against the
government. This implies that:
8.1.
Any attempt to drag you into court by a
government must be accompanied by proof that you consented in writing to
the jurisdiction of the government attempting to sue you. Such consent
becomes the basis for satisfying the criteria within the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Part IV, Chapt. 97.
8.2.
You may use the same defense as the government in
proving a valid contractual obligation, by showing the government the
delegation of authority order constraining your delegated authority as
God’s “public officer”. Anything another government alleges you
consented in writing to must be consistent with the delegation of
authority order or else none of the rights accrued to them are
defensible in court. In this sense, you are using the same lame excuse
they use for getting out of any obligations that you consented to, but
were not authorized to engage in by the Holy Bible. This is explained
in the document below:
9. Become ministers, ambassadors, “employees”,
“public officers”, and officers of a foreign state called Heaven.
10. May not simultaneously act as “public officers”
for any other foreign government, which would represent a conflict of
interest.
“No one
can serve two masters [two employers, for instance]; 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
[government].”
[Luke 16:13 , NKJV. Written by a tax collector]
11. Are expressly exempt from taxation pursuant to
26 U.S.C. §892(a)(1).
12. May file IRS Form W-8EXP as a nonresident
alien and exempt all of their earnings from federal and state
income taxation.
13. May use IRS Publication 515 to control
their withholding as nonresident aliens.
The other very
interesting consequences of the above status which makes it especially
appealing are the following:
1.
Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code are any of the
following terms defined: “foreign”, “foreign government”,
“government”. Therefore, it would be impossible for the IRS to prove
that you aren’t a “foreign government”.
2.
The most important goal of the Constitutional
Convention, and the reasons for the adoption of the Ninth and Tenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution was to preserve as much
self-government to the people and the states as possible.
Any attempt to compel anyone to become a “subject” or accept more
government than they need therefore violates the legislative intent of
the United States Constitution.
The determination of the Framers
Convention and the ratifying conventions to preserve complete and
unimpaired state self-government in all matters not committed to the
general government is one of the plainest facts which emerges from
the history of their deliberations. And adherence to that
determination is incumbent equally upon the federal government and
the states. State powers can neither be appropriated on the
one hand nor abdicated on the other. As this court said in Texas v.
White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, 'The preservation of the States, and the
maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and
care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the
maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in
all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of
indestructible States.' Every journey to a forbidden end begins with
the first step; and the danger of such a step by the federal
government in the direction of taking over the powers of the states
is that the end of the journey may find the states so despoiled of
their powers, or-what may amount to the same thing-so
[298 U.S. 238, 296] relieved of the responsibilities which
possession of the powers necessarily enjoins, as to reduce them to
little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain.
It is safe to say that if, when the Constitution was under
consideration, it had been thought that any such danger lurked
behind its plain words, it would never have been ratified.
And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law-the
lawmakers being the people themselves, in whom under our system all
political power and sovereignty XE "SOVEREIGNTY:Political
power and sovereignty" primarily resides, and through whom
such power and sovereignty primarily speaks. It is by that law, and
not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial
agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they
have been permitted to possess. The Constitution speaks
for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is
not rationally possible. 'We the People of the United States,'
it says, 'do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Ordain and
establish! These are definite words of enactment, and without more
would stamp what follows with the dignity and character of law.
The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let
the matter rest here, but provided explicitly-'This Constitution,
and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' (Const. art. 6,
cl. 2.) The supremacy of the Constitution as law is thus declared
without qualification. That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of
a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon
its being made in pursuance of the Constitution. And a
judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete judicial
power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to
ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding
properly brought for adjudication, must apply the supreme law and
reject the inferior stat-
[298
U.S. 238, 297]
ute whenever the two conflict. In the discharge of that duty, the
opinion of the lawmakers that a statute passed by them is valid must
be given great weight, Adkins v. Children's Hospital,
290H261
U.S. 525, 544 , 43 S.Ct. 394, 24 A.L.R. 1238; but their opinion,
or the court's opinion, that the statute will prove greatly or
generally beneficial is wholly irrelevant to the inquiry. Schechter
Poultry Corp. v. United States,
291H295
U.S. 495, 549 , 550 S., 55 S.Ct. 837, 97 A.L.R. 947.
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co.,
292H298
U.S. 238 (1936)]
3.
If another government attempts to interfere with the
affairs of your own foreign self-government, then they:
3.1.
Are violating your First Amendment right to practice
your religion by living under the laws of your God. This tort is
cognizable under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.
Chapter 21B and constitutes a tort against the foreign invader.
3.2.
Are hypocrites, because they are depriving others equal
right to the same authority that they themselves have. No legitimate
government can claim to be operating lawfully which interferes with the
equal right of others to self-government.
3.3.
Are in a sense attempting to outlaw the ultimate form of
personal responsibility, which is entirely governing your own life and
supporting yourself. The outlawing of personal responsibility and
replacing or displacing it with collective responsibility of the “state”
can never be in the public interest, especially considering how badly
our present government mismanages and bankrupts nearly everything it
puts its hands on.
The
reason why government forms will ask what a person’s domicile is are
explained as follows:
1.
A person can only have “allegiance” towards one and
only one “sovereign”. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this when it
said:
“Citizenship is a political tie;
allegiance is a territorial tenure. [. . .] The
doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and
taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of
withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign….”
[Talbot
v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133
(1795)]
This is also consistent with the
Bible, which says on this subject:
“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]]
2.
Choosing a “domicile” in a place is what makes a person a “citizen”
under the laws of that place. Because you can only have a “domicile” in
one place at a time, then you can only be a “citizen” in one place at a
time. Becoming a statutory “citizen” is what makes you “subject” to the
civil laws in that place and is the origin of your authority and
privilege to vote, serve on jury duty, and pay income taxes in that
place. For instance, Mexicans temporarily visiting the United States
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”.
3. A
legal means needs to be established to pay for the protection afforded
by the sovereign to whom we claim allegiance. “Taxes” are the legal
vehicle by which “protection” is paid for. In earlier times, in fact,
“taxes” were called “tribute”. When we pay “tribute”, we are expressing
“allegiance” to our personal “sovereign” by offering it our time and
money. Below is a very revealing quote from a famous Bible
dictionary which explains the meaning of the word "tribute" in a
Biblical context:
“TRIBUTE.
Tribute in the sense of an impost paid by one state to another, as a
mark of subjugation, is a common feature of international
relationships in the biblical world. The tributary could be either a
hostile state or an ally. Like deportation,
its purpose was to weaken a hostile
state.
Deportation aimed at depleting the man-power. The
aim of tribute was probably twofold: to impoverish the subjugated
state and at the same time to increase the conqueror’s own revenues
and to acquire commodities in short supply in his own country. As an
instrument of administration it was one of the simplest ever
devised: the subjugated country could be made responsible for the
payment of a yearly tribute.
Its non-arrival would be taken as a sign of rebellion, and an
expedition would then be sent to deal with the recalcitrant.
This was probably the reason for the attack recorded in Gn. 14.
[New Bible Dictionary. Third Edition. Wood, D. R. W., Wood,
D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. 1996, c1982, c1962; InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove]
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
Ezekiel, 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.
Now let's summarize what we have just learned
so far to show graphically the effect 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, Fourth Edition, 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, Fourth Edition, 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: Effect of domicile on citizenship
status
NOTES:
1.
“United States” is defined as the “District of Columbia” and no part of
any state of the Union within 26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a)(10),
7701(a)(39), and 7408(d).
2.
The “District of Columbia” is defined as a federal corporation but not a
physical place, a “body politic”, or a de jure “government” within the
District of Columbia Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34. See:
Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form
#05.024;
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.
3.
American nationals 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.
4.
Temporary domicile in the middle column on the right must meet the
requirements of the “Presence test” documented in IRS publications.
5. "FEDERAL ZONE"=District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the
territories and insular possessions of the United States in the above table.
6. 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:
-
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".
-
Do not
have a "residence", because only "aliens" can have a "residence"
under
26 CFR §1.871-2(a).
-
Are "nonresident
aliens" under
26 U.S.C.
§7701(b)(1)(B)
-
Are "nationals"
but not "citizens"
under
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)
and/or 8
U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B).
-
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.
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, 3rd 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]
Even the U.S. Supreme Court has held that while a person temporarily
occupies a place and is "in transitu" or "in itinere", he or she is not
subject to the civil laws of that place.
"It is generally
agreed by writers upon international law, and the rule has been
judicially applied in a great number of cases, that wherever any
question may arise concerning the status of a person, it must be
determined according to that law which has next previously rightfully
operated on and fixed that status.
And, further, that the laws of a
country do not rightfully operate upon and fix the status of persons who
are within its limits in itinere, or who are abiding there for
definite temporary purposes, as for health, curiosity, or occasional
business; that these laws, known to writers on public and private
international law as personal statutes, operate only on the
inhabitants of the country. Not that it is or can be denied that
each independent nation may, if it thinks fit, apply them to all persons
within their limits. But when this is done, not in conformity with the
principles of international law, other States are not understood to be
willing to recognize or allow effect to such applications of personal
statutes. "
[Dred
Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19
How.) 393,595 (1857)]
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 whom
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 God is the King of all the
earth;
Sing praises with understanding.”
[Psalms
47:7, Bible, NKJV]
_____________________________________
“For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our
Lawgiver, the LORD is our King; He will save [and protect]
us.”
[Isaiah
33:22, Bible, NKJV]
_____________________________________
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]
When government ceases to be
a "minister of God's justice" and rather becomes a competitor for pagan
idol worship and obedience of the people, then God abandons the
government and the result is the equivalent of a legal divorce. This is
revealed in the following scripture, which describes those who pursue
pagan gods and pagan governments that act like god as "playing the
harlot". The phrase "invites you to eat of his sacrifice", in modern
day terms, refers to those who receive socialist welfare in any form,
most of which is PLUNDER STOLEN from people who became a human sacrifice
to the pagan government:
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]
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.
By sending the following form according to the
instructions:
2.
By sending 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. By 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:
-
You’re not a “citizen” under the Internal Revenue Code:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/NotACitizenUnderIRC.htm
-
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) and
26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3).
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).
-
Now that we understand the differences between those
who have contracted to be protected, called “citizens”, “residents”, and
“inhabitants”, and those who have not, called “transient foreigners” or
“nonresidents”, the next issue we must deal with is to determine how
those who are “nonresidents” or “transient foreigners” in relation to a
specific state government can achieve a remedy for the protection of
their rights in state court. In order to get to the point where we can
explain this, we must first describe the TWO types of jurisdictions that
the state courts exercise.
We don’t have space here to cover all the nuances of this subject, but
we will summarize these differences and point you to more information if
you want to look into it.
There are two types of jurisdictions within each state
government:
1.
The “de jure republic”.
This jurisdiction controls everything that happens on land protected by
the Constitution.
2.
The “de facto federal
corporation”. This jurisdiction handles everything that deals with
government agency, office, employment, "benefits", "public rights", and
territory and it's legislation is limited to those domiciled on federal
territory or contracting with either the state or federal governments.
Collectively, the subject of legislation aimed at this jurisdiction is
the "public domain" or what the courts call "publici juris".
The differences between the two jurisdictions above
are exhaustively described in the following fascinating document:
In the above document, a table is provided comparing
the two types of jurisdictions which we repeat here, extracted from
section 8.3. Understanding
this table is important in determining how we achieve a remedy in a
state court for an injury to our constitutional rights.
Table 3:
Comparison of Republic State
v. Corporate State
|
#
|
Attribute
|
Republic
State
|
Corporate State
|
|
1
|
Nature of government
|
De jure
|
De facto
|
|
2
|
Composition
|
Physical state
(Attaches to physical
territory)
|
Virtual state
(Attaches to status of
people on the land)
|
|
3
|
Name
|
“Republic of __________”
“The State”
|
“State of _____________”
“this State”
|
|
4
|
Name of this entity in federal law
|
Called a “state” or “foreign state”
|
Called a “State” as
defined in
4 U.S.C. §110(d)
|
|
5
|
Territory over which “sovereign”
|
All land not under exclusive federal
jurisdiction within the exterior borders of the Constitutional
state.
|
Federal territory within the exterior limits
of the state borrowed from the federal government under the Buck
Act, 4 U.S.C. §110(d).
|
|
6
|
Protected by the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution?
|
Yes
|
No
(No rights.
Only statutory “privileges”)
|
|
7
|
Form of government
|
Constitutional
Republic
|
Legislative totalitarian socialist democracy
|
|
8
|
A corporation?
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
9
|
A federal corporation?
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
10
|
Exclusive jurisdiction over its own lands?
|
Yes
|
No.
Shared with federal government pursuant to Buck Act,
Assimilated Crimes Act, and ACTA Agreement
.
|
|
11
|
“Possession” of the United States?
|
No
(sovereign and “foreign” with respect to
national government)
|
Yes
|
|
12
|
Subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction?
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
13
|
Subject to federal income tax?
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
14
|
Subject to state income tax?
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
15
|
Subject to state sales tax?
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
16
|
Subject to national military draft?
(See SEDM Form #05.030
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm)
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
17
|
Citizenship of those domiciled therein
|
1. Constitutional but not statutory citizen.
2. “national”
or “state national” pursuant to
8 U.S.C. §§1101(a)(21) and
1452.
Not a
statutory “U.S.
citizen” pursuant to
8 U.S.C. §1408
.
|
Statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to
8 U.S.C. §1401
|
|
18
|
Licenses such as marriage license,
driver’s license, business license required in this
jurisdiction?
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
19
|
Voters called
|
“Electors”
|
“Registered voters”
|
|
20
|
How you declare your domicile in this
jurisdiction
|
1. Describing
yourself as a “state national” but not a statutory “U.S. citizen on all government
forms.
2. Registering
as an “elector” rather than a voter.
3. Terminating
participation in all federal benefit programs.
|
1. Describing
yourself as a statutory “U.S.
citizen” on any state or federal form.
2. Applying
for a federal benefit.
3. Applying
for and receiving any kind of state license.
|
|
21
|
Standing in court to sue for injury to
rights
|
Constitution and the common law.
|
Statutory civil law
|
|
22
|
“Rights” within this jurisdiction are
based upon
|
The Bill of Rights
|
Statutory franchises
|
|
23
|
“Citizens”, “residents”, and “inhabitants”
of this jurisdiction are
|
Private human beings
|
Public entities such as government employees,
instrumentalities, and corporations (franchisees of the
government) ONLY
|
|
24
|
Civil jurisdiction originates from
|
Voluntary choice of domicile on the territory
of the sovereign AND your consent. This means you must be
a "citizen" or a "resident" BEFORE this type of law can be
enforced against you.
|
Your right to contract by signing up for
government franchises/ "benefits".
Domicile/residence is NOT requirement or the requirement
appears in the statutes but is ignored as a matter of policy.
|
When we say that we are a “transient foreigner” or
“nonresident” within a court pleading or within this document, we must
be careful to define WHICH of the TWO jurisdictions above that status
relates to in order to avoid ambiguity and avoid being called
“frivolous” by the courts.
Within this document and elsewhere, the term “transient foreigner” or
“nonresident” relates to the jurisdiction in the
right column above but
NOT to the column on the left.
You can be a “nonresident” of the Corporate/De Facto state on the
right and yet at the same time ALSO be a “citizen” or “resident” of the
Republic/De Jure State on the left above.
This distinction is critical.
If you are at all confused by this distinction, we strongly
suggest reading the
Corporatization and Privatization of the Government document
referenced above so that the distinctions are clear.
The Corporate/De Facto state on the right above enacts
statutes that can and do only relate to those who are public entities
(called “publici juris”) that are government instrumentalities,
employees, officers, and franchisees of the government called
“corporations”, all of whom are consensually associated with the
government by virtue of exercising their right to contract with the
government. Technically
speaking, all such statutes are franchises implemented using the civil
law. This is explained
further in the following:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ability to
regulate private conduct is repugnant to the Constitution.
Consequently, the government cannot enact statutes or law of any
kind that would regulate the conduct of private parties.
Therefore, nearly all civil statutes passed by any state or
municipal government, and especially those relating to licensed
activities, can and do only relate to public and not private parties
that are all officers of the government and not human beings.
This is exhaustively analyzed and proven in the following:
We will now spend the rest of this section applying
these concepts to how one might pursue a remedy for an injury to
so-called “right” within a state court by invoking the jurisdiction of
the Republic/De Jure state on the left and avoiding the jurisdiction of
the Corporate/De Facto state on the right.
Civil law attaches to one's voluntary choice of
domicile/residence. Criminal law does not. De jure criminal law depends
only on physical presence on the territory of the sovereign and the
commission of an injurious act against a fellow sovereign on that
territory. Laws like the vehicle code do have criminal provisions, but
they are not de jure criminal law, but rather civil law that attaches to
the domicile/residence of the party within a franchise agreement, which
is the "driver license" and all the rights it confers to the government
to regulate your actions as a "driver" domiciled in the
Corporate/de facto state.
Within the forms and publications on this website
there are two possible statuses that one may declare as a sovereign:
- You are a transient
foreigner and a citizen of ONLY the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. "My
state" in this context means the Holy Bible.
-
You are a state national
with a domicile in the Republic/De Jure state but not the Corporate/De
Facto state. "My state" in
this context means the de jure state and excludes just about everything
passed by the de facto state government, including all franchises such
as marriage licenses, income taxes, etc. Franchises cannot lawfully be
implemented in the De Jure State but can only occur in the De Facto
Corporate State. The reason why franchises cannot lawfully be
implemented in the De Jure State is because rights are "unalienable" in
the De Jure State, which means you aren't allowed to contract them away
to a real, de jure government.
Both of the above statuses have in common that those
who declare themselves to be either cannot invoke the statutory law of
the Corporate/De Facto state, but must invoke only the common law and
the Constitution in their defense. There is tons of reference material
on the common law in the following:
The following book even has sample pleadings for the
main common law actions:
Transient foreigners may not have a domicile or be subject to the civil
laws in relation only to the place they have that status, but they don't
need the civil laws to be protected. The Constitution attaches to the
land, and not the status of the persons on that land.
"It is locality that is determinative of the
application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure,
and not the status of the people who live in it."
[Balzac v. Porto
Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)]
The Constitution and the common law are the only
thing one needs to protect oneself as a PRIVATE and not PUBLIC entity.
That is why we place so much emphasis on the common law on this website.
John Harris explains why in the following video:
Those who are believers AND transient foreigners but
not “citizens”, “residents” or “inhabitants” of either the
Republic/De Jure state or the Corporate/De Facto State DO in fact STILL
have a state, which is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
That state has all the elements necessary to be legitimate:
territory, people, and laws.
The territory is the Earth, which the Bible says belongs to the
Lord and not Caesar. It has
people, which are your fellow believers.
The laws are itemized in the Holy Bible and enumerated below:
In conclusion, those who are “transient foreigners”
or “Nonresidents” in relation to the Corporate/De Facto state can use
the state court for protection, but they must:
- Be careful to define which
of the two possible jurisdictions they are operating within using the
documents referenced in this section.
- Avoid federal court.
All federal circuit and district courts are Article IV
territorial courts in the
legislative and not judicial branch of the government that may only
officiate over franchises.
They are not Article III
constitutional courts
that may deal with rights protected by the constitution.
This is exhaustively proven with thousands of pages of evidence
in:
- Properly declare their
status consistent with this document in their complaint.
See the following forms as an example how to do this:
3.1.
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax
Status, Form #02.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3.2.
Federal Pleading/Motion/Petition Attachment,
Litigation Tool #01.002
http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
3.3.
Rules of Presumption and Statutory
Interpretation<, Litigation Tool
#01.006
http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm
- Respond to discovery
relating to their status and standing with the following:
- Invoke the common law and
not statutory law to be protected.
- Be careful to educate the
judge and the jury to prevent common injurious presumptions that would
undermine their status. See:
- Follow the rules of
pleading and practice for the common law.
- Ensure that those who sit
on the jury have the same status as them by ensuring that those who are
statutory “U.S. citizens” or franchise participants are excluded as
having a financial conflict of interest.
Based on the foregoing discussion, it ought to be obvious that the
government doesn't want you to know any of the following facts:
-
That all civil jurisdiction originates from your choice of
domicile.
-
That all income taxation is a civil liability that
originates from your choice of domicile.
-
That domicile requires your consent and is the equivalent of your
consent to be civilly governed as required by the Declaration of
Independence.
-
That because they need your consent to choose a domicile,
they can't tax or even govern you civilly without your consent.
-
That domicile is based on the coincidence of physical
presence and intent/consent to permanently remain in a place.
-
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.
-
That no one can determine your domicile except you.
-
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 group or government 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”. A
number of irreconcilable conflicts of law are created by COMPELLING
EVERYONE to have either a specific domicile or an earthly domicile.
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.
You should view every
opportunity to complete a government form or any form that indicates a
“domicile”, “residence”, or “permanent address” as:
-
A waiver of sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3) and
28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(2).
-
A change in status from "foreign" to "domestic" in relation to the
government that created the form.
-
An agreement or contract to become a "customer" of government
protection called a “citizen”, “resident”, and/or “inhabitant” within a
specific jurisdiction.
-
The conveyance of “consent to be governed” as
the Declaration of Independence indicates.
-
An attempt to nominate a protector and
delegate to them the authority to supervise and even penalize your
activities under the authority of the civil law.
-
An agreement to pay for the protection of the
specific government you have nominated to protect you.
-
A
voluntary attempt on your part to surrender rights recognized in the
Constitution in exchange for privileges and “benefits” under a
franchise agreement and to change your status from a “transient
foreigner” to a “person” subject to federal statutes. The most
privileged status you can be in is to be a resident alien
participating in federal franchises. The Declaration of
Independence says that rights protected by the Constitution are
“unalienable”, meaning that they CAN’T be sold, transferred, or
bargained away in relation to any government by any commercial
process, including a government franchise or application.
Therefore, you are recognizing that the grantor of the benefit is
not a government, but a private corporation.
An attempt to destroy equal protection
mandated by the Constitution and make a specific government your
"parens patriae", or government parent.
In short, anyone who asks you to fill out a
government form or indicate a “domicile”, “residence”, or “permanent
address” on their own private form is asking you the following question:
“Who’s your daddy and where does he live? We want to notify him
that you have selected him as your protector and agreed to become
liable to subsidize his protection racket and his supervision of
your otherwise private affairs. We don’t trust you so we want you
to agree to sign this protection contract, nominate a protector, and
agree to become his privileged employee or officer so he will ensure
you won’t become a burden, bother, or injury to us.”
There are several ways that
you are often deceived into inadvertently declaring 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, you create a presumption that you are engaged in the “trade or
business” franchise and are a “resident” of federal territory.
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 §301.7701-5 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” or
“permanent address”, put one of the following:
2.1.
“Kingdom of Heaven on Earth (not within any man made government)”.
2.2. A
geographical place that has no owner and no government, such as the
middle of the ocean.
3. At
the end of the address line put in parenthesis: “Not a domicile or
residence.”
4. If
they ask you if you are a “resident”, simply say “NO”.
5.
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.
Capacity to sue
or be sued is determined as follows:
(1)
for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity, by
the law of the individual's domicile;
(2) for a
corporation, by the law under which it was organized; and
(3) for all
other parties, by the law of the state where the court is located,
except that:
(A) a partnership or other
unincorporated association with no such capacity under that state's
law may sue or be sued in its common name to enforce a substantive
right existing under the United States Constitution or laws; and
(B)
28 U.S.C. §§ 754 and
959(a) govern the capacity of a receiver appointed by a United
States court to sue or be sued in a United States court.
[SOURCE:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule17.htm]
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:
- Continuous presence in the state.
- Payment of ad valorem (property) taxes.
- Payment of personal income taxes.
- Reliance upon state sources for financial support.
- Domicile in the state of family, or other relatives, or persons
legally responsible for the person.
- Former domicile in the state and maintenance of significant
connections therein while absent.
- Ownership of a home or real property.
- Admission to a licensed practicing profession in the state.
- Long term military commitments in the state.
- Commitments to further education in the state indicating an
intent to stay here permanently.
- Acceptance of an offer of permanent employment in the state.
- Location of spouse's employment, if any.
- Address of student listed on selective service (draft or
reserves) registration.
Other factors indicating an intent to make a state one's domicile may be
considered. Normally, the following circumstances do not constitute
evidence of domicile sufficient to effect classification as a
domiciliary:
- Voting or registration for voting.
- The lease of living quarters.
- A statement of intention to acquire a domicile in state.
- Automobile registration; address on driver's license; payment of
automobile taxes.
- 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
|
# |
Issuing agency |
Form number |
Form name |
“Domicile” |
Blocks that determine domicile |
Amplification |
|
1 |
IRS |
1040, 1040EZ, 1040A |
U.S. Individual Income Tax Return |
District of Columbia (only) |
None. Just filing the form does
this. |
|
|
2 |
IRS |
1040NR |
U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax
Return |
State of the Union or foreign
country |
None. Just filing the form does
this. |
|
|
3 |
IRS |
2555 |
Foreign Earned Income Exclusion |
Abroad (foreign country) |
None. Just filing the form does
this. |
|
|
4 |
IRS |
W-8BEN |
|
Place indicated in Block 4 |
Block 4: “Permanent address” |
Make sure you put “Heaven” here! |
|
5 |
Dept. of State |
DS-11 |
Application for U.S. Passport or
Registration |
Place indicated in Block 13. |
Block 13: “Permanent address” |
Make sure you put “Heaven” here! |
|
6 |
States |
Change of address |
Example:
California DMV-14 form |
Place indicated in “New Correct
Residence Address” |
“New Correct residence address” |
Make sure you put “Heaven” here! |
|
7 |
States |
Voter registration |
Voter registration |
State where filed |
|
|
|
8 |
States |
Driver’s license application |
Driver’s license application |
State where filed (some states,
not all) |
|
In Oregon, you declare yourself to
be a “resident” just by getting a state Driver’s License.
However, not all states do this. |
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
The government has compelled
domicile or interfered with receiving the benefits of your choice by any
of the following means:
-
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 this 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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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 were 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 in the previous section does not
even mention the requirement for “allegiance” as part of domicile or the
fact that allegiance must be voluntary and not compelled, 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)]
The legal encyclopedia
in the above deliberately and maliciously omits mention of any of the
following key concepts, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has
acknowledged elements of them as we have shown:
1.
That allegiance that is the foundation of domicile must be voluntary and
cannot be coerced.
2.
That external factors such as the withdrawal of one’s right to conduct
commerce for failure to give allegiance causes domicile choice to no
longer be voluntary.
3.
That a choice of domicile constitutes an exercise of your First
Amendment right of freedom of association and that a failure to
associate with a specific government is an exercise of your right of
freedom from compelled association.
4.
That you retain all your constitutional rights even WITHOUT choosing a
domicile within a specific government because rights attach to the land
you are standing on and not the civil status you choose by exercising
your right to associate and becoming a member of a “state” or
municipality.
The result of maliciously refusing to acknowledge
the above concepts is a failure to acknowledge the foundation of all
just authority of every government on earth, which is the consent of the
governed mentioned in our Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness.”
[Declaration of Independence]
A failure to
acknowledge that requirement results in a complete destruction of the
sovereignty of the people, because the basis of all your sovereignty is
that no one can do anything to you without your consent, unless you
injured the equal rights of others. This concept is exhaustively
described in the following document:
In order to do business within any
jurisdiction, and especially with the government and financial
institutions, one usually needs identification documents. Such
documents include:
1.
State driver’s license. Issued by
the Dept. of Motor Vehicles in your state.
2.
State ID card. Issued by the Dept.
of Motor Vehicles in your state.
3.
Permanent resident green card.
4.
National passport. Issued by the
U.S. Dept. of State.
5.
U.S. Citizen Card. Issued by the
Dept. of State. These are typically used at border crossings.
All ID issued by the
state governments, and especially the driver’s license, requires that
the applicant be a “resident” of the “State of____”. If you look up the
definition of “resident” and “State of” or “State” or “in this State”
within the state tax code, these terms are defined to mean a privileged
alien with a domicile on federal territory not protected by the
Constitution.
USA passports also require that you provide
a domicile. The Dept. of State DS-11 Form in Block 17 requires you to
specify a “Permanent Address”, which means domicile. See:
Domicile within the country is not
necessary in order to be issued a national passport. All you need is
proof of birth within that country. If you would like tips on how to
obtain a national passport without a domicile within a state and without
government issued identifying numbers that connect you to franchises,
see:
State ID, however,
always requires domicile within the state in order to be issued either a
state driver’s license or a state ID. Consequently, there is no way to
avoid becoming privileged if you want state ID. This situation would
seem at first to be a liability until you also consider that they can’t
lawfully issue a driver’s license to non-residents. Imagine going down
to the DMV and telling them that you are physically on state land but do
not choose a domicile here and that you can’t be compelled to and that
you would like for them to certify that you came in to request a license
and that you were refused and don’t qualify. Then you can show that
piece of paper called a “Letter of Disqualification” to the next police
officer who stops you and asks you for a license. Imagine having the
following dialog with the police officer when you get stopped:
Officer: May I see
your license and registration please?
You: I’m
sorry, officer, but I went down to the DMV to request a license and
they told me that I don’t qualify because I am a non-resident of
this state. I have a Letter of Disqualification they gave me while
I was there stating that I made application and that they could not
lawfully issue me a license. Here it is, officer.
Officer:
Well, then do you have a license from another state?
You: My
domicile is in a place that has no government. Therefore, there is
no one who can issue licenses there. Can you show me a DMV office
in the middle of the ocean, which is where my domicile is and where
my will says my ashes will be PERMANENTLY taken to when I die. My
understanding is that domicile or residence requires an intention to
permanently remain at a place and I am not here permanently
and don’t intend to remain here. I am a perpetual traveler, a
transient foreigner, and a vagrant until I am buried.
Officer:
Don’t get cute with me. If you don’t produce a license, then I’m
going to cite you for driving without a license.
You:
Driving is a commercial activity and I am not presently engaged in a
commercial activity. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Furthermore, I’d love to see you explain to the judge how you can
punish me for refusing to have that which the government says they
can’t even lawfully issue me. That ought to be a good laugh. I’m
going to make sure the whole family is there for that one. It’ll be
better than Saturday Night Live!
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” and they 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.
Capacity to
sue or be sued is de |
