Doug,

The MF Decoder program includes a FOIA generator that prints the FOIA requests required and fills in the correct address. Its redundant to reinvent the wheel manually here. Just get the program and use the FOIA generator. However, here are some helpful links:

1. IRS FOIA contacts: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Contacts/Contacts.htm

2. MF Decoder page: http://famguardian.org/Tools/MFDecoder/MFDecoder.htm

3. Instructions of FOIA for IMF: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instruct…nalyzingIMF.htm

Section 3.10 of the free MF Decoder manual describes how to use the FOIA generator.

Good luck,

James,

Fantastic! I just posted this on the website at:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituali…pirituality.htm

Look under the “ARTICLES” section at the article entitled “'What is Man?' God asks and answers”.

Love your website as well. God bless you and your ministry.

🙂

Mark,

Thanks!

😀

Ice,

Thank you for raising this issue and offering an opportunity to clarify the Nonresident alien position. We can see that you haven’t read the Great IRS Hoax book sections 5.6.12 through 5.6.12.6 or you woiuldn’t be asking such questions. You might therefore want to download and read those sections so you won’t ask questions about issues that are already dealt with in the book.

We’re familiar with the Boyd case and we agree with it. It doesn’t contradict the assertion that a “citizen of the United States” under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a “nonresident alien” under Title 26 of the U.S. Code. As we point out in the article entitled:

Why you are a “National”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen

A constitutional “citizen of the United States” under the Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a statutory “national” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) and and a “non-citizen national” under 8 U.S.C. 1452. The reason for the difference is that the term “United States” in Title 26means the federal zone while in the Constitution it means the collective states of the Union. We prove that in the Tax Deposition Questions, Section 14 at:

http://famguardian.o…ection%2014.htm

by showing that the term “continential United States” found in 8 CFR 215.1 means Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands under Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The statutory “U.S. citizen” described in 8 U.S.C. 1401 is a person born in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, which are all territories of the United States, while the constitutional “citizen of the United States” under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a person born in a state of the Union. It all depends on the context. We would be willing to bet that all of the contexts you allude to above are in a Constitutional sense rather than a statutory sense, in which case there is no conflict between what the courts say and what we’re saying. If you can’t discern whether the context is the Constitution or Title 8, then that simply reinforces the notion that the government is trying to obfuscate the context so they can expand their jurisdiction.

You are obviously confused about the distinction between “aliens” and “nonresident aliens”. Nonresident aliens are NOT a subset of all aliens, but rather a superset. See and rebut the discussion in section 5.5 of the following:

Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid
http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf

There is no doubt that:

1. The government has jurisdiction over constitutional but not statutory “aliens” everywhere in the American empire.

2. You don’t want to be an constitution but not statutory alien if you want to avoid government jurisdiction. That is the basis for why we say it is a very bad idea to expatriate, because those who do so become “stateless” people who are constitutional aliens.

However, we believe you are confused about the KINDS of aliens and which one you don’t want to be. There are two types of aliens because there are two contexts, just like there are at least two types of “citizens of the United States” because the Supreme Court held that there are THREE definitions of “United States”:

1. Statutory aliens. These are people not domiciled on federal territory and therefore not subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

2. Constitutional aliens. Also called foreign nationals. These people are born in another country.

You can be a statutory alien without being a constitutional alien. This is the case with people born anywhere in America but domiciled outside the federal zone and inside the exclusive jurisdiction of a Constitutional and not statutory “State”. Remember that statutory “aliens” are the only proper subject of Subitle A of the Internal Revenue Code insofar as human beings are concerned” (see 26 CFR 1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) for details). However, we show in section 5.6.12 of the Great IRS Hoax that a person can be a “nonresident alien” without being an “alien”. In fact, if you look at IRS form 1040NR, it even shows that a “U.S. national” is a “nonresident alien”! The statutory definition of “alien” in 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3)(i) EXCLUDES “nationals”, and all people who are born in states of the Union and domiciled there are in fact “nationals” or “state nationals” as we point out in the article at:

Why you are a “National”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen

You just need to read the Hoax book and the article above and then you will understand. See also the following for further clarification, and if you find anything wrong in the article, please let me know. Otherwise, we’ll assume that you agree:

You’re not a “citizen” under the Internal Revenue Code

We infer from the statutes you cite that the meaning of “citizen of the United States” was the Constitutional sense and not the statutory sense found in 8 USC 1401, because these are two completely different types of citizens. We’ll look at those proclamations though and see if there is any conflict.

If the courts “soundly rejected” the arguments of a person claiming to be a “nonresident alien” who was born in a state of the Union and never filed a 1040, but only 1040NR forms, then they are quite frankly full of crappola. Chances are, the cases you cite relate to people who filed 1040 forms. The only people who file 1040 forms are “U.S. persons”, which includes ONLY “U.S. citizens” under 8 USC 1401 and federal United States residents, who in fact are indeed “aliens” under 26 CFR 1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) living in territories of the United States. Chances are, the litigants who lost those cases never presented evidence in court that they had a citizenship other than the “presumed” statutory citizenship defined in 8 USC 1401. Since “nationals but not citizens” born in states of the Union have no business being in federal courts to begin with, then the courts “assumed” they must be 8 USC 1401 statutory “U.S. citizens” absent proof to the contrary. For further details and explanation, see:

– Section 5.2.11 of The Great Hoax book

– Section 4.6.11 of The Great IRS Hoax book

We didnt’ read through every case you cited, but here are my comments on a few of the individual cases:

1. U.S. v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991):

Mr. Sloan filed false W-4 forms during the period he was accused of tax evasion, and therefore classified himself as an “employee” and a person resident in the federal United States. We specifically tell people not to use this form and instead to use a W-8. That also meant that he earned “wages”, because the only people who file W-4 forms are those liable for the tax who volunteer to participate in the tax system. Sloan also made several other lame arguments that we don’t agree with in my book, such as that the income tax is not on “income”. The court also held:

Moreover, the tax code imposes a “direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves,””

That’s true also, but they don’t define what “nation” they mean. The Supreme Court already said in Chisholm v. Virginia that the United States is not a “nation” and so the only “nation” they could mean is the federal United States. That “nation” includes more than just federal enclaves, so the court was right. It also includes territories of the United States, which Mr. Sloan overlooked. He wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed as a pro per litigant and the government loves to carve up pro per litigants to scare the rest of the sheep.

2. U.S. v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032 (1992)

The court held on the nonresident alien position in this case:

Depew’s brief on appeal raises numerous arguments pro se, some of the more imaginative of which are: he cannot be punished under the tax laws of the United States because he is a citizen of the sovereign state (the “Republic”) of Idaho, now claiming “asylum” in the “Republic of Colorado”; the government in prosecuting him is acting on behalf of an agency, the IRS, that is controlled by a foreign entity; the court had no authority to decide this case because, among other reasons, “there is no nexus, i.e., voluntary contract between [Depew] and the real parties of interest nor IRS,” Brief of Appellant Depew at 14; and the tax sought is an excise tax but the tax law does not state what “privilege” is being taxed. These issues are completely without merit, patently incorrect, and will be rejected without expending any more of this Court’s resources on their Discussion.

However, the case identified Depew as a “taxpayer”, so yes, all the above is accurate. The word “nonresident alien” is never mentioned.

For rebuttals to arguments against the nonresident alien position, we recommend the discussion in Section 23 and subsections of the following pamphlet:

Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

We invite you to educate everyone in the forum here if you find anything wrong with the above treatment. That is the reason why this forum exists, in fact: education, public debate, and enforcement of the law.

God bless

SFRs are entered in the transaction fields and not in the body of the IMF. That is why there isn't a field for them. SFR's appear as Transaction codes TC 424 and 425. See section 3.10 of the MF decoder manual under situational FOIAs.

IRM 5.1.11.9 indicates what forms SFRs can be done for and any type of 1040 is not included.

Bing,

That's a very interesting perspective you have, and a very accurate one. I like the way you explain it and I think we'll use that approach in a future version of the Hoax book.

Microsoft Access 2000, 2002 or 2003 are not “options” of anything. They are a part of Microsoft Office 2003 Professional, which costs about $500. It isn't an operating system component, but an application. See:

http://www.microsoft.com/catalog/display.a…=11607&x=37&y=7