Neo,

Thanks for the feedback. We have been over the same tired issues before and you haven’t gotten past my questions but keep avoiding them. You also didn’t address my analysis, so we are getting nowhere and wasting our time.

1. I don’t agree that the “individual” mentioned in 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3)(ii) is a union state citizen. The I.R.C. is civil law that can only have force over those on federal territory. That entity is a “person” domiciled in a possession, not a state of the Union. This is covered in the following:

Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 3

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf

2. You seem to have developed amnesia about the things you failed to rebut in our previous discussion below. I have a right to decide my own status under the civil law and especially under contract law such as franchise agreement. You agree with me because you never disagreed. Therefore, I can choose NOT to be a “person”, “individual”, or anything else under a franchise contract and if someone tries to impute that status, they are compelling me to contract by compelling me to engage in franchises. In short, they are engaging in involuntary servitude, which is illegal even on federal territory.

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?sh…;st=0#entry6691

3. We agree that the income tax is a franchise tax and that all franchises are implemented with civil law that requires both parties to have a domicile in the forum in order to be enforced against both parties and therefore in order for them to be “persons”, “individuals”. See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm

4. The feds cannot lawfully establish or enforce franchises within states of the Union. This is discussed in the following:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Sections 5 through 7

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

Therefore, they can’t enforce the civil law franchise contract unless both parties shift their domicile to the forum usually through trickery using “words of art” such as mistakenly calling themselves “U.S. citizens”, “U.S. residents”, and “U.S. persons”. Those who don’t have a domicile or residence in the forum can’t have ANY status under the franchise. This fact is established in setions 5 and 6 of the above. McDonalds can establish extraterritorial franchises outside the seat of its corporate headquarters in California and anywhere in the world exclusively through private contract, but REAL, de jure governments, unlike McDonalds, must ALSO satisfy the domicile requirement to enforce the civil contract. There is no such thing as exclusively private law published by a REAL government that doesn’t have domicile as a prerequisite. The only exception is if the government is engaging in purely private business concerns, in which case we aren’t talking about a tax anymore and they can’t protect the activity using sovereign immunity. Only de jure governments that have domicile as a prerequisite can levy REAL “taxes” that pass Constitutional muster. The requirement that those “governed” consent to be governed by choosing a domicile in the forum is the source of all civil authority of government, according to the Declaration of Independence. The minute you drop the domicile requirement from the franchise agreement is the minute you have to:

1. Stop calling the franchise fees “taxes”

2. Quit calling those collecting the fees “government”.

3. Stop asserting sovereign immunity to protect PRIVATE business activity.

4. Instead refer to fees collected simply as “franchise fees” rather than “taxes”, but you can’t have it both ways. The Supreme Court in Fleming v. Nestor called Social Security “insurance”, and yet the Social Security administration calls premiums that pay for this PRIVATE business activity “taxes”. They can’t be BOTH! One of the other!

Which of these two is the “alleged” tax you are referring to?: Private business activity franchise WITHOUT domicile requirement or de jure tax WITH domicile requirement? We know the IRS isn’t part of the government but a private debt collector. Click here for proof. We also know that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and receives the income tax revenues as interest on the debt it loans the de facto government corporation. We know that what most people call “money” isn’t money at all, but corporate bonds and that Congress has replaced its power to mint money with its power to borrow money. The government can’t loan money to itself or it couldn’t be called an obligation. That is why the Federal Reserve has to be private and foreign in respect to the government. Click here for proof. Therefore, we are talking about a private law franchise that has been made to LOOK like a de jure government function so that courts have an excuse to protect private business activity of a private corporation called the “United States” unlawfully using sovereign immunity. Click here for proof. In fact, they ignore the domicile requirement by calling those who argue about their citizenship “frivolous”. That is what the term “U.S. person” in 26 USC 7701(a)(30) implies: domicile, because you can’t be a citizen or resident without a domicile. In effect, they have dropped the domicile requirement using policy instead of law and turned a de jure tax into a de facto private business arrangement. It is a mirage and a deception and a scam.

4. All government franchises are contracts. The only way you can have any status such as “individual”, “person”, or “taxpayer” that is connected to an OBLIGATION under such a contract is to consent to it AND to have a domicile in the forum. Without a domicile AND concurrent written consent to the contract, you can’t have a status under a government franchise, and a nonresident such as a man or woman domiciled in a state of the Union who is a “national” but not a “citizen” under federal law therefore cannot adopt, any status under civil law that attaches to said domicile. Therefore, no matter what you call them, they can’t be an “individual”, “citizen”, “alien”, or anything else under the private law franchise agreement. You asked what is wrong with being an “individual”? The answer is:

4.1 It violates the separation of powers to claim to be or claim to be ANYTHING mentioned in federal law that has a domicile outside of federal territory and in a state of the Union.

4.2 It is inconsistent with how franchises actually MUST operate.

4.3 It extends federal civil jurisdiction beyond federal territory unlawfully.

4.4 It requires you to misrepresent your status as a “person” subject to federal civil law and to do so for the love of money and “benefits”.

4.5 It violates article 4, section 4 of the Constitution by encouraging the federal government to invade the states and enslave the people and undermine state sovereignty.

4.6 It deceives others to become “taxpayers” unlawfully, because it makes you the subject of IRS enforcement. The IRS is going to abuse their jurisdiction over you to coerce you to fill out information returns on other “nontaxpayers”, causing you to become a recruiter for more “taxpayers”. Thus, you become a beachhead for federal “public officer” recruitment.

4.7 It causes you to accept the mark of the Beast, which is the number. The First Bowl judgment in revelations is against those who accept this mark. See:

Social Security: Mark of the Beast

http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm

4.8 It causes you to be the recipient of money STOLEN from your neighbor. I don’t know anyone who would pay income tax if they were offered an informed choice not to and not threatened if they didn’t pay it. Therefore, the money is STOLEN. The Bible calls us to love our neighbor, not STEAL from him. The money the government is going to pay you through your franchise is STOLEN loot. Anyone who receives this plunder is an accessory to the crime and in receipt of stolen property. Here is what the bible says about accepting the wages of Babylon the Great harlot. The “one purse” they are talking about is the GOVERNMENT PURSE!:

Avoid Bad Company

“My son, if sinners [socialists, in this case] entice you,

Do not consent

If they say, “Come with us,

Let us lie in wait to shed blood;

Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause;

Let us swallow them alive like Sheol,

And whole, like those who go down to the Pit:
We shall fill our houses with spoil [plunder];

Cast in your lot among us,

Let us all have one purse”–

My son, do not walk in the way with them,

Keep your foot from their path;

For their feet run to evil,

And they make haste to shed blood.

Surely, in vain the net is spread

In the sight of any bird;
But they lie in wait for their own blood.

They lurk secretly for their own lives.

So are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain;

It takes away the life of its owners.”

[Proverbs 1:10-19, Bible, NKJV]

4.9 It violates the Bible, which says that we can’t have a king or “parens patriae” above us, and that we can ONLY serve and be governed by the true and living and ONLY God. In short, it is IDOLATRY. See the following, which says that we can’t have anything but God above us, can’t contract with foreigners, and can’t select a domicile that would nominate a king or ruler above us:

Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007, Section 2.3.2, 3.6.1, and 3.6.3

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/SelfFamilyChurchGovn…OfAuthority.pdf

5. You didn’t address the issue of contracting and how a real government can lawfully withhold “U.S. source” payments to a PRIVATE nonresidient party protected by the Constitution in a de jure state and convert private property into public property without just compensation and in violation of the Fifth Amendment takings clause. At some point, the recipient had to consent to the taking or else it is THEFT. There is no law compelling use of numbers so the compelled use of numbers as a matter of policy and not law cannot afford the vehicle to make the conversion. Some other method must be at work, and that method can only be the public office that is the only lawful subject of the tax. If the monies were earned by the office, then they were public property BEFORE they were even received by the PAYEE, and therefore no conversion need occur.

6. Please address at what point the conversion from private property to public propertly lawfully occurs under the franchise against a nonresident protected by the Constitution without the consent of the nonresident recipient. Until you can pinpoint when and how that happens, your arguments are moot. The mechanisms by which the conversion MUST occur are described in the following:

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Section 2

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm

I allege that consent of the payee MUST be procured at some point BEFORE the payee can lawfully have ANY status under a private law franchise agreement. Where is the consent because without it, the Fifth Amendment is violated in the case of those domiciled in a state and protected by it? That consent can only be procured by consensually and lawfully occupying a public office BEFORE you fill out any tax forms or sign up for any benefits. This is exhaustively established by:

1. Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyThiefOrEmployee.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

2. Proof that There is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.042

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

3. Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

Why are these pamphlets wrong, because if they aren’t, your explanation cannot be truthful and we shouldn’t be debating? The truth cannot conflict with itself or it isn’t truth, and I have showed that there are conflicts.

You still haven’t addressed how I can be both an alien and a national at the same time in relation to the SAME entity, which is the corporation called the “United States”, because the two are opposites. I can’t be an “alien” under the I.R.C. and a “national” under Title 8 at the same time. Either the tax is a municipal tax and everyone domiciled outside the District of Columbia is an “alien” or the tax is a “national” tax and everyone outside of federal territory is an alien. Which is it? I argue that it is a municipal tax, based on the definition of “United States” and the content of 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), 26 USC 7701(a)(39), and 26 U.S.C. 7408(d). See also:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…nitedStates.htm

You still haven’t addressed the issue of how the feds can lawfully offer franchises in a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has never contradicted the License Tax Cases, in which it said that Congress cannot establish a “trade or business’ in a state in order to tax it. Without the ability to enforce it within a state, even upon “U.S. sourced” payments, the PAYEE cannot lawfully have ANY status under the franchise that carries an enforceable obligation. In other words, they cannot lawfully entice people with rights in a de jure state protected by the Constitution to give away those rights through contract/franchise by turning private rights into public rights. That’s what the Declaration of Independence says: Our rights are “unalienable”, which means they can’t be sold, bargained away, or transfered by any means, including a franchise. Without agency created through contract which makes the PAYEE into an officer of the government, withholding or taxation would be a taking without just compensation. With public office agency, there is no conversion and no taking. When are you going to address this issue and harmonize your view with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. So long as it isn’t harmonized, it can’t be the truth.

The only place where anyone can contract with the government and thereby surrender rights is where the Constitution doesn’t apply, which is either abroad or on federal territory. The rights of those in states of the Union protected by the Constitution are unalienable, and therefore cannot lawfully become the proper subject of any franchise or contract with any de jure government.

I think you are missing the bigger picture and that you could benefit from reading Frank Kowalik’s book IRS Humbug. It is a public officer kickback scheme and the evidence he presents is irrefutable. I’m not going to repeat his entire book here for those who haven’t read it.

Everything we all collectively understand about law must be harmonious with your explanation or it can have no credibility whatsoever. So far, the only explanation that fits that bill is what I have described, unless I have missed something. The goal is not to be right or wrong, but to provide an explanation that is consistent with the WHOLE of the law, the constitution, and the mechanisms by which franchises must operate in order to be lawful.

Right now, people would laugh at your explanation for you to call someone born in this country an alien, which is the same problem that people who file W-8BEN forms have if they don’t add an explanatory attachment. I claim that I am a “nonresident” but NOT an “alien”, but also that I am a “national” but not a statutory “U.S. citizen” or “U.S. person” either. If they have questions, I just show them the passport, which recognizes these two SEPARATE AND DISTINCT statuses right in the booklet. That’s easier to swallow for most people and passes the common sense test. The only reason I use a “nonresident alien” form is that they don’t have a form for those who are nonresidents but NOT aliens. This is explained in the attachments themselves to clarify my position, and it is easier to swallow than saying you are an “alien”. Not only are you saying you are an alien, but you are doing it from a position as a comissioned officer in the U.S. military who isn’t even ALLOWED to BE an alien and fill that position. ALL commissioned officers in the U.S. military are required by law to be “U.S. citizens”.

Citizenship Requirement for Employees Compensated From Appropriated Funds

[url url=”http:///usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=110-161″]Pub. L. 110161[/url], div. D, title VII, § 705, Dec. 26, 2007, [url url=”http:///usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=statRef&target=date%3a%44ec.%2026,%202007ch:nonestatnum:121_2019″]121 Stat. 2019[/url], provided that: “Unless otherwise specified during the current fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any officer or employee of the Government of the United States (including any agency the majority of the stock of which is owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of duty is in the continental United States unless such person: (1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a person in the service of the United States on the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 26, 2007] who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States prior to such date and is actually residing in the United States; (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the United States; (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; (5) is a South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or Laotian refugee paroled in the United States after January 1, 1975; or (6) is a national of the People’s Republic of China who qualifies for adjustment of status pursuant to the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 (Public Law 102404) [[url url=”http://../uscode08/usc_sup_01_8.html”]8[/url] U.S.C. [url url=”http://../uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255—-000-notes.html”]1255 note[/url] ]: Provided, That for the purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the requirements of this section with respect to his or her status have been complied with: Provided further, That any person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both: Provided further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, or the Republic of the Philippines, or to nationals of those countries allied with the United States in a current defense effort, or to international broadcasters employed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or to temporary employment of translators, or to temporary employment in the field service (not to exceed 60 days) as a result of emergencies.”

[SOURCE: 5 USC 3101 Legislative Notes: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/d…-000-notes.html

You can’t be an alien and a citizen at the same time! Therefore, you can’t be an “individual” or a “taxpayer” and a “national” domiciled in a state of the Union at the same time. What planet are you from, dude? Pluto? You better be ready to answer these questions, because the people who accept or demand withholding paperwork at the disbursing office are going to ask the very same question, friend. People who use materials on this website, on the other hand:

1. Can show them the domicile article and prove that I don’t have a tax liability as a nonresident, and I don’t even have to crack the I.R.C. code book.

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Domicile.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

2. Can show them my passport and prove that a “national” is a permitted status.

3. Have a slew of statutes that expressly say that what I earn is neither taxable nor reportable. In fact, the status I claim is the ONLY status that has such statutes to defend it.

4. Even have statutes to show that I am not required to have or use a number.

5. Have a wonderful and polite withholding letter that quotes chapter and verse and even the IRS publications to PROVE that I am not subject to reporting or withholding. See:

New Hire Paperwork Attachment, Form #04.203

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Withholding/NewH…aperworkAtt.pdf

Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Affidavits/AffCitDomTax.pdf

Why don’t you explain to us how you are going to convince a disbursing clerk in the U.S. military and what you are going to use based on your position. It ain’t gonna fly, bro, and not with me but with the people you will be sending withholding paperwrok to! But when people who use the above want to fly, they get the following attire to take along:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crime/Terr…yWhenYouAre.jpg

Those who use our materials not only get the above attire, but they get a whole play book that they can hand to the JAG office complete with a questionaire that even an IRS CID agent (AndyK) who visited these forums wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole and responded to it by abandoning these forums and the field of battle and conceding to our position when pressed for answers because he knew we are right and because he didn’t want to have to surrender his plausible deniability defense and become a witness against the government:

Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers

http://famguardian.org/Publications/FedSta…teWHOptions.pdf

Keep your comments, questions, and research coming, because iron is definitely sharpening iron here. We’re honored to have educated, inquisitive people who do their homework contributing to these forums. Your questions have been very helpful at pinpointing holes in our research that are causing confusion in our readers. Based on your questions, we are going to add a new section to the following article entitled “WHO’s ‘trade or business’?” that talks about both sides of the transaction and reuses materials and ideas developed here.

“The Trade or Business Scam”

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm

Neo,

This thread probably belongs in the “trade or business” area but we will leave it here for now and probably move it later.

You’re confused once again. This post summarizes how the Lord told me to answer your questions and resolve your confusion.

A transaction must involve the de facto government and therefore public rights and franchises in order to be “taxable”. The income tax under I.R.C. Subtitle A, as we all well know, is a franchise/excise tax. See:

The “Trade or Business” Scam

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm

The only context in which the statutory definition of “United States” makes any sense at all is in fact to treat it as an excise/franchise tax. The “United States” in the I.R.C. then becomes the franchisor in a virtual and not a physcial or geographical sense. The ability to regulate, tax, or burden private conduct is beyond the reach of the Constitution, and therefore the activity must involve publici juris and public rights to be taxable.

Every transaction involving the government has two parties: The payer and the payee. That is why the tax is upon both “trade or business” earnings and “U.S. source” earnings: The payer is always a public office in the government and the recipient is either a resident alien individual or a nonresident alien “individual” receiving payments from this “U.S. source” if the transaction is taxable to EITHER party. This is made clear by 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(31), which says that the transaction is not “gross income” and is “foreign” and beyond the jurisdiciton of the I.R.C. if it does not involve one of these two aspects, meaning if it does not involve a public officer payer OR an “individual” recipient:

[url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26.html/”]TITLE 26 > Subtitle F[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26_10_f_20_79.html/”]CHAPTER 79[/url] > § 7701

§ 7701. Definitions

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

(31) Foreign estate or trust

(A) Foreign estate The term “foreign estate” means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

( 😎 Foreign trust The term “foreign trust” means any trust other than a trust described in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (30).

Whenever a taxable payment occurs, an information return is filed usually by the payer, who in law must always be treated as a public officer in the government, meaning a “source within the United States” (government, not geographical USA). 26 USC 6041(a) says that the information return can only be filed in connection with a “trade or business”, meaning that at least one end of the transaction must involve a public officer in the government.

[url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26.html/”]TITLE 26[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26_10_f.html/”]Subtitle F[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26_10_f_20_61.html/”]CHAPTER 61[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26_10_f_20_61_30_a.html/”]Subchapter A[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26_10_f_20_61_30_a_40_iii.html/”]PART III[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26_10_f_20_61_30_a_40_iii_50_b.html/”]Subpart B[/url] > § 6041

§ 6041. Information at source

(a) Payments of $600 or more

All persons engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade or business to another person, of rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable gains, profits, and income (other than payments to which section [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006042—-000-.html”]6042[/url] [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006042—-000-.html#a_1″](a)(1)[/url], [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006044—-000-.html”]6044[/url] [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006044—-000-.html#a_1″](a)(1)[/url], [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006047—-000-.html”]6047[/url] [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006047—-000-.html#e”](e)[/url], [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006049—-000-.html”]6049[/url] [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006049—-000-.html#a”](a)[/url], or [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006050—N000-.html”]6050N[/url] [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006050—N000-.html#a”](a)[/url] applies, and other than payments with respect to which a statement is required under the authority of section [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006042—-000-.html”]6042[/url] [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006042—-000-.html#a_2″](a)(2)[/url], [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006044—-000-.html”]6044[/url] [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006044—-000-.html#a_2″](a)(2)[/url], or [url url=”http://../uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006045—-000-.html”]6045[/url]), of $600 or more in any taxable year, or, in the case of such payments made by the United States, the officers or employees of the United States having information as to such payments and required to make returns in regard thereto by the regulations hereinafter provided for, shall render a true and accurate return to the Secretary, under such regulations and in such form and manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth the amount of such gains, profits, and income, and the name and address of the recipient of such payment.

Our job is to figure out WHICH end of the transaction is a public officer, because that is the only one subject to the code and therefore a “taxpayer”. The PAYER can be a public officer and therefore a “taxpayer” as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(14) while the PAYEE can be a nonresident and a “nontaxpayer”.

26 USC 6041 gives us a clue to the puzzle: it says the PAYER must file the information return and is engaged in a “trade or business”, but it doesn’t say that the PAYEE ALSO is involved in a “trade or business”. Therefore, as a bare minimum every transaction involves a PAYER who is a public officer and therefore a “taxpayer” engaged in a “trade or business”. We still don’t yet know how the PAYEE would be treated in such a transaction, but as a bare minimum, we know that it is in receipt of “U.S. source” income from a public officer within the “United States” government. Some clues, though:

1. Congress only has jurisidiction over PUBLIC activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ability to regulate private conduct is “repugnant to the Constitution”. The constitution exists, in fact, to keep private conduct beyond the reach of the government. Consequently, BOTH parties to the transaction must be acting in a public capacity as public officers and therefore “taxpayers”.

2. If the PAYER was a public officer and a “taxpayer” but the PAYEE was not, then the I.R.C. would be injuring private parties and interfering with the right to contract of both parties by imposing duties above and beyond the contract between them. The Constitution was created to protect your right to contract, and therefore they can’t tax or withhold within such a transaction. Frank Kowalik in his wonderful book “IRS Humbug” analyzes this aspect of all such payments and agrees with us on this point.

3. 26 USC 6041(a) uses the phrase “another person” to refer to the payee. So the PAYEE obviously must also be a “taxpayer” and a “person” subject to the code in order for the reporting to occur. Furthermore, if the recipient were NOT such a “person”, they would have no liability and therefore would also not be subject to withholding. Withholding is only required for “taxpayers”.

An example of payment that would not be taxable or reportable is one made to a nonresident who is not an alien or an “individual”. This would be the case with those in the military who file nonresident alien withholding paperwork such as the W-8BEN, who modify block 3 of the form to indicate that they are “nonresident” but not “individuals”, and who are enlisted rather than commissioned officers. When the transaction involves only one “taxpayer”, the code does NOT create a liability to report against the withholding agent because the recipient is not a “person” (or “another person” as referred to in 26 USC 6041(a) and 26 U.S.C. 1461) as a nonresident. The code is civil law that is not enforceable against nonresidents. All civil law attaches to the choice of domicile of the parties and cannot operate beyond the territory of the law making power unless it operates on a domiciliary temporarily abroad but not within a state of the Union under 26 USC 911. 26 U.S.C. 1461 makes the PAYER liable to deduct and withhold payment to another “person” but a nonresident cannot be a “person” within the meaning of this provision:

[url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26.html/”]TITLE 26[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26_10_a.html/”]Subtitle A[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26_10_a_20_3.html/”]CHAPTER 3[/url] > [url url=”http://usc_sup_01_26_10_a_20_3_30_b.html/”]Subchapter B[/url] > § 1461

§ 1461. Liability for withheld tax

Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

___________________________________________

The foregoing considerations would lead, in case of doubt, to a construction of any statute as intended to be confined in its operation and effect to the territorial limits over which the lawmaker has general and legitimate power. ‘All legislation is prima facie territorial.’ Ex parte Blain, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 522, 528; State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499; People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 590, 596. Words having universal scope, such as ‘every contract in restraint of trade,’ ‘every person who shall monopolize,’ etc., will be taken, as a matter of course, to mean only everyone subject to such legislation, not all that the legislator subsequently may be able to catch. In the case of the present statute, the improbability of the United States attempting to make acts done in Panama or Costa Rica criminal is obvious, yet the law begins by making criminal the acts for which it gives a right to sue. We think it entirely plain that what the defendant did in Panama or Costa Rica is not within the scope of the statute so far as the present suit is concerned. Other objections of a serious nature are urged, but need not be discussed.

[American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213 U.S. 347at 357-358]

The phrase “general or legitimate power” implies “general and exclusive jurisdiction”, not subject matter jurisdiction. The feds only have general jurisdiction within federal territory. In a state, they have limited and subject matter jurisdiction ONLY and NOT general jurisdiction. That is not to say that they don’t have jurisdiction over ALL PEOPLE within a state. They always have jurisdiction over those domiciled on federal territory, regardless of where they are situated, including in a state, but they don’t have such jurisdiction within a state of those domiciled outside of federal territory and who therefore are not statutory “U.S. citizens”, “U.S. residents”, and “U.S. persons”. The following article emphasizes this point, but is FLAT OUT WRONG in concluding that District Courts in the States of the Union are Article III courts. They have NEVER been expressly given this power by statute and if it isn’t expressly conveyed, then it doesn’t exist. The only thing they can therefore do is officiate over are Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 franchises such as income taxes, Social Security, etc. and crimes committed on federal territory where they enjoy general jurisdiction. The What Happened to Justice book proves this with thousands of pages of evidence.

§22 Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Because of our federal system, in which more than 50 sovereigns function within the framework of a national sovereign, the federal court structure is unique in that its principal trial court, the U.S. District Court, is a court of limited rather than general jurisdiction. The state is left to supply the “general” court. The federal constitution permits Congress to confer on federal courts of its creation only such jurisdiction as is outlined in section 2 of Article III. Hence the source of these federal limitations is the constitution itself.

Even within the federal system, however, one can find courts of general jurisdiction. Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States that lack their own sovereignty, and thus a court system of their own, must depend on the federal legislature for a complete court system: the District of Columbia and the few remaining territories of the United States are in this category. For them, Congress has the power (from Article I of the constitution for the District and from Article IV of the constitution for the territories) to create courts of general jurisdiction. But Congress has no such power with respect to the states, for which reason all of the federal courts sitting within the states, including the district courts, must trace their powers to those within the limits of Article III and are hence courts of “limited” jurisdiction.

This is one reason why issues of subject matter jurisdiction arise more frequently in the federal system than in state courts. Another is that for a variety of reasons, federal jurisdiction is often preferred by a plaintiff who has a choice of forums. Taken together, this means that more cases near the subject matter jurisdiction borderline appear in the federal than in the state courts.

One of the major sources of federal subject matter jurisdiction is the diversity of citizenship of the parties. It authorizes federal suit even though the dispute involves no issues of federal law. The statute that authorizes this jurisdiction, however (28 U.S.C.A. 1332), requires that there be more than $75,000 in controversy. A plaintiff near that figure and who wants federal jurisdiction will try for it, while a defendant who prefers that the state courts hear the case may try to get it dismissed from federal court on the ground that it can’t support a judgment for more than $75,000.

A major source of federal jurisdiction is that the case “arises under” federal law, the phrase the constitution itself uses (Article III, §2). Unless it so arises, there is no subject matter jurisdiction under this caption, and whether it does or does not is often the subject of a dispute between the parties to a federal action.

For these and other reasons, the study of “subject matter” jurisdiction is a more extensive one in federal than in state practice. Indeed, a law school course on federal courts is likely to be devoted in the main to subject matter jurisdiction, with a correspondingly similar time allotment left for mere procedure, rather the reverse of what usually occurs in a course studying the state courts.

[Conflicts in a Nutshell by David D. Siegel and Patrick J. Borchers, ISBN 0-314-160669-3, 3^rd Edition, West Group, pp. 39-41]

So there are two criteria: The PAYER and the PAYEE must BOTH be “persons” and therefore “taxpayers” within the I.R.C. If only the PAYER is a “person” but the payee is NOT, then the transaction is not “gross income” TO THE PAYEE. The term “person” is defined in 26 USC 7701(c ) to include “individuals”, but “individual” in turn does not include statutory or constitutional “citizens” per 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3). Therefore, both the PAYER and the PAYEE MUST be aliens and not citizens engaged in privileged activities. See:

Cites by Topic: Individual

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByT…/individual.htm

All of these games with “words of art” relating to Effectively Connected Income (ECI) are designed to disguise and confuse WHICH end of the transaction is a “taxpayer”: the PAYER, the PAYEE, or BOTH. The statutes you kicked off this forum with refers to the “recipient”, meaning the PAYEE. 26 USC 881(a) cited in your lead post says:

“there is hereby imposed for each taxable year a tax of 30 percent of the amount received from sources within the United States by a foreign corporation as”

An amount can only be “received” by a PAYEE.

1. We already know the PAYER is a public officer and a “taxpayer” and therefore a “person” under the I.R.C. because 26 U.S.C. 6041(a) admitted he/she/it had to be in order to report the transaction.

2. 26 U.S.C. 1461 also said that the PAYER is only liable if BOTH ends of the transaction are “persons” and therefore “taxpayers”. A “nonresident” would NOT be subject to the code and therefore NOT a “person”, “individual”, or “taxpayer”. See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm

3. 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(31) also says that when NEITHER the PAYER nor the PAYEE are engaged in public office (“trade or business”) and the payment does not originate from “sources within the United States”, meaning the de facto government, then the transaction isn’t taxable.

You cited 26 USC 864(c )(3) and tried to create the appearance of cognitive dissonance by implying that a transaction can involve a “trade or business”/public office but at the same time NOT involve it. There is no contradiction. The PAYER is ALWAYS a public officer and therefore a “U.S. source” and a “taxpayer” on one side of the coin while the PAYEE can be a nonresident and yet also not a “taxpayer”, “individual”, or “person” on the other side of the same coin. Once again: EVERY TRANSACTION has two ends, and it depends which end you are looking at. You need to be VERY clear from the language which end it is and what you are looking for, because the language will try to confuse the ends to make it look like EVERYONE is a “taxpayer”, “individual”, and therefore “person”.

Clues to which end of the transaction they are talking about:

1. PAYER: Words used would be “paid”, “making payment”.

2. PAYEE: Words used would be “received”, “amount received”.

Another fact is also important that people like Pete Hendrickon chronically overlook. Yes, an information return always involves a “trade or business” because 26 USC 6041(a) says so. However, does it ALSO imply or require or impute that the PAYEE is engaged in a “trade or business”? A worthy exercise would be to go through all the instruction forms for information returns and the IRS publications to see what they say about WHICH ends of the transaction must be engaged in a “trade or business”. We did a cursory look and they almost always talk to the FILER of the information return and use the phrase “YOUR trade or business”, as though they are implying that the PAYER is the ONLY one engaged in the public office.

How then, does the PAYEE become involved in a “trade or business”? Below are the MAIN techniques”:

1. Taking deductions under 26 USC 162, all of which require those taking them to be engaged in a “trade or business”. See the following:

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Section 13.1

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm

2. Using a RESIDENT tax form, the 1040. The “United States” that a person is a “resident” (alien) in relation to is the GOVERNMENT, and not the geographical USA. The “United States” one is a “resident” of is the government, and the “person” who is the resident is the public office within the government, and not the human being filling the office. See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm

3. Using government de facto license numbers such as SSNs and TINs. 26 CFR 301.6109-1( 😎 says that these numbers are only required by those engaged in a “trade or business” and who are “U.S. persons”, meaning people domiciled on federal territory that is no part of any state of the Union. See:

3.1 The “Trade or Business” Scam, Section 13.3

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm

3.2 About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #04.104

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Procedure/AboutSSNs/AboutSSNs.htm

To summarize the answer to your question:

1. The language is very deliberately and cunningly trying to confuse you about which end of the transaction is the public officer and therefore the “taxpayer” because they want you to assume EVERYONE is a “taxpayer”, “person”, and “individual”. If they were more honest, they would have referred directly to the words “PAYER” and “PAYEE”.

2. Every transaction has TWO parties, a PAYER, and a PAYEE.

2.1 The PAYER is always a public officer and a “taxpayer”, and therefore a “person” and “U.S. person” (26 USC 7701(a)(30)) subject to federal law. A “public office” making payments to a nonresident, for instance, is a “U.S. source” and the PAYER is a “trade or business” but the payee is NOT. Some PAYEES unlawfully compel the nonresident to “elect” themself into public office by compelling them to procure and use an identifying numbers before they will make the payment. This is a criminal violation fo 42 USC 408(a)(8) and 18 USC 912 and causes perjury on the SS-5, W-7, and W-9 forms in the case of a nonresident domiciled in a state of the union who does not ALREADY occupy a public office BEFORE they made application for the number.

2.2 The PAYEE most often is, in reality, a nonresident who is neither a “person”, “individual”, nor “taxpayer” but who wrongfully thinks they are because of the deliberate and calculated confusion in the code you point out.

3. Everything the PAYEE receives from the PAYER is, by definition, “U.S. source income” because the “U.S.” means the government, and not the geographical sense. 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) is a red herring, because it uses the phrase “geographical sense”.

3.1 It is ECI IN RELATION TO THE PAYER while also being. . .

3.2 “U.S. source” and NOT ECI in relation to the PAYEE.

3.3 It is only taxable and reportable, if BOTH the PAYER and the PAYEE are “persons”, “U.S. persons”, and “taxpayers” domiciled on federal territory. It isn’t taxable if either end of the transaction is a nonresident and therefore not a “person”, “individual”, or “taxpayer”. Domicile is the origin of the liablity for tax. That is why there are so many statutes mentioned in the Nonresident Alien position booklet that say that nonresidents don’t earn reportable income. This is made clear below:

About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.202, Section 4

DIRECT LINK: <a href=""hhttp://sedm.org/compliant-member-only-forms/about-irs-form-w-8ben-form-04-002/

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

Hope this makes the source of your confusion more apparent, which once again as always results from a failure to distinguish the more important nuances of the context you are analyzing. This, by the way, is the same problem that Pete Hendrickson has, which is magnified by his overly simplistic book. I think he does his readers a dis service by not communicating all the nuances of his stance because those who emulate his approach go into battle equipped with sticks and water baloons instead of machine guns. For a picture of what we are talking about, see the following. In the picture, the pilot is a metaphor for you, who are the “pilot” and captain of your own ship, which is your body, and that body is a temple to the Lord that you must protect from the encroachments of the wicked:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crime/Terr…yWhenYouAre.jpg

The following FREE article does more to cover the key points than Hendrickson’s entire book, and is designed for use IN COURT for those who want to do battle with machine guns instead of sticks and water baloons:

1. The “Trade or Business” Scam

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm

2. The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf

The above explanation seems to pass “the common sense test” that you so frequently apply to everything that is presented in these forums.

Amen, brother johnwk!

Long live America! The America given to us by our founding fathers is dead. RIP. We haven't kept the Republic about which Benjamin Franklin said the following as he left the Constitutional Convention:

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

See:

http://famguardian1.org/Subjects/LawAndGov…fGovernment.wmv

Hope is not lost so long as there are people like us to spread the truth about what they have done and fix it. The American Revolution was fought by only 3% of the populace. Reaching only 3% of Americans with the truth is all it may take.

There you go again, dramatizing, exaggerating, and sensationalizing things and being emotional. There is no need to “personalize” our comments or assume we're attacking you. We're just trying to improve the quality of this site with the minimum effort. We seek only to avoid people from letting their animal leave piles of doo-doo in these forums that they don't clean up, like lazy spelling or grammar that really turns off and scares away especially the educated, who ironically are the ones who can add the most value to this site.

Can you please leave your ego at the door? It interferes with learning, distracts attention away from the subject at hand, wastes our precious time and resources arguing moot points, and probably will also land you in jail at some point. Government prosecutors just love prideful people who are easily controlled by anger or insults. They are gonna play you like a fiddle without you even realizing it. Pride comes before destruction and haughtiness before a fall is what the bible says on this subject.

This site is for everyone. Not just the rich or educated. It's not going to be credible or popular, however, unless it attracts the educated and the informed who can govern their own lives by what they preach. People aren't going to believe the illiterate but there is no reason the illiterate or the uninformed can't or shouldn't be blessed by the resources available here. Law is more about literacy than any other field. Lack of legal literacy, in fact, is the main complaint we have against those who follow the redemption crowd.

Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.002

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

You're very careless with your spelling and grammar. Moreso than anyone we've seen on these forums. Please be more careful in the future. It's a lot of extra work to proofread and fix your many errors. Those errors also discredit this site, by giving readers the idea that it attracts illiterate people.

1 U.S.C. 204 notes describes which titles are positive law and which are not. Title 18 is positive law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…04—-000-.html

If you click on “Notes” on the right, it takes you to the titles that are positive law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…-000-notes.html

Yes, that would be one we would cite. We would also use and possibly attach to the pleading the following pamphlet:

Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf

kd7one

Thanks for sharing that info. Forum participants are encouraged to watch the show.

Hilarious!

😆 😆