The content of this page supersedes and is controlling over:
We take our job of educating and informing the public very seriously. Every possible human effort has therefore been made to ensure that the information available through this website is truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law. However, all information contained on this website originating from OTHER than government sources and which the courts themselves recognize as admissible evidence under the rules of evidence, along with any communications with, to, or about the author(s), website administrator, and owner(s) constitute religious speech and beliefs, and not facts. As such, nothing on this website originating from our own speech, writing, or testimony is susceptible to being false, misleading, or legally "actionable" in any manner. Since materials on this site spoken by us and all communications associated with, to, or about it are religious speech and beliefs, none of it is admissible in any court of law pursuant to F.R.E. 610 unless accompanied by an affidavit from a specific person attesting to its truthfulness and accuracy, and such materials are only actionable to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON and no others in such a circumstance. Nothing here other than the governments OWN speech or publications can truthfully be classified as fact without violating the First Amendment rights of the publishers and author(s). It is provided for worship, law enforcement, education, enlightenment, and entertainment and for no other purpose. Any other use is an unauthorized use for which the author(s), website administrator(s), and owner(s) assume no responsibility or liability. Users assume full, exclusive and complete responsibility for any use beyond reading, education, and entertainment.
There is only one exception to the above paragraph, which is that this Disclaimer is both FACT and IS admissible as evidence in its entirety in any court of law because it must be admissible as evidence in order to protect Ministry Officers and Fellowship Members from unlawful acts of persecution by a corrupted government.
This technique of making statements made by us into opinions that are nonfactual and nonactionable and of publishing them anonymously is exactly the same approach as the government uses towards its own legal or tax publications, advice, and websites. If you don't like this disclaimer, then please direct your dissatisfaction at the government, or more specifically the IRS and the Founding Fathers, because they started this problem and we're just emulating their behavior. For proof, see:
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. 4 Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. 5 Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices. 362 U.S. 60 . Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 56 (1994) (footnote omitted), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. 6 This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation."
[McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995)]
Any attempt by any court or any executive branch employee or any government to treat us differently than the government, the Founding Fathers, or the IRS in the context of speech which identifies ITSELF as non-factual beliefs and opinions that are not actionable or admissible as evidence is hereby stipulated by all users of this website and the materials posted on it as:
This position within our Disclaimer is legally defensible because the entire BASIS for the First Amendment right of free speech is that:
"Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell's and Raddatz' recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right [a “privilege” or “public right” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress' power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress' power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts."
[Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]
Any attempt therefore to change the context, character, or definition of our speech by a third party makes the NEW interpretation of said speech the exclusive liability of those who gave it the NEW and unauthorized interpretation. They become the creator, because they defined its meaning so they also become the only responsible party. Readers are also reminded this Disclaimer protects our speech and materials EVERYWHERE they are posted, INCLUDING third party sites. The First Amendment describes a PRIVATE RIGHT, and all rights are PROPERTY in a legal sense. The essence of property rights is the CONTROL over the property by all who intend to use it, and especially those who intend to BENEFIT in any way from its use.
The purpose of this disclaimer is not to undermine the credibility or accuracy of this ministry or website, but primarily to prevent retaliation from government caused by our commitment to exposing massive and ongoing illegal government activities. Such persecution and retaliation has been prevalent in the past and is likely to continue without this disclaimer.
“When the wicked arise, men hide themselves;
But when they perish, the righteous increase.”
[Prov. 28:28, Bible, NKJV]“A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself,
But the simple pass on and are punished.”
[Prov. 22:3, Bible, NKJV]“A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself; The simple pass on and are punished.”
[Prov. 27:12, Bible, NKJV]“The simple believes every word,
But the prudent man considers well his steps.
A wise man fears and departs from evil,
But a fool rages and is self-confident.”
[Prov. 14:15, Bible,NKJV]
We do not sell anything connected with this website or the materials on it, nor do we condone or encourage illegal, injurious, or criminal behavior. Never have, never will. Consequently, nothing on this website may be truthfully characterized as false or injurious "commercial speech" or excluded from First Amendment free speech protections. We do not sell or promote any kind of investment or tax shelter, nor do we sell any kind of plan or arrangement under 26 U.S.C. §6700 (abusive tax shelters), which is guaranteed or likely to produce any kind of result against the IRS. As a matter of fact, the lawless, avaricious, ignorant, incompetent, and criminal misapplication of the federal tax laws by our government and the treasonous refusal of the judiciary to punish such despicable abuses virtually guarantees unpredictable and unjust results in the administration of our tax laws when the techniques described on this website are used. The definition of the term "person" used in 26 U.S.C. §6700 and found in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) doesn't even apply to human beings such as us who don't work for corporations or partnerships within the federal United States (federal zone) as "public officers" and who thereby become "persons" and/or "natural persons". Furthermore, even though the government has attempted to use this statute to try to prosecute tax honesty advocates, they have done so illegally since there are no implementing regulations for this statute under the income tax "imposed" in section 1 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code and because they have done so against persons not domiciled within their territorial jurisdiction. See the following OFFSITE LINK for details on this SCAM:
IRS Due Process Meeting Handout, Form #03.008
http://sedm.org/Forms/03-Discovery/IRSDueProcMtgHandout.pdf
Lastly, it is a fact that anyone who consents (Form #05.003) can have anything done to them that a tyrant government wants to do, REGARDLESS of locality. Consenting to ANYTHING a government wants or offers is not only STUPID, but violates God's Delegation of Authority Order From God to Christians, Form #13.007. Therefore, any and all claims on this website or in communication with us about the authority or jurisdiction (Form #05.018) of any government require and therefore presuppose the following relationship with said government:
The burden of proof (Form #05.025) imposed upon the government alleging civil or criminal jurisdiction within a constitutional state therefore is to defeat all of the above limitations of its authority within a constitutional state and to prove that people within a state cannot use THE SAME franchise mechanisms against them to defend themselves against tyranny that are the origin of government jurisdiction to begin with. This is why the bible says the following on the subject of government:
"All nations before Him [God] are as nothing, And they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless."
[Isaiah 40:17, Bible, NKJV]"He [God] brings the princes to nothing;
He makes the judges of the earth useless."
[Isaiah 40:23, Bible, NKJV]
All of the materials and information on this website have been prepared for religious, educational and informational purposes only. Anyone and everyone may download and read our materials through this website consistent with the copyright and by doing so they implicitly consent to be subject to this Disclaimer Agreement. However, only those who satisfy all the criteria in this section may "use" our "tax information or services". By "use", we mean:
Those who satisfy all the following criteria may therefore "use" our "tax information or services" as defined above:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
http://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
If you meet any of the following criteria, then you may read but NOT "use" the "tax information or services" available through this website and instead should consult http://www.irs.gov for materials or services you can "use":
Information or services available through this website are not intended, recommended, or authorized for use as:
This website and the educational materials on it were prepared for the use of the authors only by themselves. Any use of the terms "you", "your", "individuals", "people", "persons", "we recommend", "you should", "we" or "our readers", "readers", "those", "most Americans", "employers", "employees", and all similar references either on the website or in any verbal communications or correspondence with our readers is directed at the author(s) only and not other readers. The only exception to this rule is the This disclaimer, which applies to everyone PLUS the author or ministry. All the authors are doing by posting these materials is sharing with others the results of their research and the play book they developed only for use by themselves. For instance, the bottom of every page of the Great IRS Hoax book says: "TOP SECRET: For Treasury/IRS Internal Use ONLY (FOUO)". Then in the "Disclaimer" at the beginning of the book, they define "Treasury" as the "Family Guardian Department of the Treasury". Consequently, how those materials impact or influence others is of no concern or consequence to the authors, and no motive may be attributed to any statements by the authors that would appear to be directed at third parties, because such statements are actually directed at themselves only. How readers use or apply the materials appearing here is entirely their choice and we assume no responsibility for how they act, or fail to act, based on the use of these materials. This approach is no different from that of the federal government, where the term "employee" in the Internal Revenue Code is made to "appear" like it applies to everyone, but in fact it only applies to federal agents, officers, and instrumentalities of the United States government, all of whom are described in 26 U.S.C. §6331(a). Any effort on the part of the government to redefine the words we use to mean anything other than what we define them to mean is an admission that we don't have First Amendment Rights, and such an act is an act of Treason punishable by death. How can a the authors have First Amendment rights if they can't even define the meaning of the words they use? How can the government claim that we have equal protection of the laws guaranteed under the Constitution (see Article 4, Section 2 and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Declaration of Independence) if they can define the meaning of the words they use in their void for vagueness "codes", but we can't define the meaning of the words we use in our writings and must rely on some government lawyer or judge with a conflict of interest (in violation of 28 U.S.C. §144, 28 U.S.C. §455, and 18 U.S.C. §208) to define or redefine them? Hypocrisy! Click here for those who would question this paragraph or its reason for existence.
Under the "good Samaritan rule", we cannot be subject to sanction or liability because we are not portraying our own words, but the words of anonymous third parties.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
[47 U.S.C. §230(c )(1)]
Any attempt to associate any member or officer of this ministry with any legal status or civil status (Form #13.008) OTHER than that described in this section, or to impute or enforce the consequences of a civil domicile (Form #05.002) is hereby stipulated by all parties concerned to be a criminal attempt at identity theft as described in the following:
Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046
The ONLY choice of law authorized in resolving disputes among members or between members and non-members shall be this disclaimer, the criminal law, the common law, and equity ALONE and never the civil statutory law (Form #05.037).
Click here for a detailed explanation of why this website and the owner(s), author(s) and the webmaster are entirely immune from federal and state jurisdiction relating to the materials posted here or any activities associated with them.
This section is a defense against the following fraudulent tactics by those in government:
The biblical reason for this section is explained in the following videos:
The legal purpose of these definitions is to prevent GOVERNMENT crime using words:
Word Crimes (OFFSITE LINK)
The definitions in this section are MANDATORY in any interaction between either the government or any of its agents or officers and any agent or member of this ministry. The reasons why this MUST be the case are described in:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.3 through 5.8
The word "human" means a man or woman above the age of majority, which we regard as 18 years of age. Anyone below the age of 18 is considered a "child" rather than a "human".
All use of the words "should", "shall", "must", or "we recommend" on this website or in any of the interactions of this ministry with the public shall mean "may at your choice and discretion". This is similar to the government's use of the same words. See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Sections 12.4.13, 12.4.17, 12.4.19, and 12.4.26 for further details.
The word "private" when it appears in front of other entity names such as "person", "individual", "business", "employee", "employer", etc. shall imply that the entity is:
"PRIVATE PERSON. An individual who is not the incumbent of an office."
[Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1359]
“PRIVILEGE. “A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law. [. . .] That which releases one from the performance of a duty or obligation, or exempts one from a liability which he would otherwise be required to perform, or sustain in common [common law] with all other persons. State v. Grosnickle, 189 Wis. 17, 206 N.W. 895, 896. A peculiar advantage, exemption, or immunity. Sacramento Orphanage & Children's Home v. Chambers, 25 Cal.App. 536, 144 P. 317, 319.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 1359-1360]“Is it a franchise? A franchise is said to be a right reserved to the people by the constitution, as the elective franchise. Again, it is said to be a privilege conferred by grant from government, and vested in one or more individuals, as a public office. Corporations, or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known to our laws. In England they are very numerous, and are defined to be royal privileges in the hands of a subject. An information will lie in many cases growing out of these grants, especially where corporations are concerned, as by the statute of 9 Anne, ch. 20, and in which the public have an interest. In 1 Strange R. ( The King v. Sir William Louther,) it was held that an information of this kind did not lie in the case of private rights, where no franchise of the crown has been invaded.
If this is so--if in England a privilege existing in a subject, which the king alone could grant, constitutes it a franchise--in this country, under our institutions, a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which could not be exercised without a legislative grant, would also be a franchise.”
[People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859) ]
"The words "privileges" and "immunities," like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. "
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]
See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.
Every attempt by anyone in government to alienate rights that the Declaration of Independence says are UNALIENABLE shall also be treated as "PRIVATE BUSINESS ACTIVITY" that cannot be protected by sovereign, official, or judicial immunity. So called "government" cannot make a profitable business or franchise out of alienating inalienable rights without ceasing to be a classical/de jure government and instead becoming in effect an economic terrorist and de facto government in violation of Article 4, Section 4.
"No servant [or government or biological person] 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 [government]."
[Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV]
The term "government" is defined to include that group of people dedicated to the protection of purely and exclusively PRIVATE RIGHTS and PRIVATE PROPERTY that are absolutely and exclusively owned by a truly free and sovereign human being who is EQUAL to the government in the eyes of the law per the Declaration of Independence. It excludes the protection of PUBLIC rights or PUBLIC privileges (franchises, Form #05.030) and collective rights (Form #12.024) because of the tendency to subordinate PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights due to the CRIMINAL conflict of financial interest on the part of those in the alleged "government" (18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §§144, and 455). See Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 for the distinctions between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.
“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual [PRIVATE] rights is against public policy. [5]“
[63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]________________________________________
FOOTNOTES:
[1] State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.[2] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524. A public official is held in public trust. Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist), 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill.Dec. 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.
[3] Chicago Park Dist. v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec. 134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.
[4] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill), 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 U.S. 807, 98 L.Ed. 2d 18, 108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den 486 U.S. 1035, 100 L.Ed. 2d 608, 108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass), 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).
Anything done CIVILLY for the benefit of those working IN the government at the involuntary, enforced, coerced, or compelled (Form #05.003) expense of PRIVATE free humans is classified as DE FACTO (Form #05.043), non-governmental, PRIVATE business activity beyond the core purpose of government that cannot and should not be protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity. Click here (Form #11.401) for a detailed exposition of ALL of the illegal methods of enforcement (Form #05.032) and duress (Form #02.005). "Duress" as used here INCLUDES:
All of the above instances of duress place personal interest in direct conflict with obedience to REAL law, Form #05.048. They are the main source of government corruption (Form #11.401) in the present de facto system (Form #05.043). The only type of enforcement by a DE JURE government that can or should be compelled and lawful is CRIMINAL or COMMON LAW enforcement where a SPECIFIC private human has been injured, not CIVIL statutory enforcement (a franchise, Form #05.030). Under the State Action Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court, everyone who is the target of CIVIL enforcement is, by definition a public officer or agent in the government and Christians are forbidden by the Bible from becoming such public officers. Form #13.007.
Every type of DE JURE CIVIL governmental service or regulation MUST be voluntary and ALL must be offered the right to NOT participate on every governmental form that administers such a CIVIL program. It shall mandatorily, publicly, and NOTORIOUSLY be enforced and prosecuted as a crime NOT to offer the right to NOT PARTICIPATE in any CIVIL STATUTORY activity of government or to call a service "VOLUNTARY" but actively interfere with and/or persecute those who REFUSE to volunteer or INSIST on unvolunteering. All statements by any government actor or government form or publication relating to the right to volunteer shall be treated as statements under penalty of perjury for which the head of the governmental department shall be held PERSONALLY liable if false. EVERY CIVIL "benefit" or activity offered by any government MUST identify at the beginning of every law creating the program that the program is VOLUNTARY and HOW specifically to UNVOLUNTEER or quit the program. Any violation of these rules makes the activity NON-GOVERNMENTAL in nature AND makes those offering the program into a DE FACTO government (Form #05.043). The Declaration of Independence says that all "just powers" of government derive from the CONSENT of those governed. Any attempt to CIVILLY enforce MUST be preceded by an explicit written attempt to procure consent, to not punish those who DO NOT consent, and to not PRESUME consent by virtue of even submitting a government form that does not IDENTIFY that submission of the form is an IMPLIED act of conset (Fonrm #05.003). This ensures "justice" in a constitutional sense, which is legally defined as "the right to be left alone". For the purposes of this website, those who do not consent to ANYTHING civil are referred to "non-resident non-persons" (Form #05.020). An example of such a human would be a devout Christian who is acting in complete obedience to the word of God in all their interactions with anyone and everyone in government. Any attempt by a PRIVATE human to consent to any CIVIL STATUTORY offering by any government (a franchise, Form #05.030) is a violation of their delegation of authority order from God (Form #13.007) that places them OUTSIDE the protection of God under the Bible.
Under this legal definition of "government" the IDEAL and DE JURE government is one that:
Jesus described the above de jure government as follows. He is implying that Christians cannot consent to any government that rules from above or has superior or supernatural powers in relation to biological humans. In other words, the government Christians adopt or participate in or subsidize CANNOT function as a religion as described in Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016:
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles [unbelievers] lord it over them [govern from ABOVE as pagan idols] , and those who are great exercise authority over them [supernatural powers that are the object of idol worship]. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant [serve the sovereign people from BELOW rather than rule from above]. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
[Matt. 20:25-28, Bible, NKJV]
For documentation on HOW to implement the above IDEAL or DE JURE government by making MINOR changes to existing foundational documents of the present government such as the Constitution, see:
Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002
The term "civil status" describes the process by which human beings become “persons” under civil statutory law. It is what the courts call a “res” which gives them civil control over you under one of three different systems of civil law. Civil status is VERY important, because it is the source of civil statutory jurisdiction of courts over you and their right to “personal jurisdiction” over you. It also describes how your actions affect “choice of law” and your “status” in any court cases you bring. Human beings who are “sovereign” in fact:
You cannot have a “civil status” under the laws of a place WITHOUT at least one of the following conditions:
Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm |
If any of the above rules are violated, you are a victim of criminal identity theft:
"civil status" is further discussed in:
The term "civil service" or "civil service fee" relates to any and all activities of "government" OTHER than:
"civil service" and "civil service fee" includes any attempt or act to:
The term "common law" means procedures and policies used in constitutional courts in the JUDICIAL branch to provide protection for absolutely owned, constitutionally protected PRIVATE RIGHTS and PRIVATE PROPERTY of a human being who has accepted no franchises or privileges and therefore who is not subject to civil statutes, not domiciled in the forum, and who reserves all rights. These procedures may not be exercised in "legislative franchise courts" in the LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE Branch which manage and adjudicate disputes over federal property, franchises, privileges, and "benefits". In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, these organic rights are “self-executing” and not government created or owned. They may therefore NOT be limited, restrained, taxed, or regulated by statute:
"The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers 524*524 between Congress and the Judiciary. The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, "Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States." Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal's threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, "provide[s] safeguards to be enforced by the courts, and not to be exercised by the Legislature"); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it "was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens"). As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary."
[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]
It is the duty of all CONSTITUTIONAL courts in the JUDICIAL branch to provide remedy for the protection of such rights when violated, even if there is no statute authorizing a remedy. This is a consequence of the oath that all judges IN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS take to “support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, whether state or federal. Franchise judges in the LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE branch don't have to take this oath and often ACTIVELY INTERFERE with any attempt by private litigants to invoke or enforce constitutional rights. That sort of behavior would be TREASON in a CONSTITUTIONAL court. Franchise courts act in essence as binding arbitration boards for people in temporary possession, custody, or control of absolutely owned government property which is dispensed with legal strings attached called "franchises". These courts preside by the CONSENT of those who accept the property or "benefit" that the franchise court is charged with managing, such as "licenses", "permits", or government "benefits". Examples of "legislative franchise courts" include:
For a detailed exposition of exactly how government franchises and franchise courts operate, see:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm |
Rights are property, and protecting and enforcing them is an action to protect PRIVATE property in the case of CONSTITUTIONAL rights recognized but not created by the Bill of Rights. In providing judicial remedy absent statutes, the courts in effect are DEFINING the common law, because statutes CANNOT define or limit such rights:
"Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. "
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities [within juries] and officials [and CIVIL STATUTES, Form #05.037] and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts [using the COMMON LAW rather than CIVIL STATUTES, Form #05.037]. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote [of a JURY OR an ELECTOR]; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
[West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441]
Based on the above, anything licensed, taxed, requiring a "permit", denied (the essence of ownership is the right to exclude and control the use of), or regulated by civil statute or which may be voted on by a jury or an elector or which is created or enforced by statute is NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL or a PRIVATE right and is not the proper subject of the common law. Further, anyone who tries to convince you that there IS no such thing as the common law in the context of CONSTITUTIONAL rights, or that common law proceedings can and do involve STATUTORY remedies is engaging in a conspiracy to DESTROY all of your private rights and private property. This is proven in:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
A failure or refusal by a judge in the judicial department to provide CONSTITUTIONAL remedy for absolutely owned PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights is therefore, in fact and in deed:
“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].
There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”
[. . .]
In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”
[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, 1758, Book XI, Section 6;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]
Further, Congress can only regulate or tax PRIVILEGES or PUBLIC rights that it created by statute, not PRIVATE rights recognized but not created by the Constitution.
Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell's and Raddatz' recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right [a “privilege” or “public right” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress' power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress' power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.
[Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]
For more details on the CIVIL (not CRIMINAL, but CIVIL) power to tax or regulate only public rights (public property) that Congress created by statute and therefore ABSOLUTELY OWNS and CONTROLS as property, see:
Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm |
The basic rules of the common law are documented in the following exemplary books published near the turn of the Twentieth Century and many others, and thus are WRITTEN. These rules have not been REPEALED, but rather fallen out of use because of censorship by covetous Pharisee lawyers trying to convert ALL property to government property so they could STEAL it and harvest it for their personal benefit [2] :
In addition to the above generally accepted rules, those owning the PRIVATE property protected by the common law may ADD to these rules with their own set of rules that form the conditions of the temporary use, benefit, or control of the property so granted and protected to the person SUBJECT to those rules. We call these the Grant Rules.
Grant Rules are CIVIL rules implemented as a contract or agreement between the GRANTOR and the GRANTEE for temporarily using, controlling, or benefitting from that property. In the case of government, these rules regulating government property cannot be and are not implemented with CRIMINAL statutes. They are only implemented by CIVIL statutes. They are enforced against those who consent to those RULES by temporarily accepting or exercising custody, benefit, or control over the property in question. These rules behave, in essence, as a franchise or an excise. The OBLIGATIONS against the GRANTOR associated with the use of the granted property are the “consideration” provided by the GRANTOR and the consideration they receive in return are the temporary “RIGHTS” they exercise over the granted property. All franchises are based on “grants” of property with legal strings or conditions attached and ANYONE can grant or participate in such a franchise or use such a franchise AGAINST a government to defend themselves against GOVERNMENT unlawfully offering or enforcing THEIR franchises:
“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]
An example of the use of such rules by the government against the private rights and private property is found below:
“We have repeatedly held that the Federal Government may impose appropriate conditions on the use of federal property or privileges [franchises, Form #05.030] and may require that state instrumentalities comply with conditions [obligations, Form #12.040] that are reasonably related to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs. See, e. g., Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 294 -296 (1958); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 142 -144 (1947); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16 (1940); cf. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 853 (1976); Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542 (1975). A requirement that States, like all other users, pay a portion of the costs of the benefits [Form #05.040] they enjoy from federal programs is surely permissible [meaning CONSTITUTIONAL] since it is closely related to the [435 U.S. 444, 462] federal interest in recovering costs from those who benefit and since it effects no greater interference with state sovereignty than do the restrictions which this Court has approved.”
[Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444 (1978);
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16842193024599209893]
Under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment, WE TOO have an EQUAL right, recognized above by the U.S. Supreme Court in Munn v. Illinois, to attach conditions to the use or benefit or control of our property by any and all others, INCLUDING governments. To suggest otherwise is to impute or enforce superior or supernatural powers to a government and institute a civil religion in violation of the First Amendment. ALL ARE EQUAL in a free society. You are equal to the government, as President Obama implied in his First Inauguration Speech, as we prove below:
Foundations of Freedom Course, Form #12.021, Video 1: Introduction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikf7CcT2I8I |
If you are not equal to the government and cannot use YOUR absolutely owned PRIVATE property to control THEM, then they can’t use THEIR property to control you through civil franchises or statutes either. For more on the abuse of franchises by government to oppress people they are supposed to be helping, and how to use them to DEFEND yourself against such abuses, see:
Anyone who asserts that the GOVERNMENT is the only one who can absolutely own property or that government SHARES ownership or control of ALL property is indirectly advocating all of the following:
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm |
"Socialism n (1839) 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."
[Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-510-X, page 1118; SOURCE: https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Evidence/Q05.010.pdf]
For more information about common misconceptions about the common law propagated mainly by MISINFORMED members of the legal profession and the government, see:
Rebutted False Arguments about the Common Law, Form #08.025
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf
___________________________
FOOTNOTES:
[2] See: Who Where the Pharisees and Saducees?, Form #05.047; https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.
The term "law" as used on this site is constrained by the following requirements:
The above criteria derives from What Is "law"?, Form #05.048, Section 16. Any violation of the above rules is what the Bible calls “devises evil by law” in Psalm 94:20-23 as indicated above.
Roman statesman Cicero defined law as follows:
“True Law is right reason in agreement with Nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect upon the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to try to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome or at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all times and all nations, and there will be one master and one rule, that is God, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]“Power and law are not synonymous. In truth, they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God‘s Law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God‘s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man‘s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the [de facto] government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]
“Law” is defined to EXCLUDE any and all civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges in relation to any and all governments and to include ONLY the COMMON law, the CONSTITUTION (if trespassing government actors ONLY are involved), and the CRIMINAL law.
The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:
[. . .]
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.
_____________
FOOTNOTES:
FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108.
[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]
Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be "a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong."
[. . .]
It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, "I will, or will not, do this"; that of a law is, "thou shalt, or shalt not, do it." It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be "a rule."
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]
"The words "privileges" and "immunities," like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption.[1] "
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]FOOTNOTES:
“What, then, is [civil] legislation? It is an assumption [presumption] by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion [because of abuse of sovereign immunity and the act of "CONSENT" by calling yourself a "citizen"] over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will [society of men and not law], pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human [CIVIL] legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed [and ESPECIALLY those who never expressly consented in writing].”
[Natural Law, Chapter 1, Section IV, Lysander Spooner;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/SpoonerLysander/NaturalLaw.htm]
The above methods of REMOVING the protections of the common law and the constitution from the INALIENABLE rights [rights that CANNOT lawfully be given away, even WITH consent, Form #12.038] that are protected by them has been described by the U.S. Congress as the ESSENCE of communism itself! This is especially true when you add games with legal words of art to remove even the STATUTORY limitations upon the conduct of the government. See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 841.
Sec. 841. - Findings and declarations of factThe Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the [de jure] Government of the United States [and replace it with a de facto government ruled by the judiciary]. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion] within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and [FRANCHISE] privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution [Form #10.002]. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of, Form #05.014, the tax franchise "codes", Form #05.001] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding by the framing of Congressman Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination [in the public FOOL system by homosexuals, liberals, and socialists] with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined [by the IRS and a corrupted judiciary] to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members [ANARCHISTS!, Form #08.020]. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence [or using income taxes]. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced [illegally KIDNAPPED via identity theft!, Form #05.046] into the service of the world Communist movement [using FALSE information returns and other PERJURIOUS government forms, Form #04.001], trained to do its bidding [by FALSE government publications and statements that the government is not accountable for the accuracy of, Form #05.007], and directed and controlled [using FRANCHISES illegally enforced upon NONRESIDENTS, Form #05.030] in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed
The above corruption of our Constitutional Republic by the unconstitutional abuse of franchises, the violation of the rules of statutory construction, and interference with common law remedies was described by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:
"These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
Although from the foundation of the Government this court has held steadily to the view that the Government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no one of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise powers not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly granted, Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 326, 331, we are now informed that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new territory, 380*380 acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our Government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this Government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the People of the United States. The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces — the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them — is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution."
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissenting]
Civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges are referred to on this website as “private law”, but not “law”. The word “public” precedes all uses of “law” when dealing with acts of government and hence, refers only to COMMON law and CRIMINAL law that applies equally to everyone, regardless of their consent. Involvement in any and all “private law” franchises or privileges offered by any government ALWAYS undermines and threatens sovereignty, autonomy, and equality, turns government into an unconstitutional civil religion, and corrupts even the finest of people. This is explained in:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
Any use of the word "law" by any government actor directed at us or any member, if not clarified with the words "private" or "public" in front of the word "law" shall constitute:
The protection of PRIVATE rights mandated by the Bill of Rights BEGINS with and requires:
“All rights and property are PRESUMED to be EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE and beyond the control of government or the CIVIL statutory franchise codes unless and until the government meets the burden of proving, WITH EVIDENCE, on the record of the proceeding that:
- A SPECIFIC formerly PRIVATE owner consented IN WRITING to convert said property to PUBLIC property.
- The owner was either abroad, domiciled on, or at least PRESENT on federal territory NOT protected by the Constitution and therefore had the legal capacity to ALIENATE a Constitutional right or relieve a public servant of the fiduciary obligation to respect and protect the right. Those physically present but not necessarily domiciled in a constitutional but not statutory state protected by the constitution cannot lawfully alienate rights to a real, de jure government, even WITH their consent.
- If the government refuses to meet the above burden of proof, it shall be CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED to be operating in a PRIVATE, corporate capacity on an EQUAL footing with every other private corporation and which is therefore NOT protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity."
For a detailed exposition on the mandatory separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE as indicated above, please see the following course on our site:
For a detailed exposition of the legal meaning of the word "law" and why the above restrictions on its definition are important, see:
What is "law"?, Form #05.048
The words "Copyright" or "Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship" used in connection with any of the intellectual property on this site shall mean the following:
The purpose of these copyright restrictions is to ensure that no government can use legal process or tax assessment as a method to censor free speech materials found on this website.
The word "franchise" means a grant or rental or lease rather than a gift of specific property with legal strings or "obligations" attached.
FRANCHISE. A special privilege conferred by government on individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right. Elliott v. City of Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358, 360. In England it is defined to be a royal privilege in the hands of a subject.
A "franchise," as used by Blackstone in defining quo warranto, (3 Com. 262 [4th Am. Ed.] 322), had reference to a royal privilege or branch of the king's prerogative subsisting in the hands of the subject, and must arise from the king's grant, or be held by prescription, but today we understand a franchise to be some special privilege conferred by government on an individual, natural or artificial, which is not enjoyed by its citizens in general. State v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 639, 86 A.L.R. 240.
In this country a franchise is a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. To be a corporation is a franchise. The various powers conferred on corporations are franchises. The execution of a policy of insurance by an insurance company [e.g. Social Insurance/Socialist Security], and the issuing a bank note by an incorporated bank [such as a Federal Reserve NOTE], are franchises. People v. Utica Ins. Co.. 15 Johns., N.Y., 387, 8 Am.Dec. 243. But it does not embrace the property acquired by the exercise of the franchise. Bridgeport v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255, 4 Arn.Rep. 63. Nor involve interest in land acquired by grantee. Whitbeck v. Funk, 140 Or. 70, 12 P.2d 1019, 1020. In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage. etc. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H. 484 ; State v. Black Diamond Co., 97 Ohio St. 24, 119 N.E. 195, 199, L.R.A.l918E, 352.
Elective Franchise. The right of suffrage: the right or privilege of voting in public elections.
Exclusive Franchise. See Exclusive Privilege or Franchise.
General and Special. The charter of a corporation is its "general" franchise, while a "special" franchise consists in any rights granted by the public to use property for a public use but-with private profit. Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212, 81 N. E. 443, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 420.
Personal Franchise. A franchise of corporate existence, or one which authorizes the formation and existence of a corporation, is sometimes called a "personal" franchise. as distinguished from a "property" franchise, which authorizes a corporation so formed to apply its property to some particular enterprise or exercise some special privilege in its employment, as, for example, to construct and operate a railroad. See Sandham v. Nye, 9 Misc.ReP. 541, 30 N.Y.S. 552.
Secondary Franchises. The franchise of corporate existence being sometimes called the "primary" franchise of a corporation, its "secondary" franchises are the special and peculiar rights, privileges, or grants which it may, receive under its charter or from a municipal corporation, such as the right to use the public streets, exact tolls, collect fares, etc. State v. Topeka Water Co., 61 Kan. 547, 60 P. 337; Virginia Canon Toll Road Co. v. People, 22 Colo. 429, 45 P. 398 37 L.R.A. 711. The franchises of a corporation are divisible into (1) corporate or general franchises; and (2) "special or secondary franchises. The former is the franchise to exist as a corporation, while the latter are certain rights and privileges conferred upon existing corporations. Gulf Refining Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 166 Miss. 759, 108 So. 158, 160.
Special Franchisee. See Secondary Franchises, supra.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, pp. 786-787]
The definition of "privilege" in the definition above means PROPERTY, whether physical or intangible. This loan is often called a "grant" in statutes, as in the case of Social Security in 42 U.S. Code Subchapter I-Grants to the States for Old-Age Assistance. That grant is to federal territories and NOT constitutional states, as demonstrated by the definition of "State" found in 42 U.S.C. §1301(a)(1). Hence, Social Security cannot be offered in constitutional states, but only federal territories, as proven in Form #06.001.
"For here, the state must deposit the proceeds of its taxation in the federal treasury, upon terms which make the deposit suspiciously like a forced loan to be repaid only in accordance with restrictions imposed by federal law. Title IX, §§ 903 (a) (3), 904 (a), (b), (e). All moneys withdrawn from this fund must be used exclusively for the payment of compensation. § 903 (a) (4). And this compensation is to be paid through public employment offices in the state or such other agencies as a federal board may approve. § 903 (a) (1)."
[Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)]
In the case of government franchises, property granted or rented can include one or more of the following:
“The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents. Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must at a minimum arise “between the government and others.” Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 451, 49 S.Ct., at 413. In contrast, “the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined,” Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 51, 52 S.Ct., at 292, is a matter of private rights. Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S. 442, 450, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1261, 1266, n. 7, 51 L.Ed.2d. 464 (1977); Crowell v. Benson, supra, 285 U.S., at 50-51, 52 S.Ct., at 292. See also Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 894, 917-918 (1930).FN24 Private-rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power.”
[. . .]
Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell's and Raddatz' recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right [a “privilege” or “public right” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress' power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress' power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.
[Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]
“special law. One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally. A private law. A law is "special" when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field of action or operation. A "special law" relates to either particular persons, places, or things or to persons, places, or things which, though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but not such legislation, be applied. Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass'n, Utah, 564 P.2d. 751, 754. A special law applies only to an individual or a number of individuals out of a single class similarly situated and affected, or to a special locality. Board of County Com'rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d. 361, 362. See also Private bill; Private law. Compare General law; Public law.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398]
In legal parlance, such a grant makes the recipient a temporary trustee, and if they violate their trust, the property can be taken back through administrative action or physical seizure and without legal process so long as the conditions of the loan allowed for these methods of enforcement:
“How, then, are purely equitable obligations created? For the most part, either by the acts of third persons or by equity alone. But how can one person impose an obligation upon another? By giving property to the latter on the terms of his assuming an obligation in respect to it. At law there are only two means by which the object of the donor could be at all accomplished, consistently with the entire ownership of the property passing to the donee, namely: first, by imposing a real obligation upon the property; secondly, by subjecting the title of the donee to a condition subsequent. The first of these the law does not permit; the second is entirely inadequate. Equity, however, can secure most of the objects of the doner, and yet avoid the mischiefs of real obligations by imposing upon the donee (and upon all persons to whom the property shall afterwards come without value or with notice) a personal obligation with respect to the property; and accordingly this is what equity does. It is in this way that all trusts are created, and all equitable charges made (i.e., equitable hypothecations or liens created) by testators in their wills. In this way, also, most trusts are created by acts inter vivos, except in those cases in which the trustee incurs a legal as well as an equitable obligation. In short, as property is the subject of every equitable obligation, so the owner of property is the only person whose act or acts can be the means of creating an obligation in respect to that property. Moreover, the owner of property can create an obligation in respect to it in only two ways: first, by incurring the obligation himself, in which case he commonly also incurs a legal obligation; secondly, by imposing the obligation upon some third person; and this he does in the way just explained.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 543]__________________________________________________
“When Sir Matthew Hale, and the sages of the law in his day, spoke of property as affected by a public interest, and ceasing from that cause to be juris privati solely, that is, ceasing to be held merely in private right, they referred to
[1] property dedicated [DONATED] by the owner to public uses, or
[2] to property the use of which was granted by the government [e.g. Social Security Card], or
[3] in connection with which special privileges were conferred [licenses].
Unless the property was thus dedicated [by one of the above three mechanisms], or some right bestowed by the government was held with the property, either by specific grant or by prescription of so long a time as to imply a grant originally, the property was not affected by any public interest so as to be taken out of the category of property held in private right.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 139-140 (1876)]
The above authorities imply that a mere act of accepting or using the property in question in effect represents "implied consent" to abide by the conditions associated with the loan, as described in the California Civil Code below:
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS
PART 2. CONTRACTS
CHAPTER 3. CONSENT
Section 15891589. A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.
The U.S. Supreme Court further acknowledged the above mechanisms of using grants or loans of government property to create equitable obligations against the recipient of the property as follows. Note that they ALSO imply that YOU can use exactly the same mechanism against the government to impose obligations upon them, if they are trying to acquire your physical property, your services, your labor, your time, or impose any kind of obligation (Form #12.040) against you without your express written consent, because all such activities involve efforts to acquire what is usually PRIVATE, absolutely owned property that you can use to control the GOVERNMENT as the lawful owner:
“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]
The injustice (Form #05.050), sophistry, and deception (Form #05.014) underlying their welfare state system is that:
To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.
Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.
Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St. 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]
“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments… This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.”
[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) ]"... railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time."
[United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980)]
For further details on government franchises, see:
For information on how to avoid franchises, quit them, or use your own PERSONAL franchises to DEFEND yourself against illegal government franchise administration or enforcement, usually against ineligible parties, see:
The word "frivolous" as used on other websites in referring to this website shall mean "correct" and "truthful". Any attempts to call anything on this website incorrect or untruthful must be accompanied by authoritative, court-admissible evidence to support such a conclusion or shall be presumed by the reader to be untrustworthy and untruthful. All such evidence MUST derive EXCLUSIVELY from the consensual civil domicile of the defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). Parties subject to this agreement stipulate that any violation of this rule is a malicious prosecution and obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589(a)(3). Click here for details on domicile.
The term "federal income tax", in the context of this website, means the revenue scheme described in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code as applied specifically and only to human beings who are not statutory "persons" or "individuals" under federal law and shall NOT refer to businesses. This website does NOT concern itself with businesses or corporations or artificial entities of any description.
The term "tax" includes any method to collect revenues to support ONLY the operation of the government. It does NOT include the abuse of taxing power to transfer wealth between ordinary citizens or residents and when it is used for this purpose it is THEFT, not "taxation".
“The power to tax is, therefore, the strongest, the most pervading of all powers of government, reaching directly or indirectly to all classes of the people. It was said by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v. Md., 4 Wheat. 431, that the power to tax is the power to destroy. A striking instance of the truth of the proposition is seen in the fact that the existing tax of ten per cent, imposed by the United States on the circulation of all other banks than the National Banks, drove out of existence every *state bank of circulation within a year or two after its passage. This power can be readily employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there is no implied limitation of the uses for which the power may be exercised.
To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.
Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.
Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St. 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]
________________________________________________________________________________
"A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another."
[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]
"Tax" includes ONLY impositions upon PUBLIC property or franchises (Form #05.030) and not upon absolutely owned PRIVATE property.
The word "protection" includes only CRIMINAL, constitutional, and common law protection. It excludes every type of government activity, franchise, or program that requires a predicate civil status (Form #13.008) to enforce, such as "citizen", "resident", "taxpayer", "spouse", Social Security beneficiary, etc. Every attempt to impose, acquire, or enforce a civil status or to enforce duties upon a civil status NOT related to voting or jury service constitutes the following:
The word "fact" means that which is admissible as evidence in a court of law BECAUSE ENACTED LAW makes it admissible AND because the speaker (other than us) INTENDED for it to be factual. It does NOT imply that we allege that it is factual, actionable, or even truthful. Any attempt by any government to make anything published on this website or anything said by members or officers of the ministry FACTUAL or ACTIONABLE in conflict with this disclaimer is hereby declared and stipulated by all members to be FRAUDULENT, PERJURIOUS, and a willful act of international terrorism and organized extortion.
The term “statutory” when used as a prefix to any other term, means that the term it precedes pertains only to federal territory, property, PUBLIC rights, or privileges under the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government. Includes NO private property or people.
The term “statutory citizen” is defined on this website to mean someone who:
Political status asks: Are you a member of this home, and are you faithful to the family? Civil status asks: Are you a member of the home, and in what room do you live? More on CIVIL STATUS at:
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf
For a detailed description of the VERY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES of selecting or consenting to a CIVIL DOMICILE, thus becoming a STATUTORY CITIZEN, and thus funding government in an UNACCOUNTABLE way, see:
For a way to REMOVE ALL of the MASSIVE infirmities of CIVIL DOMICILE and being a STATUTORY CITIZEN and replace them with something MUCH better and definitely not SOCIALIST but CAPITALIST, see:
Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002 https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/SGFArtOfConfed.pdf |
Every reference to the word “citizen” in every act of congress OTHER than in Title 8 is by default a STATUTORY Citizen and a Citizen**+D as defined in this Disclaimer. Title 8 acts as a substitute for the Constitution for the purposes of only citizenship within territories and/or possessions OR abroad. Fourteenth Amendment/CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship is NOWHERE described or referenced in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Statutes in Title 8 are not necessary to define or authorize citizenship for people in states of the Union:
“Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside. See, e.g., Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922) (Holmes, J.) (“If a thing has been practiced for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it[.]”); Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) (“It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use . . . . Yet an unbroken practice . . . is not something to be lightly cast aside.”). And while Congress cannot take away the citizenship of individuals covered by the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment], it can bestow citizenship upon those not within the Constitution’s breadth. See U.S. Const, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (“Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory belonging to the United States[**].”); id. at art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (Congress may “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . ..”). To date, Congress has not seen fit to bestow birthright citizenship upon American Samoa, and in accordance with the law, this Court must and will respect that choice.16″
[Tuaua v. U.S.A, 951 F.Supp.2d. 88 (2013)]
Note the following in the above:
“If the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. ”
All statutory statuses in Title 8 are therefore POLITICAL statuses rather than CIVIL statuses. For the meaning of "civil status", see:
Civil Status (Important!)-SEDM
https://sedm.org/litigation-main/civil-status/
However, the political status imputed in Title 8 ("citizen" and/or "national") is not that mentioned in the Constitution. The constitution does not apply on federal territory with the exception of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 except insofar as Congress legislatively allows it to apply. Once it is made to apply, that constitutional provision which is legislatively applied cannot be legislatively revoked, because Constitutional rights cannot be legislatively revoked and are private property.
“[T]he Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest only when and so far as Congress shall so direct”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 279 (1901)]
All titles of the U.S. Code OTHER than Title 8 and which are CIVIL in nature limit themselves to domiciled parties against whom statutory civil law may lawfully be enforced per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). The origin of civil statutory enforcement authority is domicile on federal territory or representing an entity or office domiciled there (such as "person"). Thus, all such parties must be at least domiciled on federal territory to civilly enforce. And, one can't have a domicile without physical presence there at some point in time. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
The term “constitutional” when used as a prefix to any other term, means that the term it precedes pertains only to land, property, rights, or privileges under the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union and not within the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the national government.
The terms "law practice" or "practice of law":
The word "sovereign" when referring to humans or governments means all the following:
The term "anarchy" implies any one or more of the following, and especially as regards so-called "governments". An important goal of this site is to ELIMINATE all such "anarchy":
"No man in this country [including legislators of the government as a legal person] is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives," 106 U.S., at 220. "Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the Citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights," 106 U.S., at 220, 221.
[United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S. Ct. 240 (1882)]
In support of the above definition of "anarchy", here is how the U.S. Supreme Court defined it:
The above requirements are a consequence of the fact that the foundation of the United States Constitution is EQUAL protection and EQUAL treatment. Any attempt to undermine equal rights and equal protection described above constitutes:“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]
For court admissible proof that your CIVIL government is the MAIN and most damaging type of anarchist in modern society, both from a legal perspective and a theological perspective, see:
Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf
The term "political" as used throughout our website in reference to us or our activities:
The term "non-citizen national" MEANS a human being born in a constitutional state and domiciled or at least physically present there. These people are described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21). They are STATUTORY "non-resident non-persons" as described in Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020. It DOES NOT mean or include those who are:
The term "state national" means those who are:
Equivalent to a "non-citizen national of the United States OF AMERICA" or a "free inhabitant" under the Articles of Confederation. EXCLUDES any of the following:
The term is a SUBSET of the term "American National" as used by the Department of State in 8 U.S.C. §1502 because it:
We make this distinction because we don't want to be in a position of "purposefully availing ourself" of commerce within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government and thereby make ourselves a target of "selective or UNJUST enforcement". This is also consistent with the SEDM opening page, which says:
"Our goal is to inspire, empower, motivate, and educate mainly those born or naturalized in the USA (and NOT “U.S.”) and who are Members in how to love, honor, obey, glorify, and lift up our Sovereign Lord above every man, king, ruler, government, and Earthly law at a personal and very practical level and in every area of our lives. This is the essence of our religious worship and the essence, according to the Bible, of how we love our God."
[SEDM Opening Page; http://sedm.org]
"state" for a foreign national = the country of which that person is a national. "state" for an American national is the United States of America, or just America. "state" is not defined in 8 USC although "State" is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(36) and they are NOT equivalent. See 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) for another reference to a "state national". Remember the context of 8 U.S.C. §1101 is immigration and nationality. So when we speak of a state in this context, we are talking about international states. In that context, American nationality (or U.S. nationality) is what we are---nationality of California is meaningless in this context. So to say you are a national of California is to say you are a national of the United States[***] OF AMERICA or an American National.
For the purposes of "State", the following definition applies:
State
As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states. The section of territory occupied by one of the United States. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a case, "The State v. A. B." The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at a given time.
[The Free Dictionary, Farlex; SOURCE: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state]
"State national" is NOT a statutory term and is not commonly used by courts of law. Therefore, if you invoke it in government correspondence or in litigation, you should take great care to define it BEFORE invoking it so that you do not invite charges of being "frivolous".
The term "non-person" or "non-resident non-person" (Form #05.020) as used on this site we define to be a human who is all of the following:
4.2. Because they are not in receipt of or eligible to receive property or benefits from the government, they owe no CIVIL STATUTORY obligations to that government or any STATUTORY "citizen" or STATUTORY "resident", as "obligations" are described in California Civil Code Section 1428. This means they are not party to any contracts or compacts and have injured NO ONE as injury is defined NOT by statute, but by the common law. See Form #12.040 for further details on the definition of "obligations".Invito beneficium non datur.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est.
A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
They are "non-persons" BY VIRTUE of not benefitting from any civil statutory privilege and therefore being "PRIVATE". By "privilege", we mean ANY of the things described in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2):
5 U.S. Code § 553 - Rule making
(a)This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved—
[. . .]
(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.
The above items all have in common that they are PROPERTY coming under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution that is loaned or possessed or granted temporarily to a human being with legal strings attached. Thus, Congress has direct legislative jurisdiction not only over the property itself, but over all those who USE, BENEFIT FROM, or HAVE such property physically in their custody or within their temporary control. We remind the reader that Congress enjoys control over their own property NO MATTER WHERE it physically is, including states of the Union, and that it is the MAIN source of their legislative jurisdiction within the exclusive jurisdiction of Constitutional states of the Union!:
United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
“The Constitution permits Congress to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. This power applies as well to territory belonging to the United States within the States, as beyond them. It comprehends all the public domain, wherever it may be. The argument is, that the power to make ‘ALL needful rules and regulations‘ ‘is a power of legislation,’ ‘a full legislative power;’ ‘that it includes all subjects of legislation in the territory,‘ and is without any limitations, except the positive prohibitions which affect all the powers of Congress. Congress may then regulate or prohibit slavery upon the public domain within the new States, and such a prohibition would permanently affect the capacity of a slave, whose master might carry him to it. And why not? Because no power has been conferred on Congress. This is a conclusion universally admitted. But the power to ‘make rules and regulations respecting the territory‘ is not restrained by State lines, nor are there any constitutional prohibitions upon its exercise in the domain of the United States within the States; and whatever rules and regulations respecting territory Congress may constitutionally make are supreme, and are not dependent on the situs of ‘the territory.‘”
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 509-510 (1856)]
By property, we mean all the things listed in 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) such as SSNs (property of the government per 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d)), contracts (which are property), physical property, chattel property, "benefits", "offices", civil statuses, privileges, civil statutory remedies, etc. A "public office" is, after all, legally defined as someone in charge of the PROPERTY of the "public":
“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]
Even the public office ITSELF is property of the national government, so those claiming any civil statutory status are claiming a civil office within the government. It is otherwise unconstitutional to regulate private property or private rights. The only way you can surrender your private status is voluntarily adopt an office or civil status or the "benefits", "rights", or privileges attaching to said office or status, as we prove in:
It is custody or "benefit" or control of government/public property that grants government control over those handling or using such property:
“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]_______________________________________________________________________________________
“The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender.”
[Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]
Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]
“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.
“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.
“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]
You cannot MIX or comingle PRIVATE property with PUBLIC property without converting the PRIVATE property ownership from absolute to qualified. You must keep them SEPARATE at all times and it is the MAIN and MOST IMPORTANT role of government to maintain that separation. Governments, after all, are created ONLY to protect private property and the FIRST step in that protection is to protect PRIVATE property from being converted to PUBLIC property. For proof, see:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
What Congress is doing is abusing its own property to in effect create "de facto public offices" within the government, in violation of 4 U.S.C. §72, as is proven in:
Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf
This is how we describe the reason why people should avoid privileges and thereby avoid possession, custody, use, or "benefit" of government/public property on the opening page of our site:
"People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph."
[Family Guardian Opening Page; http://famguardian.org]
"Non-resident Non-Person" or "non-person" are synonymous with "transient foreigner", "in transitu", and "stateless" (in relation to the national government). We invented this term. The term does not appear in federal statutes because statutes cannot even define things or people who are not subject to them and therefore foreign and sovereign. The term "non-individual" used on this site is equivalent to and a synonym for "non-person" on this site, even though STATUTORY "individuals" are a SUBSET of "persons" within the Internal Revenue Code. Likewise, the term "private human" is also synonymous with "non-person". Hence, a "non-person":
Don't expect vain public servants to willingly admit that there is such a thing as a human "non-person" who satisfies the above criteria because it would undermine their systematic and treasonous plunder and enslavement of people they are supposed to be protecting. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the "right to be left alone" is the purpose of the constitution. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. A so-called "government" that refuses to leave you alone or respect or protect your sovereignty and equality in relation to them is no government at all and has violated the purpose of its creation described in the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, anyone from the national or state government who refuses to enforce this status, or who imputes or enforces any status OTHER than this status under any law system other than the common law is:
If freedom and self-ownership or "ownership" in general means anything at all, it means the right to deny any and all others, including governments, the ability to use or benefit in any way from our body, our exclusively owned private property, and our labor.
“We have repeatedly held that, as to property reserved by its owner for private use, "the right to exclude [others is] `one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are
commonly characterized as property.' " Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 433 (1982), quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979). “
[Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)]__________________________________________________________
“In this case, we hold that the "right to exclude," so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right,[11] falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation.”
[Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)]___________
FOOTNOTES:
[11] See, e. g., United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 206 Ct.Cl. 649, 669-670, 513 F.2d. 1383, 1394 (1975); United States v. Lutz, 295 F.2d. 736, 740 (CA5 1961). As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis, "[a]n essential element of individual property is the legal right to exclude others from enjoying it." International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (dissenting opinion).
If you would like a W-8 form that ACCURATELY describes the withholding and reporting status of a "non-resident non-person", see:
W-8SUB, Form #04.231
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf
The term "advice" or "legal advice" means education about tools, facts, remedies, and options for making your own informed choice. It does not include any method of: 1. Transferring liability or responsibility from the person asking to the person responding; 2. Anything that could be classified as "legal advice" or "law practice" as used in any statute or enacted law; 3. Anything that could be classified as factual or a basis for belief or reliance upon the person asked in connection with commercial speech subject to government protection or regulation.
The term "socialism" means any attempt by any government to use civil legislation to abolish private property or to convert private property ownership to public property, public rights, or privileges, whether by consent or by theft. "Ownership" and "control" are synonymous for the purpose of this definition. Such property includes land, labor, physical objects, chattel property, or constitutional rights.
Examples of the implementation of socialism include the following activities by government:
The result of implementing socialism through civil legislation is ultimately to abolish constitutional or common law protections for property, and to replace them with legislatively granted civil privileges that come with obligations and a corresponding surrender of said rights. Below is how we describe this process on the opening page of our website:
People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.
[Family Guardian Website Opening Page; http://famguardian.org]
For the purpose of this definition "socialism" does NOT include "social control over the means of productIon" as most contemporary reference sources FALSELY identify it. Early dictionaries defined it consistent with our definition but over the years, the word has fairly recently been redefined to REMOVE the mention of abolition of private property from the definition. This was done so that statists would conveniently stop having to APOLOGIZE for government theft through the legislative process. For examples of this phenomenon, see:
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: "socialism"
It is important to emphasize here that when you want to stop public opposition to a government activity such as theft or conversion of private property, the easiest way is to redefine terms so that there is no word that accurately refers to the activity that is being opposed. The result is that you have eliminated vocabulary that could describe the thing being opposed, and thus to eliminate the political opposition entirely. This approach, in fact, is the heart of the modern phenomenon of "Identity politics": Control public opinion and public opposition by controlling language.
An important goal of this website is to ELIMINATE all forms of socialism as defined here, and thus to restore the supremacy of individual rights over governmental rights to our political and democratic processes and institutions. For details on the evils of socialism, see:
The term "grant" or "loan", in the context of this website and especially in relation to any type of property or right or to "franchises" generally, means a temporary conveyance or transfer of physical custody or possession of absolutely owned property with legal strings or conditions attached by the grantor in which there are no moities or usufructs over the property held or reserved by the party to whom the property is loaned or temporarily conveyed.
The above process, in fact, has been admitted by the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court as the "very essence" of CIVIL government:
"When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. HN4 "A body politic," as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, "is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively private, Thorpe v. R. & B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143; but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and [*125] has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas. From this source come the HN5 police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Cases, 5 How. 583, "are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty, . . . that is to say, . . . the power to govern men and things." Under these powers the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their exercise it has been customary in England from time immemorial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., and in so doing to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services rendered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day, statutes are to be found in many of the States upon some or all these subjects; and we think it has never yet been successfully contended that such legislation came within any of the constitutional prohibitions against interference with private property. With the Fifth Amendment in force, Congress, in 1820, conferred power upon the city of Washington "to regulate . . . the rates of wharfage at private wharves, . . . the sweeping of chimneys, and to fix the rates of fees therefor, . . . and the weight and quality of bread," 3 Stat. 587, sect. 7; and, in 1848, "to make all necessary regulations respecting hackney carriages and the rates of fare of the same, and the rates of hauling by cartmen, wagoners, carmen, and draymen, and the rates of commission of auctioneers," 9 id. 224, sect. 2."
"From this it is apparent that, down to the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was not supposed that statutes regulating the use, or even the price of the use, of private property necessarily deprived an owner of his property without due process of law. Under some circumstances they may, but not under all. The amendment does not change the law in this particular: it simply prevents the States from doing that which will operate as such a deprivation."
"This brings us to inquire as to the principles upon which this power of regulation rests, in order that we may determine what is within and what without its operative effect. Looking, then, to the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution protects, we find that when private property is "affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only." This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 78, and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control."
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]
" It will be found that from the earliest periods of our history the State laws regulated the privilege of the elective franchise within their respective limits, and that these laws were exactly such as local interests, peculiar conditions, or supposed policy dictated, and that it was never asserted that the exclusion of any class of inhabitants from the privilege of voting amounted to an interference with the privileges of the excluded class as citizens. As was well said by Judge Mills, of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky: "The mistake on the subject arises from not attending to a sensible distinction between political and civil rights. The latter constitute the citizen, while the former are not necessary ingredients. A State may deny all her political rights to an individual, and yet he may be a citizen. The rights of office and suffrage are political purely, and are denied by some or all the States to part of their population, who are still citizens. A citizen, then, is one who owes the Government allegiance, service, and money by way of taxation, and to whom the Government, in turn, grants and guarantees liberty of person and of conscience, the right of acquiring and possessing [PUBLIC, not PRIVATE] property [WHY?, because the CONSTITUTION protects PRIVATE property ONLY, and CIVIL STATUTES protect PUBLIC PROPERTY. You have to SURRENDER some portion of the protections of the CONSTITUTION in order to acquire, use, or "benefit" from PUBLIC property], of marriage and the social relations, of suit and defense, and security of person, estate, and reputation. These, with some others which might be enumerated, being guaranteed and secured by Government, constitute a citizen. To aliens we extend these privileges by courtesy; to others we secure them--to male as well as female--to the infant as well as the person of hoary hairs." (1 Litt. R. 342.)"
[Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43 (1872)]
In the context of GOVERNMENT grants of property:
"“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]
God vehemently forbids Christians from participating in any grants or loans of government property and warns Christians that they will be CURSED if they participate. This curse is the STRONGEST and SCARIEST curse in all the bible:
Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]
“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.
“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.
“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]
The reason God forbids becoming and borrower of government property is that the legal relation created by the transaction, being a franchise or contract or agreement, causes conflicts of interest and allegiance and sin.
“The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender.”
[Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]_____________________
“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” or domiciliary in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their [government] gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]______________________________________________________________________________________________
"I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.' But you have not obeyed Me. Why have you done this?
"Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'"
So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.
[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]
God also says that the only thing that Christians are allowed to be in relation to any and all governments is Merchants.
"For the Lord your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you."
[Deut. 15:6, Bible, NKJV]"The Lord will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow."
[Deut. 28:12, Bible, NKJV]"You shall not charge interest to your brother--interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest."
[Deut. 23:19, Bible, NKJV ]"To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess."
[Deut. 23:20, Bible, NKJV]
For more information on the subject of franchises and their perils and pitfalls, see:
For tools and tactics to FIGHT the EXTRATERRITORIAL abuse of franchises and the UNCONSTITUTIONAL grants of government property that implement them, see:
The term “Benefit" means advantage; profit; fruit; gain; interest, and real consideration associated with a specific transaction which conveys a right or property interest to a specific status, class, or group lawfully requesting said "benefit" which:
Anything offered by the government that does not meet ALL of the above criteria is herein defined as an INJURY and a TORT. Compelled participation is stipulated by both parties as being slavery in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §1583, 42 U.S.C. §1994, and the Thirteenth Amendment.
Receipt and/or acceptance of any government form by any government constitutes consent by the recipient of the application to use the above definition of “benefit” in any disputes that might arise over such acceptance. The government recipient and its agents, employees, and assignees forfeit their right as private individuals acting in any government office to define the term “benefit” and agree to use ONLY the above definition.
Because the Submitter is ineligible for and does not seek any kind of “benefit” by submitting any of the attached forms, the Submitter and Recipient both stipulate that the perjury statement has no “materiality” or legal actionability because it cannot produce any kind of injury to the Recipient.
Parties stipulate that this definition applies to any and all past, present, or future forms they receive by any parties concerned with this disclaimer.
More on the subject of "benefit" can be found at:
The process by which a classically governmental function is abused as a method to destroy or war against private rights, private property, common law remedies, constitutional remedies, or even personal choice and autonomy. The PERPETRATOR we call the RECRUITER and the VICTIM we call the PEON, VASSAL, and SLAVE. We describe the HAZARDS of participating in, NOT opposing, or benefiting from the "weaponization of government" on the opening page of our site as follows:
People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.
[Family Guardian Website Opening Page; http://famguardian.org]
Below are the elements describing exactly what we mean by this term:
Examples of government programs which usually implement "weaponization of government" as described above:
In the private commercial marketplace, such tactics by large corporations include the following:
The European Union has previously SANCTIONED large corporations to the tune of billions of dollars of penalties connected with the above tactics, which they label in court as "anti-competitive behavior". Why aren't they applying the SAME tactics to THEMSELVES, as far as the MONEY system? For instance, why aren't PRIVATE companies allowed to have private money systems and not connect those who use them into a public office illegally? Every time someone tries to do this, they get RAIDED illegally under the guise of "know your customer rules" that don't apply to private people. This has happened with eGold, Bitclub, Liberty Dollar, National Barter Association, and MANY others. Litigating against these entities can only have one purpose: Protect a de facto monopoly on money that the Constitution does NOT EXPRESSLY authorize and which is therefore FORBIDDEN. See:
The main purpose of ELIMINATING all "weaponization of government" as described above is to:
For the purposes of this website and ministry, the term "natural law" is synonymous with the following behavior by civil government:
For a system of government that implements the above and builds upon existing organic and statutory law, and which requires the least possible changes to the current system to implement, see:
Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002
One of the most important and most abused phrases in government documents may be surprising to you. It’s the “United States.” The United States actually has four primary separate contexts and misinformed readers of government documentation may miss the entire point of any specific government document if they can’t correctly interpret which CONTEXT of the phrase “United States” is actually being referenced in the text. In the real estate field, the three most important things are LOCATION, LOCATION, and LOCATION. In the LEGAL field, the most important thing is CONTEXT of the terms used. Generally, only judges and lawyers understand all the available contexts and are able to discern context by deciphering the nuance in a statute. For the legally uninformed, all the contexts are considered equivalent and YOU as the reader are considered the target of every context in order to illegally expand the jurisdiction and power of the court and the government.
As a result of purposeful confusion by the government we use narrow and well defined TERMS to distinguish between the various CONTEXTS of the United States (and other words of art as well). As you’ll see below there are four primary separate contexts for the meaning of the “United States”. In this Form/Document when we write material describing the United States we use separate terms to describe each one of the potential meanings. However; when we are quoting legal opinions that aren’t our original creation we leave the term “United States” in the quotation, but we use a convention of *, **, ***, **** usually in brackets (“[**]”) when the words “United States” appear to help readers decipher which context was implied by the context.
By the end of this document, you should have a thorough understanding of how the National Government and the enclaves, territories and possessions, which is the same Congress, have colluded with States to unlawfully usurp power and constitutional rights from average Americans and they do it through the use of purposefully convoluted law and intentionally disguised words of art. The ultimate result is an immense financial crime against the American people. You should be able to recognize DECEPTIVE WORDS OF ART so that when you’re reading government documentation you have a legal understanding of the nuance of government documents and potential contractual traps or legal manipulation resulting from them.
"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."
[Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
Based on the above Supreme Court Decision there are three separate contexts of the word United States. This is where we apply the convention of *, **, and *** consistently used throughout not only this document, but all the materials found on our website.
Those definitions are lengthy, complicated, and annoying to quote. For simplicity we reference them as the following
If it’s not clear there’s a mathematical relationship between the three above GEOGRAPHICAL definitions. The math formula is 1 = 2 + 3. In other words, the National Government is composed of both the land mass of the Territories and Possessions and the land mass belonging to the 50 States. All three of the above are what we call the “Dr. Jekyll” de jure government:
Figure 1: Geographical versions of "United States"
The United States as described in Hooven sets up distinct geographical boundaries for the United States. Those different geographical boundaries are subject to different groups of people that operate those different United States.
FOOTNOTES:
Via the Bible it’s established that God’s jurisdiction is created by his ownership over a physical geography.
“The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; The world and all its fullness, You have founded them.”
[Psalm 89:11, Bible, NKJV]
Only by absolute ownership can God then become the Lawgiver. He is the LORD because He owns the LAND. Hence, the phrase “Landlord”. The “laws” in this scenario are merely a CIVIL STATUTORY regulation of the use of His property, not unlike how a Landlord can make rules for his or her tenants. In fact, in the following video, Satan himself recognizes God as “an absentee Land Lord”.
Devil’s Advocate: Lawyers, SEDM http://sedm.org/what-we-are-up-against/ |
Congress has jurisdiction over the territories and possessions. The Constitution in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 imputes to Congress the authority to “make needful rules” respecting its land and physical property:
United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
All CIVIL STATUTES, including all franchises, are a legitimate exercise of the above power. That power can, in fact, have no other legitimate source. Mere force, fraud, or deception cannot be the origin of that authority. Might does NOT make right as they say.
The Constitution is a trust indenture. It creates a corporation called the “United States****”. The “Corpus” of this trust is the community property owned by the United States**** corporation. Those serving as public officers are then trustees under that trust serving within that corporation. Trusts can be written down and intentionally created. They can also be generated as legal fictions as part of contracts or court matters. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates, describes, and limits the exercise of the power of the “United States****” to 17 specific subject matters:
United States Constitution
Article I: Legislative Department
Section 8: Powers of Congress
Clause 1. Power to Tax and SpendThe Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
[. . .]
[United States Constitution, SOURCE: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/]
The National Government derives its powers from the delegated powers of the union States. Each state separately delegated powers to the Nation. Additionally, the first continental congress, which was a group of states working together, collectively but not individually, had the power to levy taxes, wage war, etc. When the nation was brought together the right of the collective to wage war, levy taxes, etc. moved from the continental congress to the new National government. Further, the constitution splits those delegated powers into different branches- legislature, executive branch, and the judicial branch. Each branch has separate delegated powers to enable the 50 states to act as one larger nation, especially in regards to foreign nations and duties, customs, and imposts, but without putting too much power in any single branch. Additionally, the Federal jurisdiction also controls interstate arrangements between two or more separate states, particularly through the judicial branch, but the Federal jurisdiction does not extend within the intrastate policy of any single union state.
The second jurisdiction of the United States** consists of DC and the territories and possessions. DC is a physical, geographical PLACE that’s 10 square miles. Washington, DC is a federal enclave that was originally carved out of Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia side was taken back by the state, leaving only the Maryland side. The constitution enables the exact same Congress as the National Government to serve in the role of the municipal government of Washington DC as well as the possessions, territories, and what the State Department calls the “Freely Associated Compact States.” These “States” (another deceptive Word of Art) aren’t union States and as such the Federal Constitution does not apply to them. This land area and its government is collectively called the Federal Zone by the Supreme Court. This is a big problem, a giant oversight in the Federal Constitution, and a major contributing source of the criminal heist against Americans by the government.
To be clear, the Constitution requires Congress to operate in two roles simultaneously. They operate a Constitutional National Government of delegated powers derived from the Several States and the same legislature operates the Federal Zone Government, absent Constitutional restrictions, which is essentially a municipal function regarding DC, possessions, territories, and “Freely Associated Compact States.”
“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
[Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]
Congress in a Federal capacity is limited to a Constitutional Republic as outlined in the Constitution.
United States Constitution
Article 4: States Relations
Section 4. Obligations of United States to StatesThe United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
[SOURCE: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/]
But that Constitution does not require the Federal Zone Government (United States**) to operate in the same Constitutional capacity.
“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to 'guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government' (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, 'a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,' Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
The territories and possessions do not operate as a constitutional republic and instead it operates as a socialist democracy. The lack of constitutional constraints in the Federal Zone creates one of the central pillars on which the great heist is orchestrated. That heist is only possible because when there are no constitutional limitations on politicians, the result is COMPLETE ANARCHY and lawlessness because there is no mechanism to constrain what politicians can do. That state of anarchy is exhaustively proven in the following document:
Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf |
The fourth United States**** is a federal corporation.
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART VI - PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS
CHAPTER 176 - FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER A - DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 3002. Definitions
(15) ''United States'' means -
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
______________________________________________________________________________________
"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 Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)]
In the fourth capacity the United States**** corporation competes in the private marketplace for goods, commerce, and contracts to carry into operation the constitutional functions that it has been delegated. The corporation functions as a sovereign entity that cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent. This context of capacity as a “national government” of the United States** is described below as part of the Clearfield Doctrine:
See also Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 369 (1943) ("`The United States does business on business terms'") (quoting United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534 (1926)); Perry v. United States, supra at 352 (1935) ("When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference . . . except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent") (citation omitted); United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66 (1877) ("The United States, when they contract with their citizens, are controlled by the same laws that govern the citizen in that behalf"); Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 398 (1875) (explaining that when the United States "comes down from its position of sovereignty, and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals there").
See Jones, 1 Cl.Ct. at 85 ("Wherever the public and private acts of the government seem to commingle, a citizen or corporate body must by supposition be substituted in its place, and then the question be determined whether the action will lie against the supposed defendant"); O'Neill v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 823, 826 (1982) (sovereign acts doctrine applies where, "[w]ere [the] contracts exclusively between private parties, the party hurt by such governing action could not claim compensation from the other party for the governing action"). The dissent ignores these statements (including the statement from Jones, from which case Horowitz drew its reasoning literally verbatim), when it says, post at 931, that the sovereign acts cases do not emphasize the need to treat the government-as-contractor the same as a private party.
[United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996)]
The above case does NOT, however, mention the scenario where the Federal Zone Government of the United States** is acting COMPLETELY outside of the constitution as a landlord over its own property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. In that capacity, it implicitly surrenders its sovereign immunity and must operate entirely under equity (contract law) as an equal of every other private enterprise and entities that it is competing with in the commercial marketplace. When that corporation is acting OUTSIDE the constitution as the Federal Zone (over the United States**), it is acting on an equal footing with every OTHER federal corporation under what is called the Clearfield Doctrine: The Government is not acting in a sovereign governmental capacity but in the corporate capacity as a mere private corporation like any other corporation engaged in commerce and contract law.
What you may not know is that the National government collectively functions as a corporation. As a corporation it has the right to contract like any other corporation. When it contracts it is no longer treated as a special class of corporation called a government, and instead of special treatment the United States**** is treated like every other corporation doing business. It’s important to note that the law of contract has no geography.
“Debt and contract [franchise agreement, in this case] are of no particular place.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]
So, the fourth description of the United States**** is anti-geographic or virtual. That is, the legal contracts formed with the United States**** have no geographic boundaries.
So in total there are four versions of the United States and they all have their basis in a GEOGRAPHICAL context.
The corrupt “Mr. Hyde” version of the BEAST government is United States****. The worst behavior of the government is experienced when the United States**** ABUSES contract law to do the OPPOSITE of what governments are created to do, which is protect PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights ONLY. In this capacity, the corporation United States****:
“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. “
[63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]
SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.30: Weaponization of Government https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm |
De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf |
The opening page of our website warns about the hazards of contracting, associating with, or consenting to anything offered by the United States**** Beast government as follows:
"People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here (https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm) for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph."
[SEDM Opening Page; http://sedm.org]
FOOTNOTES:
Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524. A public official is held in public trust. Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist), 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill.Dec. 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.
Chicago Park Dist. v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec. 134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.
United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill), 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 U.S. 807, 98 L.Ed.2d. 18, 108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den 486 U.S. 1035, 100 L.Ed.2d. 608, 108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass), 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf |
De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf |
Using statutes, and supreme court cases, we can further break down each of the four “United States” into their component parts, listing the authorities that are the basis for each.
Table 1: Breakdown of each of the four "United States"
# | Name | Political | Authority | S.C. Case | Who | Geographical |
1 | United States* | National Government | Law of Nations | Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 651 (1945) U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936) |
Congress | Interstate but not intrastate, and with regards to Foreign Affairs |
1.1 | United States*USA | United States of America | Articles of Confederation | U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936) | Executive | Foreign Affairs |
1.2 | United States*F | Federal Government | Constitution of 1789 | U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936) | Congress | Interstate but not intrastate |
2 | United States** | Enclaves, Territories, and Possessions | ||||
2.1 | United States**DCE | District and Federal Enclaves | Const. 1:8:17 (Enclave Clause) | Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 651 (1945) U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936) |
Congress | DC and Federal Enclaves within 50 States |
2.2 | United States**TP | Territories and Possessions Local Government | Const. 4:3:2 Title 4 U.S.C. (Buck Act) Title 48 U.S.C. |
Local | Territories and Possessions | |
3 | United States*** | Constitutional and Corporate union States | ||||
3.1 | United States***S | State Government | State Constitution Fed. Constit. Article IV |
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 651 (1945) U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936) |
State | Within the Boundaries of the 50 States |
3.2 | United States***CS | STATE OF STATE // Federal States // Corporate // Beast | Federalist Papers | State | Federal Enclave within union States | |
4 | United States**** | Corporate/Contract, "Beast" | 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) | Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) U.S. v. Babcock, 240 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464 (1919) U.S.. v Winstar, Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996) |
Corporate | Non-geographical, Contract has no Place |
NOTES:
Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf |
The National Government has two distinct functions. One function is when it is engaged in foreign affairs. In this capacity the National Government is referenced as the United States of America.
Articles of Confederation
Preamble
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia in the Words following, viz. "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
This is also confirmed by the Supreme Court in US v. Curtiss Wright Export
As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Even before the Declaration, the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency — namely the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies. That agency exercised the powers of war and peace, raised an army, created a navy, and finally adopted the Declaration of Independence. Rulers come and go; governments end and forms of government change; but sovereignty survives. A political society cannot endure 317*317 without a supreme will somewhere. Sovereignty is never held in suspense. When, therefore, the external sovereignty of Great Britain in respect of the colonies ceased, it immediately passed to the Union. See Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 80-81. That fact was given practical application almost at once. The treaty of peace, made on September 23, 1783, was concluded between his Brittanic Majesty and the "United States of America." 8 Stat. — European Treaties — 80.
[U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304, 317 (1936)]
The national Government has a second function when engaged in interstate affairs of the union States. Here it is called the Federal Government.
"The two classes of powers are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature. The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the states such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the federal government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the states. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 294. That this doctrine applies only to powers which the states had, is self evident. And since the states severally never possessed international powers, such powers could not have been carved from the mass of state powers but obviously were transmitted to the United States from some other source. During the colonial period, those powers were possessed exclusively by and were entirely under the control of the Crown. By the Declaration of Independence, "the Representatives of the United States of America" declared the United [not the several] Colonies to be free and independent states, and as such to have "full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."
[U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304, 316 (1936)]
The United States also has distinctions in the specific context of its municipal function for the Enclaves, Territories, and Possessions.
The statute now before us forecloses the States from experimenting and exercising their own judgment in an area to which States lay claim by right of history and expertise, and it does so by regulating an activity beyond the realm of commerce in the ordinary and usual sense of that term. The tendency of this statute to displace state regulation in areas of traditional state concern is evident from its territorial operation. There are over 100,000 elementary and secondary schools in the United States. See U. S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 73, 104 (NCES 94-115, 1994) (Tables 63, 94). Each of these now has an invisible federal zone extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often irregular) boundaries of the school property. In some communities no doubt it would be difficult to navigate without infringing on those zones. Yet throughout these areas, school officials would find their own programs for the prohibition of guns in danger of displacement by the federal authority unless the State chooses to enact a parallel rule.
[United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 583 (1995)]
The first function it serves is the District of Columbia and the Federal Enclaves within the states. The power comes from Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
U.S. Constitution< Clause 17. District of Columbia; Federal Property
Congress shall have power * * * To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
The second function of the municipality over the Territories and Possessions comes from the Constitution in 4:3:2 and is codified in 4 USC (sometimes called the Buck Act) and 48 USC.
United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
This is confirmed by Title 4 USC:
4 U.S. Code § 110 - Same; definitions
As used in sections 105–109 of this title—
(a)The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.
(b)The term “sales or use tax” means any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, sales, receipts from sales, purchases, storage, or use of tangible personal property, except a tax with respect to which the provisions of section 104 of this title are applicable.
(c)The term “income tax” means any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, net income, gross income, or gross receipts.
(d)The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
(e)The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.
(July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 645.)
This is also confirmed by Title 48 USC:
The United States also has distinctions in the specific context of the union States.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION - CONS
ARTICLE III STATE OF CALIFORNIA [SEC. 1 - SEC. 9] ( Article 3 added Nov. 7, 1972, by Prop. 6. Res.Ch. 120, 1972. )SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
(Sec. 1 added Nov. 7, 1972, by Prop. 6. Res.Ch. 120, 1972.)SEC. 2. The boundaries of the State are those stated in the Constitution of 1849 as modified pursuant to statute. Sacramento is the capital of California.
(Sec. 2 added Nov. 7, 1972, by Prop. 6. Res.Ch. 120, 1972.)
[SOURCE: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=III]________________________________________________________________________
United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3. Admission of New States; Property of United StatesClause 1. Admission of New States to Union
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The second context is as a STATE OF STATE. The geography of the STATE OF STATE are the sum of federal enclaves within individual union States. The STATE OF STATE is operated by the same State Congress of the union State. In this capacity the STATE OF STATE acts in a corporate context.
In the context of this entire website:
Within civil statutory law, the term "citizen" involves the complex interplay between NATIONALITY and DOMICILE, as pointed out by the U.S. Supreme Court below:
In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: "The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil." p. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: "The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another, by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status." And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which "the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, 657*657 must depend;" he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country, patria, and his "nationality, that is, natural allegiance," "may depend on different laws in different countries." pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word "citizen," not as equivalent to "subject," but rather to "inhabitant;" and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765]
"Political status" above is synonymous with NATIONALITY. Nationality (political status) = citizenship + allegiance . Citizenship relates to the body politic per 8 C.F.R. §337.1
Below is a summary of the interplay between "nationality" and "domicile":
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm |
Nationality and domicile, TOGETHER determine the political/CONSTITUTIONAL AND civil/STATUTORY status of a human being respectively. These important distinctions are recognized in Black’s Law Dictionary:
“nationality – That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil [statutory] status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization.“
[Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990), p. 1025]
The U.S. Supreme Court also confirmed the above when they held the following. Note the key phrase “political jurisdiction”, which is NOT the same as legislative/statutory jurisdiction. One can have a political status of “citizen” under the constitution while NOT being a “citizen” under federal statutory law because not domiciled on federal territory. To have the status of “citizen” under federal statutory law, one must have a domicile on federal territory:
“This section [of the Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]“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) ]
Notice in the last quote above that they referred to a foreign national born in another country as a “citizen”. THIS is the REAL “citizen” (a domiciled foreign national) that judges and even tax withholding documents are really talking about, rather than the “national” described in the constitution.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, POLITICAL citizen and therefore NATIONAL is the PRINCIPAL type of citizen used in everyday speech and in the political departments of the government:
In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary [PRINCIPAL] sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit, which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country.
The use of the word in this sense hardly requires further remark. In the clauses which impose prohibitions upon the States in respect to the making of treaties, emitting of bills of credit, and laying duties of tonnage, and which guarantee to the States representation in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, are found some instances of this use in the Constitution. Others will occur to every mind.
But it is also used in its geographical sense, as in the clauses which require that a representative in Congress shall be an inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen, and that the trial of crimes shall be held within the State where committed.
And there are instances in which the principal sense of the word seems to be that primary one to which we have adverted, of a people or political community, as distinguished from a government.
In this latter sense the word seems to be used in the clause which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.
In this clause a plain distinction is made between a State and the government of a State.
[Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869); SOURCE:https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096 ]
However, within civil statutory law and especially in the context of taxation, the term "citizen" is also often used in connection with DOMICLE as well. Thus, it adds the GEOGRAPHICAL context to the POLITICAL context. This is true, for instance, in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30):
(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.
In the above context which ADDS domicile, to the principal POLITICAL sense, we refer to this sense as "Citizen**+D". The above “citizen of the United States” is used mainly in its GEOGRAPHICAL and not POLITICAL sense. Although the POLITICAL sense is the principal sense according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), this statutory context instead is the GEOGRAPHICAL sense tied to domicile rather than nationality or political status because:
Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that:
If you go to a bank and the bank wants you to explain why you are a nonresident alien or why you are the "citizen" mentioned in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) but not THE “citizen” mentioned in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30), you can use the above to prove it.
This proves, for instance, that NOT ALL instances of "citizen of the United States", should be interpreted ONLY in their geographical context or even NATIONAL context as most people erroneously do because of their legal ignorance. If you think about it, the world thinks the geographical sense is the principal and ONLY sense for the term "citizen of the United States", because that is all they have ever known or seen. And when lawyers or judges or legislators use the term "citizen of the United States", they don't tell you what the principal sense is they PRESUME, or whether the term also includes domicile. They just say, "...when used in a geographical sense..." then everyone acts presumptuously and waives their rights--rights protected by the foreign status most American nationals have by virtue of the separation of powers between the states and the national government as described by:
Separation of Powers Doctrine, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf .
An understanding of these concepts and distinctions is therefore CRUCIAL to avoid being:
For instance, it is considered a frivolous position by the IRS for someone born within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state to claim that they are not “THE citizen” mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, IRS, Sections C.1 and C.2
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-arguments-section-i-a-to-c#contentionc1
Notice that in C1, they put “citizen” in quotes, which is what is defined at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). Denying as a state national or American National that you don't have that status is frivolous. Demonstrating oneself to NOT be in the 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A) STATUTORY "U.S. person" subclass is both simple and easy and involves nothing remotely close to any frivolous position. In C2, they forthrightly say that asserting DC, territories, and enclaves is what is meant by the “United States” is also frivolous. Embracing the jurisdictions of the 50 States as together forming an integral, domestic jurisdiction can in no way ever be construed as frivolous. Likewise, asserting that the civil jurisdiction of each State is distinct and therefore foreign from the civil jurisdiction of the “United States” cannot in any possible distortion be regarded as frivolous.
Thus, you can see that there is MUCH government equivocation surrounding the use of the word "citizen". It seems OBVIOUS to us that they INTEND for EVERYONE to be uninformed about how to AVOID this equivocation because it protects their MAIN source of CIVIL jurisdiction and unconstitutionally ENLARGES what is actually the VERY limited civil legislative power of the national government everywhere in the country. For instance, if the ONLY type of jurisdiction most federal judges have within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state is POLITICAL jurisdiction that confers NO CVIL ENFORCEMENT power whatsoever within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state, then they have to use equivocation to DECEIVE you into believing that POLITICAL jurisdiction and CIVIL jurisdiction are synonymous in order to unlawfully enlarge their jurisdiction, importance, and revenue. See:
Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf
We must REMEMBER, however, that judges may not lawfully entertain "POLITICAL QUESTIONS". Therefore, any dispute before them which involves POLITICAL jurisdiction must be DISMISSED and can never be the origin of CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY!
Equivocation, in turn, is a logical fallacy that is ENGINEERED to deceive and enslave you. Equivocation of this kind ALWAYS involves:
This underscores the ABSOLUTE importance of understanding the context in each use of the word "citizen" in any and every statutory use. In our experience, you can quickly end all dispute, deception, penalties, and frivolous accusations over the relating to your use of the term "citizen" by simply labeling and describing the context described here in every use of the word when communicating with the government on a government form. Similar arguments apply to the use of "United States" mentioned in the previous section.
A closely related word is "citizenship":
citizenship. The status of being a citizen. There are four ways to acquire citizenship: by birth in the United States, by Birth in U.S. territories, by birth outside the U.S. to U.S. parents, and by naturalization. See Corporate citizenship; Diversity of citizenship; Dual citizenship; Federal citizenship; Naturalization; Jus sanguinis; Jus soli.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244]
"Citizenship" is component of "political status" along with allegiance. It is synonymous with MEMBERSHIP in a political community. It is NOT, however, in any way related to DOMICILE or "civil status". Citizenship is conferred AFTER taking an oath of naturalization consistent with 8 C.F.R. §337.1. When citizenship has been conferred after the oath of allegiance is taken, you end up with NATIONALITY.
Upon close inspection of Wong Kim Ark above, you will see that political citizenship is the common link between political status and civil status.
Political status asks: Are you a member of this home, and are you faithful to the family?
Civil status asks: Are you a member of the home, and in what room do you live?
Two very different issues, which when considered TOGETHER, paint the complete picture.
Some other very important points need to be made about the distinctions between POLITICAL STATUS and CIVIL STATUS:
If you have NATONALITY in the country "United States*" and simply want to be LEFT alone, which is what legal "justice" is defined as, and never targeted with CIVIL enforcement, the simple way out is to:
A person who does all the above has MAXIMUM civil liberty (Form #10.002) and forfeits NO rights by joining the civil social compact as a LEGAL member and a Citizen**+D, because:
The civil statutory law, in fact, implements a PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION (PMA) that you have to consensually join. Civil statutes are the "club rules". More on this subject at:
Hot issues: Self, Family, Church, Local Self Governance, and Private Membership Associations (PMAs), Section 2: Private Membership Associations (PMAs), SEDM
https://sedm.org/self-family-church-and-local-self-governance/
Every possible type of membership in a CIVIL and LEGAL context which results in the Citizen**+D moniker always has a negative affect on your constitutional and natural rights and therefore must be be avoided. Those who avoid all such membership are referred to in civil statutory law as "foreign". See the following both for the consequences of having no domicile (1) and the VERY negative consequences of having one (1 and 2):
More on the subject of DOMICILE rather than NATIONALITY as the origin of all your enforcement tangles with the government below:
Why Domicile and Becoming a "Taxpayer" Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
Once you understand these nuances about NATIONALITY, DOMICILE, CITIZENSHIP, and how they relate to each other, you will also thoroughly understand why as an American National born within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Constitutional state, it is PERFECTLY lawful to opt out of most income taxes by filing as a nonresident alien FOREIGN person, instead of a CIVIL STATUTORY "U.S person" defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30). The process of doing that is described in:
Lastly, clearly understanding the differences between Citizen* and Citizen**+D is a Third Rail Issue that government is LOATHE to even talk about. This is using equivocation to conflate this issue in order to UNLAWFULLY enlarge their CIVIL jurisdiction is the origin of MOST of their UNJUST tyranny and usurpation from a civil perspective. If you have this understanding, it will be like garlic to vampires or Kryptonite to Superman. Your government opponents will RUN from you and thus REALLY leave you alone. And, if you start every debate about it with this definition, they can NEVER accuse you of being a "sovereign citizen". This site does not promote any aspect of being a "sovereign citizen". More on Third Rail Government Issues at:
Third Rail Government Issues, Form #08.032
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ThirdRailIssues.pdf
In summary:
The ruse is this: They want people to think they are simply affirming their national citizenship, when in legal reality, elites in the District of Criminals have constructed a scheme to get people to elect a tax abode (domicile) in the domestic federal jurisdiction defined as the "United States**" in its geographical sense pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9).
For a detailed exposition of the above list, see:
Tax Status Presentation, Form #12.043
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/Tax_Status_Presentation.pptx
The absolute owner of PRIVATE property:
Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027 https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf |
Specifically EXCLUDES the following references to the statutory term “beneficial owner” in:
Other than the words defined above, all words used on this website and in the materials on it shall:
The only exception to this rule is that when a word is surrounded in quotation marks and preceded or succeeded by an indication of the legal definition upon which it is based, then and only then will it assume the legal definition.
The legal or statutory definitions for words used by this ministry in turn:
"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term "means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'"); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read "as a whole," post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction -- "the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial portion," indicate the contrary."
[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]
The purpose of this requirement is to eliminate ALL presumptions from any legal proceeding about what we might write or say so that such false and unauthorized presumptions cannot be used to discredit or slander us or prejudice our rights or sovereignty. For instance, here are two examples:
Statement from this website | Meaning |
Wages are not taxable | Earnings from labor of a human being that do not fit the description of "wages" defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3 are not taxable without the consent of the subject. |
"Wages" are taxable | Wages as defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3 ARE taxable because they fit the legal description of "wages". |
Key to Capitalization Conventions within Laws. Whenever you are reading a particular law, including the U.S. Constitution, or a statute, the Sovereign referenced in that law, who is usually the author of the law, is referenced in the law with the first letter of its name capitalized. For instance, in the U.S. Constitution the phrase “We the People”, “State”, and “Citizen” are all capitalized, because these were the sovereign entities who were writing the document residing in the States. This document formed the federal government and gave it its authority. Subsequently, the federal government wrote statutes to implement the intent of the Constitution, and it became the Sovereign, but only in the context of those territories and lands ceded to it by the union states. When that federal government then refers in statutes to federal “States”, for instance in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) or 4 U.S.C. §110(d), then these federal “States” are Sovereigns because they are part of the territory controlled by the Sovereign who wrote the statute, so they are capitalized. Foreign states referenced in the federal statutes then must be in lower case. The sovereign 50 union states, for example, must be in lower case in federal statutes because of this convention because they are foreign states. Capitalization is therefore always relative to who is writing the document, which is usually the Sovereign and is therefore capitalized. The exact same convention is used in the Bible, where all appellations of God are capitalized because they are sovereigns: “Jesus" ”, “God”, “Him”, “His”, “Father”. These words aren’t capitalized because they are proper names, but because the entity described is a sovereign or an agent or part of the sovereign. The only exception to this capitalization rule is in state revenue laws, where the state legislators use the same capitalization as the Internal Revenue Code for “State” in referring to federal enclaves within their territory because they want to scam money out of you. In state revenue laws, for instance in the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) sections 17018 and 6017, “State” means a federal State within the boundaries of California and described as part of the Buck Act of 1940 found in 4 U.S.C. §§105-113.
Terms in Quotation Marks: Whenever a term appears in quotation marks, we are using the statutory or regulatory definition of the term instead of the layman’s or dictionary definition. We do this to clarify which definition we mean and to avoid creating the kind of confusion with definitions that our government and the unethical lawyers who work in it are famous for. For instance, when we use say “employee”, we mean the statutory definition of that term found in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c)-1 rather than the common definition everyone uses, which means anyone who receives compensation for their labor. “Employees” are much more narrowly defined in the Internal Revenue Code to mean elected or appointed officers of the U.S. government only. We also put terms in quotation marks if they are new or we just introduced the term, to emphasize that we are trying to explain what the word means.
Geographical terms: The following geographical definitions apply in the reading of all law.
Law | Federal constitution | Federal statutes | Federal regulations | State constitutions | State statutes | State regulations |
Author | Union States/ ”We The People” |
Federal Government |
“We The People” | State Government | ||
“state” | Foreign country | Union state or foreign country | Union state or foreign country | Other Union state or federal government | Other Union state or federal government | Other Union state or federal government |
“State” | Union state | Federal state | Federal state | Union state | Union state | Union state |
“in this State” or “in the State”[1] | NA | NA | NA | NA | Federal enclave within state | Federal enclave within state |
“State”[2] (State Revenue and taxation code only) | NA | NA | NA | NA | Federal enclave within state | Federal enclave within state |
“several States” | Union states collectively[3] | Federal “States” collectively | Federal “States” collectively | Federal “States” collectively | Federal “States” collectively | Federal “States” collectively |
“United States” | states of the Union collectively | Federal United States** | Federal United States** | United States* the country | Federal United States** | Federal United States** |
What the above table clearly shows is that the word “State” in the GENERAL context of MOST federal statutes and regulations means (not includes!) federal States only under Title 48 of the U.S. Code[4], and these areas do not include any of the 50 Union States. This is true in most cases and especially in the Internal Revenue Code. There are four exceptions to this rule that we are aware of, and these subject matters include (are limited to):
SOURCES OF EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
The above four items collectively are referred to as "extraterritorial jurisdiction". Extraterritorial jurisdiction is defined as SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over PUBLIC property (Form #12.025) physically situated OUTSIDE of the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the national government under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Congress has jurisdiction over its property and the offices it creates no matter WHERE they physically reside or are lawfully exercised, INCLUDING within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state as confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), which ironically was about SLAVES. Those who don't CONSENT to be statutory "taxpayers" would fall in this same category of "slave" and are treated literally as CHATTEL of the national government. HOWEVER, the Constitution confers NO EXPRESS authorization for Congress to use TACIT and PERSONAL BRIBES or GRANTS of its physical or chattel PUBLIC property or "benefits" to CREATE NEW public offices or appoint new officers to de facto offices that are NOT created by an EXPESS lawful oath or appointment. Any attempts to do so are CRIMINAL OFFENSES under 18 U.S.C. §§201, 210, 211. More about public offices and officers in:
For the purposes of this discussion, Sovereign States of the Union are NOT "territory" of the national government. Also, the Sixteenth Amendment did NOT confer EXTRATERRITORIAL jurisdiction to levy an UNAPPORTIONED direct tax upon labor as property within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union either. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it "conferred NO NEW power of taxation" in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916). Thus, the income tax HAS ALWAYS been a tax upon officers of the national government called statutory "taxpayer", "citizens", and "persons" This is ENTIRELY consistent with the legislative intent of the proposed sixteenth amendment proposed to Congress by President Taft himself.
If you would like to know all the implications of the separation of powers reflected in the above table, as well as a history of unconstitutional efforts to destroy this separation, see the following references:
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 6017.
[2] See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 17018.
[3] See, for instance, U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 2.
In the final analysis, it simply doesn't matter who the authors are, because:
"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice [including us] to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence [in ANY man] is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution [and positive law enacted consistent with the Constitution that acts as legal evidence]."
[Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388]
The identity of the several authors who post materials on this website is considered secret, and this is done to protect them from becoming targets for persecution because of their decision to exercise their First Amendment rights. What we do is the equivalent of "anonymous pamphleteering". Everything on this website, in fact, is the equivalent of "anonymous pamphlets" as far as our participation is concerned. Even the Supreme Court has acknowledged that this approach is an honorable undertaking protected by the First Amendment:
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. 4 Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. 5 Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
[. . .]
The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices. 362 U.S. 60 . Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 56 (1994) (footnote omitted), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. 6 This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation.
[. . .]
“Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority”
[McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995)]
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind."
[Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)]
Since we are all God's agents and fiduciaries, then we want all glory and praise and thanks to go only to Him, and not us or any man. Since this is a charitable ministry, the Holy Bible also says this must be so:
"Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites [lawyers and politicians] do in the synagogues and in the streets [and in jury trials, SCUM!], that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly."
[Matt. 6:1-4, Bible, NKJV]
Therefore, "secrecy", at least in the context of this ministry, is a "religious practice" and an exercise of religious rights that is protected by the First Amendment (OFFSITE LINK) to the United State Constitution. Also, since the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws and because our opponent, the IRS, insists on protecting the identity of its employees in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), then we are entitled to "equal protection under the law" as mandated by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (OFFSITE LINK).
We therefore have a solemn and binding contract with our users and more importantly with God Himself not to reveal any information about our authors and contributors to any third party. In fulfillment of that binding contract:
The government cannot and will not be allowed to interfere with this contract we have with our authors, contributors, or Users, and the Supreme Court has said that the government is without authority to interfere with our private right to contract. See Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1878).
This website consists of privileged copyrighted information and computer software. Downloading any of the information here, using it in any legal proceeding against the copyright holder, communicating with the website administrator or copyright holder(s) constitutes unconditional consent by those engaging in such activities to abide by the mandatory Copyright and Software User License Agreement below and applying to all information appearing on this website and all forms of communications with us:
1.1 An illegal purpose that violates any enacted positive law which applies within the jurisdiction where you are situated or domiciled.
1.2 An unlawful purpose.
1.3 An injurious purpose cognizable under the common law of the jurisdiction where you are situated.
7.1 To admit THE ENTIRE website into evidence (except the rebuttal letters), including but not limited to the Tax Deposition CD, Form #11.301, the Family Guardian Website DVD, Form #11.103, the Great IRS Hoax book, etc.. No part of the website can be admitted without the ENTIRE website also being admitted and subject to examination by the jury.
7.2 That everything contained on this website is factual, truthful, actionable, and accurate IN THEIR CASE but not in the case of any other Member or officer of the Ministry.
7.3 To take complete and personal and exclusive responsibility for all consequences arising out of the nature of evidence they provide as being factual or actionable.
9.1 Users agree to litigate ONLY in a state court WITH a jury trial under the laws of the state and not the federal government, and to allow the jury to rule on BOTH the facts AND the law. No member of the jury or the judge may be either a "taxpayer", a statutory "U.S. citizen" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1401, or be in receipt of any government benefit, to ensure that the trial is completely impartial. They also agree to allow us to say anything we want to the jury and call any witnesses we wish, and not to object to or rule out any of our testimony or our witnesses.
9.2 If the party using the materials off this website for litigation is any state or federal government, then they stipulate with the accused party to answer the admissions and interrogatories at the end of all Memorandums of Law on the Forms/Pubs Page, Section 1.5 (OFFSITE LINK) and the admissions in all Tax Deposition Questions in their entirety on a signed affidavit, and to provide at least an "Admit" or "Deny" answer to each question. Any question not answered by the government or its agents shall be deemed to be "Admit". They also stipulate to admit their response to the questions into evidence in any trial involving this website or the activities of the ministry or its officers, volunteers, or members.
9.3 None of the persons called as witnesses by either side at any trial involving this ministry may work for the federal or state government, receive retirement benefits from the government, receive financial benefits of any kind from the government, nor be "taxpayers", "statutory U.S. citizens", or statutory "U.S. residents". This will ensure that the all witnesses called will be completely objective, neutral, and unbiased.
9.4 Users and readers of our materials stipulate that their duty and allegiance to abide by this agreement is superior to their employment duties and any other agency they may claim to be exercising. Judicial, sovereign, or official immunity are therefore subordinate to the terms of this agreement. Readers and users of our materials agree that any and all lawsuits in which they are participants acting by or for or as witnesses for the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be filed by them personally, regardless of the party which they claim to be representing or which is named on the Complaint. For instance if a government attorney named "John Doe" quotes or uses our licensed materials in any legal proceeding in which he or she is the Plaintiff or an agent for the Plaintiff, and files the lawsuit in the name of the "United States", this agreement stipulates that the definition of "United States" or "United States of America" shall instead mean "John Doe" and John Doe stipulates that he is acting by and on his own behalf and not on the behalf of the government of the states united by and under the Constitution of the United States of America. This will ensure that the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney does not try to claim that he had no authority to bind the U.S. government to abide by this agreement. An important implication of this provision is that if John Doe prosecutes this case on paid time for the U.S. Government, then he can and will be fired and disciplined for conducting private business on company time.
12.1 Forfeit 50% of their pay as a federal public servant for the remainder of their life, and donate it to this ministry to help those who have been hurt by your failure to correct erroneous information provided on this website. This is in satisfaction of the IRS website's Mission Statement, which says in IRM Section 1.1.1.1 that the mission of the IRS is to "Provide Americas taxpayers top quality service by helping them [correctly] understand and meet their tax responsibilities with integrity and fairness all."
12.2 Pay the Author $10,000,000 prior to any litigation relating to false statements on this website and to not testify at all if they cannot pay the damages.
The purpose of the above license agreement is not to condone or advocate illegal, injurious, or criminal behavior of any kind by this ministry, its officers, or its members, but instead to:
"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]
Therefore, it cannot be said that the above license agreement has any illegal purpose whatsoever that might render it unenforceable in a court of law.
In consideration of the valuable copyrighted and licensed information and computer software available on this website, the reader/user and this ministry jointly agree on all of the following facts related to the ministry and the offerings of the ministry. Those who don't unconditionally agree and stipulate to these terms should not be viewing or using this website or obtaining or using any of the materials or services offered here.
The materials on this site are not legal advice or legal opinions on any specific matters. Legal advice involves applying the law to your specific and unique situation, which is your responsibility and not our responsibility. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between the author(s) and the reader. The opinions expressed on this website and the documents it displays are those of the author(s), or the researcher(s) or content providers and the only authorized audience are those same author(s) and researcher(s). You must validate and verify the accuracy of this information for yourself with your own research, legal education, experience, and the advice of a competent legal and/or tax professional who is NOT licensed by a corrupted government to gag them from telling you the truth and create a conflict of interest. Readers should not act upon this information without first getting fully educated using the materials provided here and elsewhere.
The ONLY sources which may be relied upon to completely and accurately represent the policies of the owner of this website consist in the following:
You as the user agree not to hold us to a higher standard of accountability than the IRS or the government itself. The IRS claims in section 4.10.7.2.8 of its own Internal Revenue Manual that you cannot rely on its publications, which include its tax preparation forms. The courts have also said that you cannot rely on the IRS' telephone support personnel or its Internal Revenue Manual. Therefore, we will not be held to a higher standard than the IRS for our publications, statements, or actions, which include everything on this website, or for anything we say or write. We make all the same disclaimer statements about our publications, statements, and support as the IRS, in fact, which means we can have no liability for anything we produce. Click here for our article on this subject.
"Behold, the wicked brings forth iniquity;
Yes, he conceives trouble and brings forth falsehood [in their publications and their phone support],
He made a pit and dug it out,
And has fallen into the ditch [this disclaimer] which he made.
His trouble shall return upon his own head,
And his violent dealing shall come down on his own [deceitful] crown."
[Psalm 7:14-16, Bible, NKJV]
Everything appearing on this website is based entirely on publications, forms, statements, laws, and regulations published or made by the government. If you find that the information is erroneous, then you should be suing the government, not us. Furthermore, it is a mandatory obligation of the license agreement and the system of membership protecting our materials to promptly notify both us and the government of their mistake so that both of us may prevent any harm from the government's mistake. Furthermore, if the government wishes to sue or prosecute this ministry or its officers for exercising its First Amendment rights, then they MUST sue the principal, and not the agent. We are acting entirely and only as a fiduciary for God himself, and so you need to sue God and not us for the statements and actions of this ministry in obedience to God's laws and calling on this ministry, and doing so will cause you to prosecute yourself, not only because of the Copyright License agreement connected with all ministry materials, but also because you are tampering with federal witnesses of extensive criminal activity by specific public servants.
We make no guarantees about the effectiveness of anything appearing on this website, nor do we profit in any way from the information presented. This website is strictly offered as a free educational public service designed to:
The materials on this website have been extensively reviewed for accuracy by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service (a PRIVATE, for profit corporation owned by the U.S. government), and the Federal Judiciary and nothing was found herein that is violative of any law, false, fraudulent, or injurious. Click here for details. We invite and always have invited anyone from the government or law enforcement to rebut the overwhelming evidence found on this website that specific agencies and persons working within the government are engaging in illegal and injurious behavior. We insist that anyone in government contact us within ten days through our Contact Us page as soon as they find anything that is illegal, injurious, false, or fraudulent or forever be estopped beyond that point from pursuing any kind of criminal prosecution or enforcement activity. The noteworthy failure of the government to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of our materials.
If the government wants to assert that any of the religious statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must meet that burden of proof consistent with the following:
The best way to prove us wrong is simply to:
Your submission will be promptly posted on our website for all to read and will be implemented if sufficient evidence exists to prove our materials inconsistent with reality.
If the government believes that our materials suggest, aide, abet, or sanction illegal, injurious, or criminal activity, they as public officers have a fiduciary duty to us as the public to bring that to our attention immediately so that it can be promptly fixed. A failure to rebut our materials promptly or provide legally admissible evidence that they are wrong:
2.1 Conspiracy to defraud the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §371.
2.2 Accessory after the fact pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3.
2.3 Misprision of felony pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4.
Remember: Every tax crime has willfulness as a prerequisite. You must inform us something is wrong before it can BE wrong, and that notification MUST be in court admissible, affidavit form signed under penalty of perjury with your real legal birthname, agreeing to take responsibility personally if your information is wrong, and providing the address where you can be personally served with legal papers if in fact you are wrong or fraudulent.
The legal education we provide to the public has the practical effect of empowering people to seek non-violent, legal and peaceful remedies to their problems RATHER than undertaking looting, killing, rioting, and even civil war to procure those remedies. Thus our teachings and advocacy PREVENT violence rather than advocate it.
This website was also established to prevent terrorism, not promote it. We define any attempt to deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without their express consent manifested in a way that only they define as an act of terrorism. We believe that there are only two types of governments:Any attempt by any government to civilly govern or enforce, whether by civil STATUTORY law or franchise/contract law, without the express and continuing consent of those governed is an act of terrorism.
Original (pre-Orwellian) Definition of the Word "Terrorism" Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1946) |
We don't object to the enforcement of the CRIMINAL statutory laws or the common law mandated in the Constitution, because these may be enforced WITHOUT consent in some form. We are NOT anarchists against all statutory law, as revealed in the following presentation:
Problems with Atheistic Anarchism, Form #08.020
SLIDES: https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ProbsWithAtheistAnarchism.pdf
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/n883Ce1lML0
For a representation of the kind of government terrorism we oppose, see:
For a list of specific government terrorist activities we oppose, see:
Ministry Introduction Course, Form #12.014, pp. 12-14 (OFFSITE LINK)
THIS WEBSITE CONDEMNS ANY AND ALL VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE PLANNING, VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND OR THOUGHT CRIME, AND AS SUCH CONTAINS NO SUCH INFORMATION OR LINKS TO SUCH INFORMATION.
This website is in full compliance with H.R. 1955 , and Section 318, 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as such condemns and does not retain any information, plans, support, of a terrorist or violent propaganda, and or radicalization nature, and does not conduct, plan, or retain any forms of violent thoughts, feelings, impulses, moods, subconscious thought, primal urges, sexual cravings, hunger pains, restless leg twitches, rapid eye flutters, and or skin tone blemishes which may be mistook for a pre-anger flush. All fonts, typesets, font colors of a red nature are not - *NOT* to be mistaken for an angry tone or mistakenly linked to a violent radicalization agenda. Source files of interviews or MP3 files are strictly those of the authors and do NOT reflect the intent, mood or thoughts of the author(s) of this website.
This website does not engage in, condone, or support hate speech or hate crimes, violent thoughts, deeds or actions against any particular person(s), group, entity, government, mob, paramilitary force, intelligence agency, overpaid politician, head of state, queen, dignitary, ambassador, spy, spook, soldier, bowl cook, security flunky, contractor, dog, cat or mouse, Wal-Mart employee, amphibian, reptile, and or deceased entity without a PB (Physical Body). By "hate speech" and "hate crime", we mean in the context of religious members of this site trying to practice their faith:
There is no practical difference between discriminating against or targeting people because of the groups they claim membership in and punishing them for refusing to consent to join a group subject to legal disability, such as those participating in government franchises. Members of such DISABILITY groups include civil statutory "persons", "taxpayers", "individuals" (under the tax code), "drivers" (under the vehicle code), "spouses" (under the family code). Both approaches lead to the same result: discrimination and selective enforcement. The government claims an exemption from being a statutory "person", and since it is a government of delegated powers, the people who gave it that power must ALSO be similarly exempt:
"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 common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
[Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979)]"Since in common usage the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
[U.S. v. Cooper, 312 U.S. 600,604, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)]"In common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so."
[U.S. v. Cooper, 312 U.S. 600,604, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)]"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."
[Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)]
The foundation of the religious beliefs and practices underlying this website is a refusal to:
"For the Lord your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations [governments and their officers], but you shall not borrow; you shall reign [civilly] over many nations, but they shall not reign [civilly] over you."
[Deut. 15:6, Bible, NKJV]
The ability to do the above is protected by the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment. In theological terms, it is called "sanctification", meaning "set apart for a purpose", and that purpose is to worship and serve ONLY God, rather than His competitor, which is Government. We describe and define people who obey Biblical limitations giving rise to the above as "Non-Resident Non-Persons", "stateless" (in relation to the national but not state government), "foreign", or "sovereign" as described in Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020. Black's Law Dictionary defines "commerce" as "intercourse".
“Commerce. …Intercourse by way of trade and traffic [money instead of semen] between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities [governments] and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on…”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 269]
Hence this website advocates a religious refusal to engage in sex or intercourse or commerce or contracting with any government as a Buyer waiving any Constitutionally protected or natural right (Form #10.002) or exchanging any such right for a statutory privilege (Form #05.037). In fact, the Bible even describes people who VIOLATE this prohibition as "playing the harlot" (Ezekiel 16:41) and personifies that harlot as "Babylon the Great Harlot" (Rev. 17:5), which is fornicating with the Beast, which it defines as governments (Rev. 19:19).
I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.' But you have not obeyed Me. Why have you done this?
"Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'"
So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.
[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]_________________________________________
“The king establishes the land by justice, But he who receives bribes [socialist or franchise handouts] overthrows it.”
[Prov. 29:4, Bible, NKJV]“Many seek the ruler’s favor [franchises and privileges, Form #05.030], But justice for man comes from the Lord.”
[Prov. 29:26, Bible, NKJV]"Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [“citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, “inhabitant”, or "subject" under a king or political ruler] of the world [or any man-made kingdom other than God's Kingdom] makes himself an enemy of God. "
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]"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 [the obligations and concerns of the world]. "
[James 1:27, Bible, NKJV]"You shall have no other gods [including political rulers, governments, or Earthly laws] before Me [or My commandments]."
[Exodus 20:3, Bible, NKJV]_________________________________________
“Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel [the priest in a Theocracy] at Ramah, and said to him, ‘Look, you [the priest within a theocracy] are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king [or political ruler] to judge us like all the nations [and be OVER them]’.
“But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king [or political ruler] 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 [God as their ONLY King, Lawgiver, and Judge] and served other gods—so they are doing to you also [government or political rulers becoming the object of idolatry].”
[1 Sam. 8:4-8, Bible, NKJV]_________________________________________
"Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers [the heathens], nor observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their [pagan government] idols. I am the LORD your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them; hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God."
[Ezekial 20:10-20, Bible, NKJV]
The ONLY capacity in which Christians may lawfully or biblically act in relation to any government is as a "Merchant" under U.C.C. §2-104(1) and NEVER as a "Buyer" under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a) in the context of commerce, "civil services" (see section 4.6 above), or civil law (see Form #05.037), or private property (Form #12.025). That way, Christians always make the rules for the government and are never civilly governed by the government, preferring to be civilly governed instead by ONLY God and His Holy Laws (Form #13.001). THIS is what "sanctification" means in a Christian and biblical or theological context, in fact. We describe this approach in detail in:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.5-5.7
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf
Where is "separation of church and state" when you REALLY need it, keeping in mind that Christians AS INDIVIDUALS are "the church" and secular society is the "state" as legally defined? The John Birch Society agrees with us on the subject of not contracting with anyone in the following video:
Trading Away Your Freedom by Foreign Entanglements
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q24tWlrRdk
Pastor David Jeremiah of Turning Point Ministries also agrees with us on this subject:
The Church in Satan's City, March 20, 2016
http://sedm.org/pastor-david-jeremiah-on-separation-between-church-and-state-the-church-in-satans-city/
President Obama also said that it is the right of EVERYONE to economically AND politically disassociate with the government so why don't the agencies of the government recognize this fact on EVERY form you use to interact with them?.
President Obama Says US Will NOT Impose Its Political or Economic System on Anyone, Exhibit #05.053
https://youtu.be/2t_ZRQSIPr0
SEDM wrote an entire book on how to economically and politically disassociate in fulfillment of Obama's promise above, and yet the government hypocritically actively interferes with economically and politically disassociating, in defiance of President Obama's assurances and promises. HYPOCRITES!
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020r />
Government's tendency to compel everyone into a commercial or civil legal relationship with them is defined by the Bible as the ESSENCE of Satan himself! The personification of that evil is dramatized in the following video:
Devil's Advocate: Lawyers (OFFSITE LINK)
Therefore, the religious practice and sexual orientation of avoiding commerce and civil legal relationships (Form #05.002) with governments in any capacity OTHER than a "Merchant" and governor of the government is the essence of our religious faith. This is the ONLY way that Jesus can truly have the "government upon His shoulder" (Isaiah 9:6) while we represent Him as His sovereign agents and fiduciaries on the planet that God and not Caesar created and owns and exclusively controls:
"I [God] brought you up from Egypt [government slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant [Bible contract] with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract, franchise, "social compact", or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.' But you have not obeyed Me. Why have you done this?
"Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'"
So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.
[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]
“By the abundance of your [Satan's] trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones."
[Ezekial 28:16, Bible, NKJV]
“As religion towards God is a branch of universal righteousness (he is not an honest man that is not devout), so righteousness towards men is a branch of true religion, for he is not a godly man that is not honest, nor can he expect that his devotion should be accepted; for,
1. Nothing is more offensive to God than deceit in commerce. A false balance is here put for all manner of unjust and fraudulent practices [of our public dis-servants] in dealing with any person [within the public], which are all an abomination to the Lord, and render those abominable [hated] to him that allow themselves in the use of such accursed arts of thriving. It is an affront to justice, which God is the patron of, as well as a wrong to our neighbour, whom God is the protector of. Men [in government] make light of such frauds, and think there is no sin in that which there is money to be got by, and, while it passes undiscovered, they cannot blame themselves for it; a blot is no blot till it is hit, Hos. 12:7, 8. But they are not the less an abomination to God, who will be the avenger of those that are defrauded by their brethren.
2. Nothing is more pleasing to God than fair and honest dealing, nor more necessary to make us and our devotions acceptable to him: A just weight is his delight. He himself goes by a just weight, and holds the scale of judgment with an even hand, and therefore is pleased with those that are herein followers of him.
A [false] balance, [whether it be in the federal courtroom or in the government or in the marketplace,] cheats, under pretence of doing right most exactly, and therefore is the greater abomination to God.”
[Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible; Henry, M., 1996, c1991, under Prov. 11:1]
‘If one of your brethren becomes poor [desperate], and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.
Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you.
You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit.
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave.
As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee.
And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers.
For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.
You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.
[Lev. 25:35-43, Bible, NKJV]
Any individual, group, or especially government worker that makes us the target of discrimination, violence, "selective enforcement", or hate because of this form of religious practice or "sexual orientation" or abstinence is practicing HATE SPEECH and possibly HATE CRIME based BOTH on our religious beliefs AND our sexual orientation as legally defined. Furthermore, all readers and governments are given reasonable timely notice that the terms of use for the information and services available through this website mandate that any attempt to compel us into a commercial, legal, civil, or tax relationship with any government OTHER than on the terms dictated herein shall constitute:
The result of the waivers of immunity above is to restore EQUALITY under REAL LAW between members and corrupt governments intent on destroying that equality by offering or enforcing civil franchises. All freedom derives from equality between you and the govenrment in the eyes of REAL law in court. See Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033.
The GOVERNMENT crimes documented on this website fall within the ambit of 18 U.S.C. §2381: Treason. The penalty mandated by law for these crimes is DEATH. We demand that actors in the Department of Justice for both the states and the federal government responsible for prosecuting these crimes of Treason do so as required by law. A FAILURE to do so is ALSO an act of Treason punishable by death. Since murder is not only a crime, but a violent crime, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1111, then the government itself can also be classified as terrorist. It is also ludicrous to call people who demand the enforcement of the death penalty for the crimes documented as terrorists. If that were true, every jurist who sat on a murder trial in which the death penalty applied would also have to be classified as and prosecuted as a terrorist. Hypocrites.For those members seeking to prosecute government actors practicing hate speech or hate crime against them as documented here, see the following resource:
Discrimination and Racism page, Section 5: Hate Speech and Hate Crime; https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Discrimination/discrimination.htm#HATE_SPEECH
For biblical reasons why it is a sin to hate, see:
The Tragedy of Being Raised to Hate, PragerU (OFFSITE LINK)