[fg_admin]

Common Law Venue is down AGAIN. 7/4/09. Their website is highly unreliable.

[fg_admin]

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.

[fg_admin]

Please download and install the latest free Adobe Acrobat reader. The document is fine, but you are using an old version that can't read newer files. Everything we produce is published in Adobe Acrobat 6.0 format. Older versions cannot read the newer format. You can obtain the free reader on the opening page of Adobe by clicking on “Get Adobe Reader”:

http://www.adobe.com/

We use the free Adobe Reader version 9 and it not only works fine with it, but that is what it was produced with.

[fg_admin]

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.

[fg_admin]

Dennis,

No we don't say “United States” means only the states of the Union in the Constitution. The Constitution uses the term “United States” in two contexts:

1. The GOVERNMENT formed by it. That government is a corporation. The Constitution is the incorporation document. That corporation manages the community property of the collective Union states called “territory and other property” in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.

2. A geographic sense that implies only the states of the Union and not federal territory.

ONLY when it is used in a geographical sense can or does it imply states of the Union and not federal territory. Downes and O'Donogue mentioned in “Why you are a 'national”, section 2 prove this.”

Quote:

“As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.”

[O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)]

To repeat the analysis in Section 2 of “Why you are a 'national'”: Notice the words “it must act independently of the Constitution upon territory which is not part of the United States within THE meaning of the Constitution”. This implies that in a geographical sense, the term “United States” only means states of the Union when used in the Constitution. The use of “THE MEANING” instead of “one of the meanings” implies only ONE meaning for geographic purposes. When not used in a geographic sense, it means the “U.S. Inc.” corporation/government that it creates. As pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244 (1901), the Constitution is silent about territories except in 1:8:17. Downes also repeats this same conclusion above as shown below, but confines itself only with the meaning of “United States” within the revenue clauses of the Constitution.

Quote:

We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States[***] within the revenue clauses of the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional, so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case.

u][url url=”http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=182&page=244″][color color=”#222222″]Downes v. Bidwell[/color][/url][/u][url url=”http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=182&page=244″][color color=”#222222″], 182 US 244 (1901)[/color][/url

We argue that this same approach above applies in all other provisions of the Constitution other than the revenue clauses as well, and it is the only conclusion that is also consistent with O'Donoghue. Even if you believe that other uses of “United States” within the Constitution do not refer to states of the Union, for revenue purposes, the “United States” can only mean states of the Union as shown above. Therefore, a “citizen” or a “citizen of the UNited States” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment and elsewyere within the Constitution, FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND NOT STATUTORY REVENUE PURPOSES, can only mean a person domiciled within a state of the Union. Since “United States” is nowhere defined in I.R.C. Subtitle A to include anything other than federal territory (26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)), only statutory but not constitutional citizens can be or are implied as “taxpayers” under the I.R.C. See:

You're not a “citizen” under the I.R.C.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…zenUnderIRC.htm

The constitution is a compact between the sovereign States who wrote it, and the confederation formed by the Articles of Confederation called the “United States”, which was delegated authority only over foreign affairs. Territories are a foreign affairs issue because they are not among the states who are required to consent to the compact. This fact is made conspicuously clear by reading United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U.S. 304 (1936).

You need to reconcile and harmonize your analysis with the above and all the cases cited in “Why you are a 'national'” sections 2 and 3 rather than just dismiss them as “gibberish”. The law cannot conflict with itself. What you are proposing cannot be truth unless it is consistent with everything else in the law and the cases that cite the law or explains why the inconsistencies are justified.

Quote:

It is, of course, true that statutory construction [or interpretation] “is a holistic endeavor” and that the meaning of a provision is “clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme … [when] only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988).

[U.S. v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200, 121 S.Ct. 1433 (2001)]

All you do is contribute further to the cognitive dissonance with your comments. We are trying to eliminate it by harmonizing everything we know about law into one unified approach that is consistent with itself and consistent with every authority available on the subject. That means you have to look at the evidence I provided above. What you provided is not legal evidence, but political speech by politicians in office which the courts don't give much credence to. Show me actionable statutes, regulations, caselaw that proves your point and not political speech by politicians who are untrustworthy anyway. Both of the cases I cited above occurred AFTER the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and are therefore relevant. So does the following case:

Quote:

“It is impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the states of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States[***].'”

[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), emphasis added]

The variations in name are a reflection of the fact that:

1. Each officer occupies multiple offices. We have the President, the President of the United States of America, and the President of the United States. Each is a different office with different duties and each office is occupied by a single officer performing multiple functions. Ed Rivera talks about this on his website, and its pointless to repeat it here.

http://edrivera.com

2. “United States” deals with internal (government) functions and with government property such as territories, and possessions under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. We refer to this as “United States**” throughout this website.

3. “United States of America” deals with foreign affairs functions and relations with states of the Union. See, for instance, 28 U.S.C. 1746. We refer to this as “United States***” throughout this website.

[fg_admin]

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

[fg_admin]

Looks like Lindsey Springer is using the arguments found in the following:

Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Section 11

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

Glad to see he's finally getting practical. Too bad he had to get indicted before he quit playing around with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and REALLY focused on jurisdiction and enforcement authority at its core. We pray that it isn't too late for him. He is a Christian. The PRA is really just a distraction which is easy for the government to bury or avoid with minutia.

______________________________

Lindsey Springer here and hoping these words find you all well. On May 15, 2009, I moved the District Court regarding the obviously fact no District Directors or Internal Revenue Districts existed since at least 2000. On May 29, 2009, the United States Department of Justice in Washington D.C. responded to the District Court by saying:

Quote:

“The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 abolished internal revenue districts as of October 1, 2000 (not the latter part of 1999 as asserted by Defendants). See Testimony of David C. Williams, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, dated May 8, 2001, Implementation of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Joint Hearing Before Committees of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.”

On June 15, 2009, I filed a reply to the United States Department of Justice response demonstrating to the Court why this undisputed fact required as a matter of law dismissal. Click here: http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/GJReplyMTD6.15.09.pdf

The gist of their argument is that a new 2005 regulation can apply backwards to 2000. They also argue since no districts exist regulations govern.

I pointed out that section 6091 only allows regulations when “not otherwise provided for by this title.” Click here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_s…91—-000-.html

I pointed out that section 6091 obviously “by this title.” See 7621. Click here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_s…21—-000-.html

The United States Department of Justice in Washington D.C. responded on June 17, 2009, just two days later with a Motion to Strike my Reply claiming it did not comply with local civil rules and was 18 pages too long. Click here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_s…21—-000-.html

Yesterday, June 19, 2009, the District Court DENIED the United States Department of Justice Motion to Strike and ORDERED them to file a sur-reply by June 25, 2009. Click here: http://www.penaltyprotestor.org/files/GJOr…ikeSurreply.pdf

If you have difficulty clicking on each link then just highlight and paste in your address bar.

The Court requested the United States Department of Justice address specifically # 1,2,6 and 7 of my reply. I will post their sur-reply once I get it.

Thank you for your support.

Lindsey Springer 6.19.09

[fg_admin]

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

[fg_admin]

Dennis,

The subject of the meaning of the “United States” within the context of the Constitution is covered in the following:

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

http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf

See section 2 of the above, which concludes that when used in a territorial sense only, it includes the states of the Union and excludes federal territory. Section 10.3 of the above covers the meaning in all the various contexts. For the meaning in ALL contexts, see:

Geographical conventions

http://sedm.org/Samp…Conventions.htm

The statutory context is covered in the following, and it means federal territory and excludes states of the Union:

1. An investigation into the meaning of the term “United States”

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Chal…vestigation.htm

2. Cites by Topic: “United States”

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

The context most often used in the Internal Revenue Code is the GOVERNMENT, and not the territorial sense. 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) is a distraction because it uses the phrase “geographical sense” but nowhere is that sense implied, leaving us to discover the meaning by some other method. The real meaning in the I.R.C. Subtitle A is the GOVERNMENT. The term “trade or business”, which is the activity that is the subject of the I.R.C. Subtitle A excise/franchise tax means a public office in the government. 26 U.S.C. 863(c )(3) equates “sources in the United States” with public offices, so the only thing “United States” can mean by default is the GOVERNMENT and not in a territorial sense. I.R.C. Subtitle A is a kickback program for federal payments or payments to federal officers, and it is disguised to LOOK like a real tax, but in fact isn’t a real income tax tied only to domicile.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that the Constitution does not and cannot determine or limit the authority of Congress over federal territory and that the ONLY portion of the Constitution that does in fact expressly refer to federal territory and therefore the statutory “United States” is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. Notice they ruled that Puerto Rico is NOT part of the “United States” within the meaning of the Constitution, just like they ruled in O’Donoghue that federal territory was no part of the “United States”:

Quote:

In passing upon the questions involved in this and kindred cases, we ought not to overlook the fact that, while the Constitution was intended to establish a permanent form of government for the states which should elect to take advantage of its conditions, and continue for an indefinite future, the vast possibilities of that future could never have entered the minds of its framers. The states had but recently emerged from a war with one of the most powerful nations of Europe, were disheartened by the failure of the confederacy, and were doubtful as to the feasibility of a stronger union. Their territory was confined to a narrow strip of land on the Atlantic coast from Canada to Florida, with a somewhat indefinite claim to territory beyond the Alleghenies, where their sovereignty was disputed by tribes of hostile Indians supported, as was popularly believed, by the British, who had never formally delivered possession [182 U.S. 244, 285] under the treaty of peace. The vast territory beyond the Mississippi, which formerly had been claimed by France, since 1762 had belonged to Spain, still a powerful nation and the owner of a great part of the Western Hemisphere. Under these circumstances it is little wonder that the question of annexing these territories was not made a subject of debate. The difficulties of bringing about a union of the states were so great, the objections to it seemed so formidable, that the whole thought of the convention centered upon surmounting these obstacles. The question of territories was dismissed with a single clause, apparently applicable only to the territories then existing, giving Congress the power to govern and dispose of them.

Had the acquisition of other territories been contemplated as a possibility, could it have been foreseen that, within little more than one hundred years, we were destined to acquire, not only the whole vast region between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but the Russian possessions in America and distant islands in the Pacific, it is incredible that no provision should have been made for them, and the question whether the Constitution should or should not extend to them have been definitely settled. If it be once conceded that we are at liberty to acquire foreign territory, a presumption arises that our power with respect to such territories is the same power which other nations have been accustomed to exercise with respect to territories acquired by them. If, in limiting the power which Congress was to exercise within the United States[***], it was also intended to limit it with regard to such territories as the people of the United States[***] should thereafter acquire, such limitations should have been expressed. Instead of that, we find the Constitution speaking only to states, except in the territorial clause, which is absolute in its terms, and suggestive of no limitations upon the power of Congress in dealing with them. The states could only delegate to Congress such powers as they themselves possessed, and as they had no power to acquire new territory they had none to delegate in that connection. The logical inference from this is that if Congress had power to acquire new territory, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the constitutional provisions. If, upon the other hand, we assume [182 U.S. 244, 286] that the territorial clause of the Constitution was not intended to be restricted to such territory as the United States then possessed, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the power of Congress in dealing with them was intended to be restricted by any of the other provisions.

[. . .]

If those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible; and the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time, that ultimately our own theories may be carried out, and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid such action.

We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States[***] within the revenue clauses of the Constitution;

that the Foraker act is constitutional, so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case.

u][url url=”http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=182&page=244″]Downes v. Bidwell[/url][/u][url url=”http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=182&page=244″], 182 US 244 (1901)[/url

Seems to me that you are probably a student of Ed Rivera, who has some confused ideas about the meaning of geographical words of art within the Constitutional context that is clarified by the above. He is the only one we have seen before you who makes the distinctions you are making about “United States” as a word of art in the context of the Constitution.

http://edrivera.com

[fg_admin]

kd7one

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

[fg_admin]

Abu al.timmy

Is that all you can do? Criticize those who are trying to help you? No wonder you are having so much trouble in your family with divorce, in the courts with losing, and in your job (losing it) being “sovereign”: Your attitude. When you quit demanding your “rights” and for people to serve you, quit criticizing others, focus on more positive things and ideas instead of people, and just show a little respect and civility, then you will finally begin reaping what you seek. You can only deserve respect if you are willing to give it.

Your attitude determines your altitude, and you're in the gutter because of that attitude. Nobody likes a whiner and whiners always end up abandoned and shunned. Your attitude is attracting evil into your life, and will probably attract undue government attention as well at some point, because corruption in government is the origin of most of the evils in society today. The government fraud feeds on rewarding and encouraging evil in the populace and they seem to gravitate towards prideful and sinful people who are easier to exploit. The Bible says that pride comes before destruction and haughtiness before a fall. The only thing the government wants to do is destroy and enslave you rather than protect you. Hence, the weapon of choice is to pick on prideful people who won't listen.

Bing,

Nice call.

[fg_admin]

Dennisl,

We're glad to hear that our materials are raising more than a few eyebrows and waking complacent Americans from the long and deep slumber they were put into by our failing public fool academy, the public “GOVERNMENT” schools.

1. Social security IS the root of all their extraterritorial authority in states of the Union, along with possibly drivers licensing. Both are franchises and presume a domicile on federal territory. See:

1.1 Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Em…stIndenture.pdf

1.2 Great IRS Hoax, Section 5.2.6

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatI…reatIRSHoax.htm

2. There are two types of liens: Contract liens and judgment liens issued by courts. Contract liens include those arising by operation of franchises, because all franchises are contracts, including the income tax “trade or business” franchise as well as Social Security. “Notice of liens” under the I.R.C. are, in fact, statutory liens that originate from contract, and the contract is the I.R.C. Subtitle A itself because it is a franchise. See:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

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

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

3. The constitution is law for GOVERNMENT, not the Sovereign People. It obligates the people to NOTHING because it is a delegation of authority order from the Sovereign People to their SERVANTS in government. It creates a trust and a public corporation and the officers of that corporation are trustees of the people. It couldn't lawfully obligate a Sovereign, which is We the People who wrote it. The sovereign is not the subject of the law but the author of it. See:

3.1 Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and not Private Persons, Form #05.037

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

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

3.2 No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. Lysander Spooner

http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/In…r/NoTreason.htm

Your questions are anticipated and answered by following. Please follow it because these issues are already addressed in the curricula documented in section 2 of the following. Try to structure your study more, so that you have a better foundation before coming here and demanding answers to questions that are already answered:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

Please resist the temptation to burden others with doing the study and answering the questions that you as a Sovereign ought to be studying, answering yourself, and posting the answers here. These forums are a last resort to get questions answered and people who come here ought to indicate what they have done to answer their own questions before they post those questions here. We don't want to reward laziness, but rather help only those who are exercising “due diligence” and therefore who want to EARN the right to be called a Sovereign just as our founding fathers did. One can only deserve what he/she is willing to earn. One can only deserve an answer if they are willing to try to answer their question first themselves. That is the Golden Rule spoken of by Jesus and please don't ask us to break it. Those who break it invite evil, injustice, and “co-dependent” people into their lives.

Thanks for your commitment to the truth and studying and spreading it. Take your TV to the dump and keep studying. There is hope for you yet.

[fg_admin]

Hilarious! 😆

[fg_admin]

Hilarious!

😆 😆

[fg_admin]

Franklin,

Simply fantastic! Your perspective is unique, very insightful, and has definitely expanded our thinking. Thank you for giving members of this forum a new and precise way to look at and explain what they instinctively have always felt but couldn't quite describe in simple terms.

We emphasize that the skill of being good at identifying and explaining cognitive dissonance to the common man is probably the most important thing to develop if you want to scare the jack booted thugs in government away from criminally prosecuting you for exposing their own violations of law or expecting them to remedy them. We believe that is why they have left this ministry alone criminally for the last ten years, even though we have done more damage to their unconstitutional and unlawful plunder program than anyone we have ever seen: Because we have made a career out of exposing, explaining, and remedying cognitive dissonance in the legal and administrative operations of the government. We're not bragging, but simply stating a fact.

We would also like to add that lawyering as well as psychology both require the ability to recognize and explain cognitive dissonance more than all other professions combined. Pointing out hypocrisy and contradictions are the main method by which psycologists fix harmful behavior and lawyers prosecute those engaging in it. Jesus Himself was the Master of this field, and He did it by responding to inquiries by others with yet more questions. He used the “Socratic Method” to expose and persecute “cognitive dissonance” when people came and asked Him for something. He used parables to compel them to apply the truth to their own lives in a very real way and yet encrypt his message to avoid being controversial. His contempt for the Pharisees and the Saducees and the lawyers criticized them for the hypocrisy and the “cognitive dissonance” that is at the heart of the dissonance. If you want to learn from the Master on this subject, read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the new testament of the Bible. VERY instructive.

We use Jesus' Socratic method in spades throughout these forums and all of our published materials. It is the core of what we do, and we didn't even have a name to explain the method or unify our thinking on the method until recently, thanks to people like you. Yet, the method just came instinctively through the Holy Spirit. Until we knew it was called the “Socratic Method” in the psychology field, we gave it our own name: The Jesus Approach. Socrates invented the approach, because he came before Jesus, but Jesus brought the technique to its highest level of refinement, which is summarized in the scripture below:

Quote:

“For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.”

[1 Peter 2:15-16, Bible, NKJV]

The end goal you should pursue in administratively getting what you want and to avoid litigation is to put your opponent in the corrupt government into a corner where they are convicted with their own silence, and to do it with incisive questions that focus on subjects that they want to hide and avoid because it exposes their fraud. Force them to pull out the “fig leaf” and cover themselves up in front of the jury. The end result is that they convict themselves with SILENCE. See:

Silence as a Weapon and a Defense in Legal Discovery, Form #05.021

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

For more on the Socratic Method, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

The Socratic Method is also the foundation of modern legal discovery, including depositions and interrogatories. Any truly good legal pleading will also use the Socratic Method to ridicule the “cognitive dissonance” of the opponent. Every good legal argument has to be free from cognitive dissonance because the truth cannot conflict with itself. The following cite explains that the key to discerning the meaning of a statute is to seek out ways to interpret it that are entirely consistent with everything else you know about law:

Quote:

It is, of course, true that statutory construction [or interpretation] “is a holistic endeavor” and that the meaning of a provision is “clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme … [when] only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law [free of cognitive dissonance].” United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988).[U.S. v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200, 121 S.Ct. 1433 (2001)]

If you have time to study nothing else, study this method.

If you REALLY want the thugs to leave you alone, you should develop the ability to:

1. Immediately identify and explain the “cognitive dissonance” of your opponent. This involves looking for contradictions, hypocrisy, and violations of equal protection. See:

Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033

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

2. Ask questions that force them to admit the contradictions in their own thinking. Focus on subjects that you know they want to hide or avoid and which are fairly simple and straightforward. Then tell them that if they are silent, then they agree pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b) (6), which says that a failure to deny is an admission.

3. Insist that they play by all the same rules that they expect you to follow. For instance, if they enslave you with franchises and procure your consent to participate fraudulently then you should insiste on the EQUAL right to enforce your ANTI-franchise franchises against them to defend yourself.

4. Define all the words in advance so they can't wiggle out of the argument using “words of art”. Define all the words so they benefit you. That way, if they do try to wiggle out of the argument with these words, you can say your opponent agrees. If he wants to disagree, he is going to have to admit he is playing games with you using weasel words, and this is going to look very obvious to the judge and jury.

5. Finally, to make a huge funny and entertaining joke out of how idiotic they look in front of a jury of average Americans.

If you want to see how the Socratic Method is practically applied, you can watch it on Court TV or in the series Boston Legal. Alan Shore loves using it. If you want to take courses on it, take a good philosophy course in college.

THIS, people is the KEY to simply being left alone and to enjoy your inalienable rights. It is THE most important thing a freedom lover can master.

Franklin also distinguishes the blessed from the cursed by their level of interest in eliminating cognitive dissonance. He correctly concludes that those who seek out knowledge and truth can avoid the harm that the less curious experience. This, too, is biblical:

Quote:

“Wisdom calls aloud outside; she raises her voice in the open squares, she cries out in the chief concourses, at the openings of the gates in the city she speaks her words; how long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge. Turn at my rebuke; surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you. Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, because you disdained my counsel [and My law: God's law], and would have none of my rebuke, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror [and the IRS] comes. When your terror [and the IRS] comes like a storm, and your destruction comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they will not find me. Because they hated knowledge [and were too lazy and complacent to seek it out], and did not choose the fear of the Lord. They have none of my counsel and despised my every rebuke. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies. For the turning away of the simple will slay them. And the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me [God and the wisdom that comes ONLY from God] will dwell safely, and will be secure, without fear of evil.”

[Prov. 1:20-33, Bible, NKJV]