|FORMS: 4.37 CHANGE OF ADDRESS ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT|
CHANGE OF ADDRESS ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT
Agency Name: ________________________________________________________________________
____ 1. Notice of Change of Address. Form #:______________________________________________________
____ 2. Other: _______________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: All enclosures listed above are invalid without this attachment.
book The Great IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax.
Book is available on the Internet as a free Acrobat file at:
Deposition Questions. Available free on the Internat at:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The data appearing on this form, the attached enclosure(s), and all information about the applicant or submitter maintained by the recipient are considered COPYRIGHTED. The copyright license agreement on such information is as follows:
1. Information appearing on this form and all attachments shall NOT be disclosed to any third party outside the Agency Appearing above for any reason without the advanced, written consent of the subject of the form.
2. If this form is being received by a state agency, the information:
2.1. SHALL NOT be disclosed to any agency or instrumentality of the federal government for any reason.
2.2. SHALL NOT be disclosed to state taxing authorities.
3. I, the submitter, do not consent to the use of identifying numbers such as SSNs or TINs, or ITINs for use by the receiving agency.
4. This affidavit shall constitute a formal demand to remove all national socialist identifying numbers from being associated with the submitter, and to demand notification of when the process of removal is complete.
5. This copyright covers information disclosed on the attached form and any information previously disclosed to the receiving agency listed above.
6. The penalty which the recipient of this form consents to be personally liable for in the event of copyright infringement shall be $1,000,000 in the case of the government, for each occurrence, and $100,000 for the private individual authorizing the disclosure or who is responsible for maintaining the computer system that maintains the illegal information. Recipient agrees NOT to allow themselves to be reimbursed by their employer, the government, to pay for this personal liability, even if law authorizes such reimbursement.
The attached government form includes a block entitled either “Residence” or "Permanent address". The word is not defined and neither is the area to which I am claiming “residence” defined either on the form. My Christian beliefs preclude me from either “presuming” or encouraging others to “presume” anything absent verifiable, legally admissible evidence of the meaning of the words used. See Numbers 15:30, for instance, which shows that “presumption” is a religious sin. “Presumption”, it turns out, is also a violation of due process of law in the legal field:
This attachment is therefore included to clarify the meaning of “resident” or “residence” found on the attached form and to ensure that no false presumptions are made which might prejudice my legal rights or status. It shall also declare the area to which I assume “residence” relates. Trickery by the government lawyers using “words of art” on such forms as the one attached is very commonplace, and this attachment is intended to nullify the affect any such trickery so as to retain, preserve, and protect my Constitutional rights as a sovereign individual.
The Constitution, First Amendment, guarantees me the right of free speech and freedom from “compelled association”. The Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to the states. Therefore, the points made in this document shall be pertinent whether the attached form is a federal or a state form. This document shall also be submitted in furtherance of my First Amendment right to communicate with my government as I see fit by defining exactly and unambiguously the meaning of the words used on the attached government forms.
The main area where the word “residence” takes on any real importance is in the area of taxation. Below is a definition of “residence” from the Treasury Regulations:
Note that the term “residence” is ONLY defined in the context of an “alien” and is NEVER associated with a “citizen” or a “nonresident alien” individual. Therefore, the term “residence” means the domicile of an “alien”, and since I am NOT an “alien” but rather a “nonresident alien”, I cannot have a legal “residence”. Within the California Revenue and Taxation Code, as in most states, the geographical area to which personal income taxes under Division 2, Part 10 and Sales Taxes under Division 2, Part 1 of the Rev. and Taxation Code both apply exclusively to federal areas within the exterior limits of the state. Below is the legally admissible proof:
Consequently, I must assume that when you say “residence”, you are asking whether I maintain a domicile within these areas as an “alien”. The answer is no, which implies that I am a “nontaxpayer” and a “nonresident” for the purposes of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
Another important thing about the above definitions is that any phrase that uses the word “State” in the context of taxation or residency relates to the federal areas within the exterior limits of California. Consequently:
1. Any attempt by the government to cause a person to admit they are a “resident” on a government form is an attempt to ask them, indirectly, whether they live in a place where they have no Constitutional rights. Consequently, indirectly the government is very deviously asking the Citizen if they want to give up all their constitutional rights. This amounts to a conspiracy against rights that is treason if the person who is being asked is not made fully aware of what they are forfeiting. When are YOU, the government, going to come clean on this willful FRAUD?
2. I do not live or work in the “State” of California.
3. I work occasionally in “Republic” of California but not the “State” of California.
4. The “State of California” is the corporate government of California existing in the federal areas within the state and includes only employees who work for that government and those living on federal reservations. I am NOT such a government employee or inhabitant of the “federal zone” and never have been.
5. The perjury statement at the end of the attached government form includes the phrase “I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct”. I can only be under the laws of the “State” of California if I inhabit or am signing the form within the federal areas of the state, which I am not. Therefore, I would be committing perjury under penalty of perjury to sign such a statement. Instead, the correct statement is: “I declare under the laws of the REPUBLIC of California, from without the ‘State of California’, that the foregoing facts are true and correct.” This explains the modification of the perjury statement on the attached form. If you disagree, please provide legally admissible proof that demonstrates the contrary.
Black’s Law Dictionary 6th edition, page 1309 defines “resident” as follows:
Did you notice the distinct use of “the State” in the above definition? That was no accident. Below are a few clues to its meaning from federal statutes, which is where the above definition says we should look:
The above cites are definitions of “State” from federal law, but even most state income tax statutes agree with this definition! Below is the California Revenue and Taxation Code definition of “State”:
The sovereign 50 Union states are NOT territories or possessions of the "United States". The states are sovereign over their own territories. The “State” mentioned above in the California Revenue and Taxation Code is a federal enclave within the exterior boundaries of the California Republic. People living within these areas are “residents” under the Internal Revenue Code and in that condition, they live in the “federal zone” in a “federal area”.
The only type of “resident” defined in the Internal Revenue Code is a “resident alien”, as demonstrated below:
Therefore, the terms “resident”, “alien”, and “resident alien” are all synonymous terms within the Internal Revenue Code. Most state income taxation statutes also use the same definition of “resident”, and therefore the same definition applies for state income taxes as well.
The only way you can come under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Code is to meet one or more of the following two criterias below:
1. A “U.S. person” residing on or BEING federal property or situated inside the “federal zone” as defined under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30):
The above “U.S. person” is technically either an “alien” or a federal corporation only. A corporation can also be an “alien” if it was incorporated outside of federal jurisdiction but has a presence inside the federal zone. Under 26 CFR § 301.6109-1, these are the only entities who are required to provide any kind of identifying number on their tax return! That regulation requires the furnishing of a “Taxpayer Identification Number” for these legal “persons”, but 26 CFR §301.6109-1(d)(3) says that Social Security Numbers are not to be treated as “Taxpayer Identification Numbers”. Consequently, natural persons with a Social Security Number do not have to provide any kind of identifying number on their return because they aren’t the proper subject of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. See section 5.4.12 later for further details on this scandal.
2. A “nonresident alien” under 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) or 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3) who has income “effectively connected with a trade or business”, which means a political office in the United States government under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). See 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii).
Under item 1 above, the term “citizen of the United States” is used in describing a “U.S. person”. The “U.S.” in that phrase, means the “District of Columbia” under the Internal Revenue Code:
All “U.S. persons” technically only a federal corporation or an officer of a federal corporation, as confirmed by the following:
1. The legal encyclopedia, Corpus Juris Secundum confirms that corporations are treated in law as “citizens of the United States”:
2. The definition of “income” as including only “corporate profit” under our Constitution limits the entire Internal Revenue Code to corporations only. See section 5.6.5 later for complete details on this subject.
3. The fact that the only taxable activity in the Internal Revenue Code is a “trade or business” which is defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office” in the federal corporation called the United States government, defined in 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(A).
Natural persons (people) who are “citizens of the United States” under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. §1401 are born only in the District of Columbia or federal territories or possessions. Federal territories and possessions are the only “States” within the Internal Revenue Code as confirmed by 4 U.S.C. §110(d). These statutory “citizens of the United States” cannot legally be classified as “residents”/”aliens” under the Internal Revenue Code and are not authorized by the code to “elect” to be treated as one either. The reason is because the purpose of law is to protect, and a person cannot elect to lose their constitutional rights and protection, even if they want to! However, by filing an IRS form 1040 or 1040A, they in effect make this illegal election anyway, and the IRS looks the other way and does not prosecute such unintentional deceit because they benefit financially from it. The pronouncements of the U.S. Supreme Court also identify this kind of constructive fraud on the part of the IRS as an invalid election if this unwitting choice did not involve fully informed consent. Did you know that you were agreeing to be treated as an “alien” by the IRS when you signed and sent in your first Form 1040 or 1040A?:
The reason Constitutional rights are being waived is because people who are “residents”/”aliens” within the federal zone have no constitutional rights in law. The only way to avoid this involuntary election is to instead either file nothing or to file a 1040NR form with the IRS instead of a 1040 or 1040A form. People who are born in states of the Union are not “citizens of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401, but are instead the equivalent of “non-citizen nationals” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) who are in fact “nonresident aliens” under the Internal Revenue Code who should file only the 1040NR form if they file anything with the IRS. The rules for electing to be treated as a “resident” or “resident alien” are found in IRS Publication 54: Tax Guide for U.S. citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad. See the following sections for amplification on this subject: 5.5.2, 5.5.3, and 5.4.12.
So being a “resident of the State” under federal statutes above makes you a nonresident alien in your own state liable for state income taxes! And because as a “resident of the State” you are presumed to reside inside the federal zone, you don’t have any constitutional rights according to the U.S. supreme Court. Read to the dissenting opinion from Justice Harlan in the case of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) which ruled that the federal zone doesn’t have constitutional protections:
When you accept the false notion that you are “liable” for federal income taxes under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code and subsequently file a 1040 tax return (bad idea!), you are admitting under penalty of perjury that you are an alien “individual” of your own country (not a “national” or “citizen”) who lives in the federal zone. The only definitions of “individual” found in 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3) and 26 CFR § 1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) confirm that the only people who are “individuals” in the context of federal income taxes are “aliens”/”residents” residing in the federal “United States” or “nonresident aliens”. That lie or mistake on the tax return you never should have submitted to begin with caused you to become the equivalent of a “virtual inhabitant” of the federal zone in law and from that point on you are treated as such by both the federal government and the state government, even if you don’t want to be and never intended to do this! Here is more proof showing that even if you weren’t located in the federal zone when you submitted the false 1040 return, you gave your tacit permission to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia:
What the above means is that if you filed a 1040 or 1040A form, you are telling the federal government that you are an “alien”/”resident” who lives in the federal zone and consequently, the courts will treat you like you live in the District of Columbia, which we call the District of Criminals. Here is what the 2003 IRS Published Products Catalog says about the proper use of the form 1040A on page F-15, and notice is says it is only for “citizens” and “residents”:
If you want to look at the IRS Published Products Catalog, you can download it yourself on our website at the address below. The document is called “IRS Document 7130”:
Those who file that false 1040 form are admitting that they are living in the King’s Castle and from that point on, they better bow down to the king as slaves by paying “tribute” with all their earnings! Important about the above is the fact that “nationals” and “nonresident aliens” are not included in the phrase “citizens or residents”, because they are outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts! One more big reason why we don’t want to be a “U.S. citizen” in the context of federal statutes such as 8 U.S.C. §1401! That false 1040 tax return they submitted, which said “U.S. individual” at the top, became a contract with criminals from the “District of Criminals” (the “D.C.” in “Washington D.C.”) to take themselves out of the Constitutional Republic and out of the protections of the Bill of Rights. They united with or “married” Babylon the Great Harlot mentioned in Rev. 17 and 18 and they live where she lives: inside of a totalitarian socialist democracy devoid of constitutional rights and predicated solely on the love of money and luxury. They declared themselves to be an “employee” of the Harlot, and the false W-4 form they submitted proves that, because the upper left corner says “employee”, and the only people who are “employees” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) work for the federal government. They have joined the “Matrix” and become a socialist federal serf. Welcome, comrade!”
Who says we don’t live in a police state, and not many people even know about this because we have been so deceived by our public “dis-servants”. Can you see how insidious this lawyer deception is? The American people and our media are asleep at the wheel folks!…and it’s going to take a lot more to fix than blind and ignorant patriotism and putting an idiotic flag or bumper sticker on your car. That’s right: if you are a “resident of the United States” or of “the State”, then you’re a federal serf and a ward of the socialist government who is nonresident to his own state! You better to do what you’re told, pay your taxes, and shut up, BOY, or we’ll confiscate all your property, give you 40 lashes and send you to bed without dinner or a blanket. Watch out!
To summarize the preceding discussion of “resident”, for the purposes of taxation, one establishes that they are a “resident” of the federal zone by any of the following techniques:
1. Filing a form 1040 or 1040a or 1040EZ
2. Filling out a W-4 form, which is only for use by federal “employees”, all of whom work only in the federal zone.
3. Claiming to be “U.S. citizen” on any federal form.
If you never did any of the above, then it can’t be said that you ever consented to participate in the federal income tax system and the federal government has no jurisdiction or proof of jurisdiction over you for the purposes of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. If they wrongfully proceed at that point over your objections by attempting unlawful collection and/or assessment actions against you in violation of 26 U.S.C. §6020(b) or the Constitution, then they:
1. Are involved in identity theft because they moved your legal identity under the I.R.C. to a physical place where you neither intend to live or actually live, which is the District of Columbia.
2. Are involved in:
2.1. Racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1951.
2.2. Extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §872.
2.3. Conspiracy against rights in violation of, 18 U.S.C. 241.
3. Can and should be prosecuted individually for fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001 , kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1201, and all of the above crimes under both state and federal law.
Now we’ll examine and compare the word “domicile” with “residence” to put it into context within our discussion:
Note the word “permanent” used in several places above. Note also that in the above definition that the taxes one pays are based on their “domicile” and “residence”. Here is what it says again:
This is very important. Now for the $64,000 question: “If you are a Christian and God says you are a citizen of heaven and not of earth, then where is your permanent domicile? “ The answer is that it is in heaven, and not anywhere on earth:
Furthermore, if “the wages of sin is death” (see Romans 6:23 ) and you are guaranteed to die eventually and soon because of your sin, then can anything here on earth be called “permanent” in the context of God’s eternal plan? If you look in the book of Revelations, you will find that the earth will be completely transformed when Jesus returns to become a new and different earth, so can our present earth even be called “permanent”? The answer is NO. Therefore, as a Christian, you cannot claim to have a “domicile” or a “residence” anywhere here on the present earth without committing idolatry and blaspheming God. To admit that your physical or spiritual “domicile” or your “residence” is here on earth and/or is “permanent” is to admit that there is no God and no Heaven and that life ends both spiritually and physically when you die! You are also admitting that the only thing even close to being permanent is the short life that you have while you are here. So as a Christian, you can’t have a “domicile” or a “residence” anywhere on the present earth from a legal perspective without blaspheming God. Consequently, it also means that you can’t be subject to taxes based on having a “domicile” or “residence” in any earthly jurisdiction: state or federal. You are a child of God and you are His “bondservant” while you are here.
You are “just passing through”. This life is only a temporary test to see whether you will evidence by your works the saving faith you have which will allow you to gain entrance into Heaven and the new earth God will create for you to dwell in mentioned in Rev. 21:1.
The definition of “domicile” above establishes also that “intent” is an important means of determining domicile as follows:
As a Christian, the only place you should want to reside in or return to is heaven, because the present earth is a temporal place full of sin and death that is ruled by Satan. Your proper biblical “intent”, should therefore be to return to heaven and to leave the present corrupted earth as soon as possible and as God in His sovereignty allows. God has prepared a mansion for you to live in with the Father, and that mansion cannot be part of the present corrupted earth:
So why don’t they teach these things in school? Remember who runs the public schools?: Your wonderful state government. Do you think they are going to volunteer to clue you in to the fact that you’re the sovereign in charge of the government and don’t have to put up with being their slave, which is what their legal treachery has made you into? The only kind of volunteering they want you to do is to volunteer to be subject to their corrupt laws and become a “taxpayer”, which is a person who voluntarily enlisted to become a whore for the government as you will find out in chapter 5. Even many of our Christian schools have lost sight of the great commission and awesome responsibility they have to teach our young people the profound truths in the Bible and this book in a way that honors and glorifies God and allows them to be the salt and light of the world.
There is much which can be said about our earlier legally acceptable definition of the term “resident” from Black’s Law Dictionary, but one thing which is perfectly clear, nowhere does it say a word about a “resident” being a Citizen, of anything. As a matter of fact if you are not a citizen, then there is only one other thing you can be, and that is an alien. It does not matter what other name they might decide to call it. Here then is an example of its usage:
Let’s say, for whatever reason, you move to France for a time. First, it is obvious you are an alien to France. Right? After having moved to France you then become a resident of France.
Why are you a resident of France? Because you are now living there, but you still are not a citizen. Why are you not a citizen of France? Because you are an alien. So, it goes that a resident is an alien. Why? Because he is not a citizen, hence the term resident alien. Get it?
Now, the question becomes: what are you when you answer to the question “are you a resident of the state of Illinois?” Like we do when we go to the Motor Vehicle Dept. Are you not declaring that you are an alien? Well that is exactly what you are doing. Why is this important? Because, only Citizens of the several states of the Union have Constitutional Rights, aliens do not. [Whoops]
So, if you are a Citizen of any one of the several states of the Union, then you are not an alien and therefore not a “resident”. You then have your full Constitutional Rights, which includes the Right to “Liberty”, which is the Right to travel FREELY amongst the several States, untaxed and unlicensed.
You simply can not regulate a Right. If you could it wouldn't be a Right, it would be a privilege. Our Creator granted these Rights to us, and no man or government can legislate or regulate an (unalienable) Right. The government can only legislate and regulate the exercise of benefits offered by their “statutes”, which can only offer immunities and privileges, but not bona fide Rights. Hence all the trickery to coerce you into saying you are something you are not.
We must stop looking to Webster's Dictionary for the legal definitions. Buy a copy of Black's Law Dictionary – it is there that you will find a whole new world of meaning. The biggest trick of all has been to redefine common, every day terms to mean something else within the statute-laws, and you didn't know they did it [to you], did you.. that is, until you read this book?
Think about it. The Constitution talks about Citizens. Why then do state governments feel the need to change it to “residents”? It just seems that to be clear and unambiguous, they would have used the same words and phrases already understood and accepted and stated as part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights .
Oh, by the way, here is the definition of a resident alien:
Remember the phrase “transitory in nature” in the above definition of a resident? The nature part is the Creator. As a child of God we are merely traveling through life (“Liberty”), hopefully on our way to the great beyond, which is the transitory part. But, if you claim to be a “resident” you are not a child of God and therefore not a Sovereign Citizen of the State, and therefore an alien of God, who has NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. This is accomplished when we accept the term “person” as underlined in the above definition of the term “resident”, and as you will also come to realize, this too is a trick to coerce you into subjection to government regulation.
I don’t know exactly what the government means on the attached form by “residence”. Therefore, I will state clearly for the record my “domicile”, which IS legally defined. My "situs" or "domicile" or "legal home" is the republic called Heaven. Below is the definition of "domicile" that establishes the situs and "legal home":
Note the key role of the word “intention” within the meaning of domicile. A person can have many abodes but only one legal domicile. The law that a person chooses to be subject to determines where their “legal home” is under this concept. Note also the use of the word “permanent home” above. 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:
The legal definition of "permanent" also demonstrates that it can mean any length of time one wants it to mean:
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:
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 true and permanent source of protection, and the only type of protection we can consent to or intend to be subject to.
Our main allegiance as 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. Therefore, Heaven can be our only legal home or domicile.
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. We can therefore have no "legal home" or "domicile" anywhere on earth. Our only law is God's law and Common law, which is based on God's law.
We are only temporarily here and 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 will we permit our domicile to be subject to change under any circumstances. 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:
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".
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.
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 usually government 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 of the people, and why separation of these two powers is absolutely essential.
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" living under federal jurisdiction because we are not "aliens". This means we are also not “residents” under most state income tax laws either. Therefore, we do not have a "residence". Instead, we are "nonresident aliens" and "nationals" but not "citizens" under federal law and under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21). Furthermore, the term "residence" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, and therefore we have no way of knowing what it means until it is defined in the code itself. It is a sin for Christians to "presume" or "assume" anything, under Numbers 15:30 and Psalms 19:12-13. If a "residence" must be established for any reason, you are free to conclude that it is the same as our "situs" and "domicile", which is Heaven, because this type of conclusion will not prejudice our legal rights or status. Any other location of "residence", however, will prejudice our rights and is NOT authorized. We believe that the word "residence" was 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, and this is a tyranny that we will have no part of.
I also remind that government that it constitutes “compelled association” in violation of the First Amendment to be wrongfully associated with either “Residents” of the “State of California” or with “residents” under the Internal Revenue Code. It also constitutes identity theft to associate my identity with a place that I do not claim as my “domicile”.
Not only is such compelled association in conflict with the First Amendment, but it also is a sin, and violates God's laws and our sincerely held religious beliefs. According to Jesus, we cannot serve two masters: God and government, at the same time.
We as a ministry can only serve God and NOT government. To serve and obey anyone or anything other than exclusively God is to violate our private contract/covenant with Him in the Bible. To not do so would be to risk losing our salvation and violating our sacred covenant/contract with God. No government has the authority to order us to violate such a contract/covenant.
Lastly, the attached government form indicates “Heaven” as my residence. Further clarification is required on why this is:
1. It assumes that “domicile” is meant in place of “residence”
2. The use of the word “Heaven” is in no way intended to be frivolous in any way. My religious beliefs CANNOT be labeled as frivolous or disrespected by the government, or you are violating my First Amendment Rights. As a matter of fact, my choice of domicile in this case is the only way to guarantee the perpetuation of my Constitutional Rights, because it is quite obvious to me that the government is trying to nullify my Constitutional rights by causing me to falsely admit under penalty of perjury that I live in an area that has no Constitutional rights.
3. I do not consent to you treating my “residence” as being other than my “domicile” stated here, and you are violating my rights to assume or use any domicile other than that listed on the attached form.
4. Claiming “Heaven” as my “permanent legal home” and “domicile” does not preclude me from claiming to be an “inhabitant” of California for more than half the year. Being an “inhabitant”, however, makes me into a “nonresident” of the “State of California” for income tax purposes under Division 2, Part 10 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
If the recipient of the attached form and the attachment, which is the government, takes issue with anything found in this attachment, I respectfully request that you rebut the overwhelming evidence, consisting of over 20,000 pages backing up everything I have said here identified in Reference (2). Otherwise, if no rebuttal or response is given within 30 days, then the government shall be found in commercial default and thereby admit to everything in this attachment. I also request that the government signal the truth of everything appearing here by responding in any of the following ways:
1. Claiming that the statements made here are “frivolous”.
2. Claiming that the government has no responsibility to abide by the Copyright.
3. Claiming that the government has no responsibility to render legal advice or make a determination in this case.
4. Refusing to respond at all.
5. Pretending like it never received this correspondence by saying it was conveniently “lost”. This document is sent with a “Certificate of Service” affidavit and the original was kept as legally admissible evidence which will be used to undertake litigation against the government, should the copyright be violated or the wishes expressed in this correspondence be disregarded, in violation of my Constitutional Rights.
Also, if you decide to revoke my driver’s license because you cannot or will not comply with this request, please also provide me with an affidavit saying that I don’t need a driver’s license that I can show to the next officer who will try to illegally impound my car for driving without a license that I in fact don’t need anyway. The statute which authorizes this, by the way, only applies inside the “State of California”, but most police officers are not informed of this fact so as to encourage “voluntary” acquisition of driver’s licenses that in fact are not necessary for private citizens who are not engaged in “commerce” on the public roadways. If you do revoke my license, then I’m going down to Mexico to get one.
In the event that you do not comply with the copyright license listed on this form and which applies to the attachment, you will be sued in court personally for the amount indicated for each instance of abuse of my personal information for purposes not related to the administration of the traffic laws in this state. You MAY NOT abuse my right to travel by compelling me to surrender my right to property and compelling me into becoming a “taxpayer” and a government “whore” in exchange for the “privilege” of driving on a public roadway which was paid for with my own hard-earned money. That is tyranny and I will not tolerate it!
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, from without the “United States” under 28 U.S.C. §1746(1) that:
1. The foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and ability
2. The records to which this statement refers relate and pertain to me, a natural sovereign person.
3. That the perjury statement shall be null and void should any kind of criminal prosecution, penalty, discrimination, or punishment result from including this statement in my service record or in admitting any of the facts contained in this Affidavit.
May God Bless You and Keep You,
The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville