fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Neo,
Thanks for that thorough analysis. Iron is definitely sharpening iron here. Some observations so far:
1. I guess you agree on my analysis of the term “continential United States” as including only federal territory, so I won that argument.
2. The terms “Alaska and Hawaii” found in 8 USC 1101(a)(38) are not bothersome because the term “geographical sense” is used. This is the same scam used in the I.R.C. at 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and it is really just a red herring designed to destroy the separation of civil and criminal jurisdiction between states of the Union and the federal government. This implies that there are other senses as well as the “geographical sense” within Title 8. Nowhere in 8 U.S.C. is the geographical sense of “United States” directly invoked or stated, for instance, nor is it ever implied that EVERY use of the word is the “geographical sense”. If it did imply that, then they wouldn't even need to use the phrase “geographical sense” in order to qualify the definition, now would they? That definition is therefore a red herring and the true intent is found in 8 USC 1101(a)(36). Therefore, it is unreasonable to PRESUME that any of the senses used imply geographical sense unless it is specifically identified as such. Otherwise, it can only mean the territorial sense, which means federal territory that is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any state of the Union.
Quote:“Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction. American Banana Company v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 357 , 29 S. Sup. Ct. 511, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047. In Patterson v. Bark Eudora, supra, this court declared such legislation as to foreign vessels in United States ports to be constitutional. We think that [size size=-1][248 U.S. 185, 196] [/size]there is nothing in this section to show that Congress intended to take over the control of such contracts and payments as to foreign vessels except while they were in our ports. Congress could not prevent the making of such contracts in other jurisdictions. If they saw fit to do so, foreign countries would continue to permit such contracts and advance payments no matter what our declared law or policy in regard to them might be as to vessels coming to our ports.”[Sandberg v. McDonald, 248 U.S. 185 (1918)]
3. A discussion of the significance of Alaska and Hawaii in the definition also appears in Form #05.008, Section 7. That analysis concludes that these terms imply federal territory within these states and not the entire state.
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf
4. 40 USC 3111 and 3112 establish that the United States does not have jurisdiction in a state unless the land has been ceded to the national government by the state and the national government correspondingly ACCEPTS that jurisdiction. Consistent with this separation of powers issue, the term “United States” cannot include anything other than federal territory, which admittedly could ALSO include federal territory within a sovereign state of the Union but would NOT include land under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…12—-000-.html
The above is also consistent with the following:
Quote:“It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.”[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
4. You still didn't deal with the troubling issue of how I can be a statutory “resident” (alien) and yet also a constitutional “citizen” at the same time in relation to the very same legal person that has jurisdiction over BOTH statuses. I was hoping you would crack that safe, but you left it to me. The only way out of that quagmire is the following logic that you didn't point out:
4.1 Both the “United States” and the “District of Columbia” are private corporations and not governments. This is exhaustively proven with evidence, in fact, by the following:
Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
4.2 “citizens” and “residents” are really just “public officers” within the “United States” corporation and that is the ONLY reason they are the proper subject of statutory law to begin with. That is why I.R.C. 864(c )(3) defines ALL “sources within the United States” the way that it does, which is “trade or business” earnings.
4.3 It doesn't matter whether you are a “citizen” or “resident” because the subject of the tax is the office, not the officer. Citizenship status is really just a distraction to take attention off the fact that this is an excise and what activity is the subject of the tax. Hence, being “effectively connected with a trade or business” really just means lawfully occupying a public office. The earnings from the office are the only REAL “income” or “gross income”, and ALL such earnings constitute “profit” and “corporate profit”, because you are an officer of that corporation loaned out as a kelly girl to private employers.
5. The definition of “resident” in Blacks' Law Dictionary confirms that there are many meanings to the term, at least one of which may and probably does have NOTHING to do with one's citizenship. However, until there is a statute that expressly confirms that, making presumptions would be unwarranted and prejudicial.
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/resident.htm
No doubt, those in the District of Criminals will never admit the above in the I.R.C because they don't want you realizing that it's really just a franchise/excise tax within the government that doesn't pertain to private parties rather than a constitutional tax that is even relevant to a state of the Union. Omission of such key facts in the code is, in fact, the main mechanism for promoting more “voluntary compliance” and recruting more people into becoming “taxpayers” slaves, most of whom are committing a crime to even volunteer in violation of 18 USC 912.
6. You didn't address how a retired person who formerly held a federal commissioned office in the military can lawfully be engaged in a “public office” or owe a tax and therefore you must agree with my analysis. In your case as a commissioned officer in the military, I would expect that you would want to pay income taxes on the pay or retired pay from the office, but I don't see how that could be counted as “trade or business” earnings. If it isn't, how can it be taxed lawfully? The filing of information returns against these payments is a FRAUD because you aren't engaged in a “trade or business” as required by 26 USC 6041(a), and therefore technically, you can't owe a tax, even as a former “public officer” and commissioned officer who is retired and no longer occupying the office. Tax liability attaches to domicile, and the only way one can have a domicile in the District of Columbia, which is what the “United States” is defined as in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) is to occupy a public office and be an officer of a federal corporation at the time of receipt of payment. Otherwise, if you are simply receiving federal payments, which you called “U.S. source” income, then the tax can't be owing. Likewise, you can't be a “resident” without your consent. That status was defined earlier in relation to your “intention”, and if you didn't intend to have a domicile there and never physically occupied D.C., you can't be a resident or even a “taxpayer”. PERIOD. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm
7. It is illegal and unconstitutional to establish or enforce any federal franchise within the exterior limits of a state of the Union. That is what the U.S. Supreme Court held in the License Tax Cases. The reason is that it violates the separation of powers.
7.1 Governments can't enforce their franchises without civil jurisdiction, because all franchises are enforced ONLY as civil law that attaches to domicile. The minute you detach domicile from the equation is the minute the law becomes unenforceable by a REAL government and only becomes enforceable by a private person that does not and cannot assert any of the privileges or immunities associated with being a government. At that point, it becomes a private contract issue in equity and NOT a tax issue at all.
7.2 Certainly, non-governmental corporations such as McDonald's engage in franchises outside of the state they are domiciled in all the time, such as in foreign countries. However, any entity that claims to be a “government” and a “body politic” simply can't do that and if it does, it must be treated as a private corporation operating in equity that cannot assert or maintain any kind of immunity.
7.3 Since the courts routinely assert sovereign immunity to protect tax plunder, then the only kind of franchise they can be talking about is a governmental franchise rather than private franchise that has domicile as a prerequisite. Therefore, they have the burden of PROVING that the subject of the tax, meaning the officer and not the office, has a domicille on their territory or drop the enforcement.
7.4 As we have been saying all along, tax liability can only occur as a CONFLUENCE of BOTH domicile (of the officer and NOT the office) and engaging in a franchise (“trade or business” in this case). That is why the IRS, when it does substitute for returns on people, always uses a RESIDENT form, which is the 1040. They aren't allowed to use a nonresident form such as the 1040NR to implement SFRs because nonresidents don't have a domicile and therefore can't have a tax liability.
Quote:See Jones, 1 Cl.Ct. at 85 (“Wherever the public and private acts of the government seem to commingle, a citizen or corporate body must by supposition be substituted in its place, and then the question be determined whether the action will lie against the supposed defendant“); O'Neill v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 823, 826 (1982) (sovereign acts doctrine applies where, “[w]ere [the] contracts exclusively between private parties, the party hurt by such governing action could not claim compensation from the other party for the governing action”). The dissent ignores these statements (including the statement from Jones, from which case Horowitz drew its reasoning literally verbatim), when it says, post at 931, that the sovereign acts cases do not emphasize the need to treat the government-as-contractor the same as a private party.[United States v. Winstar Corp. 518 U.S. 839 (1996)]
-
Bill Thornton and his website:
1. Are simply proving the content of the following indirectly:
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
2. Are going down the same road as John Harris, in emphasizing that every government employee wears two hats, one statutory and one common law:
3. Are showing people how to property invoke the common law in a court so that they don't become victimized by what are mainly statutory franchises. 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
We applaud what he is doing, but it would be a lot more useful if he put it in printed form that includes procedures, checklists, and practice guides. Listening to audios without seeing actual pleading examples only reaches a portion of the audience he needs to reach. Those wishing to know more about how to litigate using the common law instead of statutory law should visit:
Sovereignty and Freedom Page, Sections 7.2 and 7.3:
-
Please quit posting IRS issues in the social security forum. It belongs in “dealing administratively with the irs”.
You need to develop legal research skills, and chapter 3 of the Great IRS Hoax teaches you this. We also highly recommend watching the Website Video Orientation at SEDM, which teaches you hard core skills for doing legal research. Click on “Website Video Orientation” on the opening page:
Everything you could possibly want to know about how to describe your domicile is contained in the following, which is part of the Path to Freedom curricula. It's pointless to repeat that discussion here or clutter these forums with questions that are already anticipated and answered in the approved curricula and in the article below.
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm
These forums are for NEW research that is not already covered in the Path to Freedom. We aren't a reference service and you are disrespecting and injuring people in these forums by not doing the homework and the due dilligence that is mandatory in order to participate in the first place. Expediency is no excuse. Please follow the Path the Freedom at the top of most pages as “START HERE”. To do otherwise would be to reward people for being lazy and refusing to do their own homework or take responsibility for themselves.
Please don't ask us which option to use described in the article above, because that is your choice and no one here can or may give you advice. It's against our Prohibited Activities in section 12 of our About Us Page (http://famguardian.org/aboutus.htm) for either us or a Member to give legal advice or exercise power of attorney for others. Being presented with the options available and making your own choice is the most you can or will get here. If you need more than that, you are on the wrong website and will never be sovereign. This isn't a place for small talk or sharing “feelings”, but a place to SHARE your original research, subject it to peer review of some very talented fellow researchers, and debate it with other researchers and freedom lovers like yourself. If all you ever do is take from these forums, you're abusing the privilege of being here, because all are expected to pull their own weight and give as much as they take. In case you haven't noticed, this is a WAR we are engaging in against corruption, and we need all the ammunition and fighting men and women that we collectively can muster. One of the main purposes of these forums is to accumulate ammunition you can use in court to defend yourself from unlawful and corrupt practices by the government and the legal priesthood of licensed attorneys who are its merceniaries and deacons of its state sponsored religion of socialism.
When are you going to start giving by answering other people's questions or posting your own original research instead of only taking?
-
The entire staff of the Treasury and IRS from the Congressional Quarterly appears on the following:
Important Government Contacts Page
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Contacts/Contacts.htm
The IRS is section 7. Look under “IRS Directory”.
Please refer to that page with any similar questions in the future.
-
Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center catastrophe
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con…a&aid=13049
version of what was linked here yesterday
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content….0001/7TOCPJ.SGM
See also:
http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/
Anyone who still believes in the official Conspiracy Theory is either stupid or afraid to see the truth. — Lord Stirling
-
Neo,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, which are interesting and original (as usual, of course). I will now briefly summarize the position you are advocating and trying to prove:
1. A constitutional “citizen” and a statutory “citizen” under Title 8 of the U.S. Code are synonymous.
2. The term “United States” as used in Title 8 includes both federal territory and states of the Union.
3. The term “United States” within Title 26 is not the same “United States” found in Title 8.
4. A “citizen” under Title 8 is not the same as a “citizen” under Title 26, because the “United States” they are a referring to in Title 26 does not include states of the Union.
We disagree with the above conclusions because they violate the separation of powers between the states and the federal government that is the foundation of the constitution. Your analysis overlooks the affect of that separation upon the definitions in federal civil statutory law and upon civil and criminal jurisdiction of the states and the federal government in relation to each other. The separation of powers doctrine is described in the following document:
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The separation of powers doctrine implies a complete separation of both civil and criminal jurisdiction. All federal civil law, including that regulating both citizenship and income taxation, attaches to federal territory ONLY and to those with a domicile on federal territory wherever physically situated so long as they meet the presence test described in 26 USC 7701( :cool:(4)( :cool:.
1. One can only have a domicile in one of the two separate physical places at a time: Either within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
2. Domicile implies allegiance to ONE and only ONE of these TWO sovereigns. That allegiance and the protection it affords cannot be divided allegiance. All tax liability is a civil liability that attaches to domicile, and since you can only be domicled in one of the two mutually exclusive jurisdictions at a time, you can only have allegiance to one of the two masters and owe tax to that one master. This is proven by several court cites on the subject:
“The States, after they formed the Union, continued to have the same range of taxing power which they had before, barring only duties affecting exports, imports, and on tonnage. 2Congress, on the other hand, to lay taxes in order ‘to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States’, Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S.C.A.Const., can reach every person and every dollar in the land with due regard to Constitutional limitations as to the method of laying taxes.”
[Graves v. People of State of New York, 306 U.S. 466 (1939)]
________________________________________________________________________________
“The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power which springs from the bankruptcy clause. United States v. Butler, supra.”
[Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, 298 U.S. 513; 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936)]
_________________________________________________________________________
“The grant of the power to lay and collect taxes is, like the power to regulate commerce, made in general terms, and has never been understood to interfere with the exercise of the same power by the State; and hence has been drawn an argument which has been applied to the question under consideration. But the two grants are not, it is conceived, similar in their terms or their nature. Although many of the powers formerly [22 U.S. 1, 199] exercised by the States, are transferred to the government of the Union, yet the State governments remain, and constitute a most important part of our system. The power of taxation is indispensable to their existence, and is a power which, in its own nature, is capable of residing in, and being exercised by, different authorities at the same time. We are accustomed to see it placed, for different purposes, in different hands. Taxation is the simple operation of taking small portions from a perpetually accumulating mass, susceptible of almost infinite division; and a power in one to take what is necessary for certain purposes, is not, in its nature, incompatible with a power in another to take what is necessary for other purposes. Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, and to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. This does not interfere with the power of the States to tax [internally] for the support of their own governments; nor is the exercise of that power by the States [to tax INTERNALLY], an exercise of any portion of the power that is granted to the United States [to tax EXTERNALLY]. In imposing taxes for State purposes, they are not doing what Congress is empowered to do. Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. When, then, each government exercises the power of taxation, neither is exercising the power of the other. But, when a State proceeds to regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, it is exercising the very power that is granted to Congress, [22 U.S. 1, 200] and is doing the very thing which Congress is authorized to do. There is no analogy, then, between the power of taxation and the power of regulating commerce. “
[Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 21 (1824)]
3. An overlap of these two jurisdictions is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, even in the case of franchises. All franchises are implemented using civil law, and that civil law attaches to the domicile of the participant and NOT the domicile of the office occupied by the participant. For instance, 20 CFR 422.104 says that only “citizens and residents” can participate in Social Security, and they must be statutory and not constitutional “citizens and residents” BEFORE they join, not AFTER they join. You cannot be either of these two things BEFORE you join without a physical presence on federal territory BEFORE you made application to participate, and no one we know of meets this qualification.
4. What the SSA is doing is using the SS-5 application:
4.1 As a way to transform constitutional citizens and residents into statutory “citizens and residents”. This is IDENTITY THEFT, because it kidnaps your legal identity and moves it to a foreign civil jurisdiction you would not otherwise be subject to. The only way you can consent to the civil laws of a de jure government is by meeting the legal requirement for domicile within that jurisdiciton, which means you must physically reside in that place now or in the past, and have an intention to remain. Simply “claiming” on a government form that you are a “citizen” or a “resident” without actually meeting said qualification BEFORE making application is a fraud upon that government. It is this sort of fraud that is the heart of how the separation of powers doctrine is being violated to destroy the sovereignty of the states and the people in them. It’s all being done with smoke and mirrors and “words of art” juggling of geographic terms.
4.2 Violating the qualifications requirements found in 20 CFR 422.104, which require that only statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizens and permanent residents” can apply to participate in SS.
4.3 To create a public office that didn’t exist, make the office into a citizen, and make you into a citizen because you volunteered to occupy the office, regardless of what you started out as. In effect, they are violating the laws on domicile as a way to manufacure “taxpayers” that don’t lawfully exist so they can plunder otherwise private property and reach outside of federal territory into foreign states to steal from the cookie jar, which are the sovereign and separate and foreign states.
4.4 They are acting as a private corporation and not a government by ignorning the domicile requirement in the law. A private company could contract with you for anything you aree with, but a REAL de jure government must implement every civil contract with civil law that attaches to a REAL domicile. The minute the domicile requirement is either waived through policy, overlooked, or ignored is the minute the party offering it ceases to be a government, waives sovereign immunity, and devolves to a private de facto corporation, which in fact is REALLY what we have. Below is an example:
See also Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 369 (1943) (“`The United States does business on business terms‘”) (quoting United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534 (1926)); Perry v. United States, supra at 352 (1935) (“When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference . . . except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent“) (citation omitted); United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66 (1877) (“The United States, when they contract with their citizens, are controlled by the same laws that govern the citizen in that behalf“); Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 398 (1875) (explaining that when the United States “comes down from its position of sovereignty, and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals there“).
See Jones, 1 Cl.Ct. at 85 (“Wherever the public and private acts of the government seem to commingle, a citizen or corporate body must by supposition be substituted in its place, and then the question be determined whether the action will lie against the supposed defendant“); O’Neill v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 823, 826 (1982) (sovereign acts doctrine applies where, “[w]ere [the] contracts exclusively between private parties, the party hurt by such governing action could not claim compensation from the other party for the governing action”). The dissent ignores these statements (including the statement from Jones, from which case Horowitz drew its reasoning literally verbatim), when it says, post at 931, that the sovereign acts cases do not emphasize the need to treat the government-as-contractor the same as a private party.
Our Contract Clause cases have demonstrated a similar concern with governmental self-interest by recognizing that “complete deference to a legislative assessment of reasonableness and necessity is not appropriate because the State’s self-interest is at stake.” United States Trust Co. of N.Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 26 (1977); see also Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 412-413, and n. 14 (1983) (noting that a stricter level of scrutiny applies under the Contract Clause when a State alters its own contractual obligations); cf. Perry, supra at 350-351 (drawing a “clear distinction” between Congress’ power over private contracts and “the power of the Congress to alter or repudiate the substance of its own engagements”).
The generality requirement will almost always be met where, as in Deming, the governmental action “bears upon [the government’s contract] as it bears upon all similar contracts between citizens.” Deming v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 190, 191 (1865). Deming is less helpful, however, in cases where, as here, the public contracts at issue have no obvious private analogs.
[United States v. Winstar Corp. 518 U.S. 839 (1996)]
You conveniently omitted the definition of “State” from Title 8 from your analysis, which is as follows:
(a) Definitions
(36) State [Aliens and Nationality]
The term ”State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
Note that the above definition does not use any qualifiers, such as “for the purposes of this section” or “for the purposes of this chapter”. Therefore, it applies universally throughout Title 8 of the U.S. Code. The above definition of “State” is the same “State” within the term “serveral States” as used in the definition of “United States” found in 8 CFR 215.1 earlier:
[Title 8, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 8CFR215]
TITLE 8–ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER I–IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 215–CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES[url url=”http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=6518394637+64+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve”]Section 215.1: Definitions[/url]
(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several [url url=”http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/State.htm”]States[/url], except Alaska and Hawaii.
Under the rules of statutory construction and the exclusio rule, if the states of the Union are not expressly included within the above regulation or SOMEWHERE within the title 8, then they are purposefully excluded by implication:
“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”
[[url url=”http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=530&page=914″]Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)[/url]]Therefore, the term “continential United States” includes only the federal statutory “States” defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(36), and therefore excludes sovereign states of the Union for the purposes of control over aliens in Title 8. This is also consistent with the definition of “residence” found in the regulations, whereby the ONLY “persons” who can have a “residence” within the I.R.C. are aliens and NOT “citizens” or even “statutory citizens”:
Title 26: Internal Revenue
[url url=”http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=e0619b459f40451adeb75f1629d0d6f9;rgn=div5;view=text;node=26%3A9.0.1.1.1;idno=26;cc=ecfr”]PART 1INCOME TAXES[/url]
[url url=”http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=e0619b459f40451adeb75f1629d0d6f9;rgn=div7;view=text;node=26%3A9.0.1.1.1.0.7;idno=26;cc=ecfr”]nonresident alien individuals[/url]
[url url=”http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=84a11ecf1b28e1b5612ef0ed2e5074cc&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:9.0.1.1.1.0.7.112&idno=26″]§ 1.871-2 Determining residence of alien individuals.[/url]( 😎 Residence defined.
An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien makes his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Tax liability attaches to domicile, which in the I.R.C. is referred to as “residence”. Since only “aliens” can have a “residence” as shown above, then only aliens can have a tax liability. NOWHERE is the term “residence” defined to relate to a a “citizen” of any kind. Even statutory “U.S. citizens” pursuant to 8 USC 1401 can be “aliens” in relation to the statutory but not constitutional “United States” under 26 USC 911 while they are abroad, because they are aliens in relation to the foreign country they temporarily occupy and interface to the code as aliens under a tax treaty, as we have discussed before.
Your analysis also overlooks the fact that whether you are talking about the federal government of the constitutional but statutory “States” or the national government of the municipal District of Columbia, the term “alien” must be relative to EITHER of these two separate jurisdictions because both jurisdictions are owned and controlled by the same legal person. That legal person is a federal corporate fiction called the “United States” (28 USC 3002(15)(A)) which is a foreign state with respect to every state of the Union for the purposes of civil legislative jurisdiction.
[url url=”http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/UnitedStates-19CJS883to884.pdf”]19 Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), United States, §§883-884[/url]:
The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
If one is in fact and in deed an “alien” in relation to one of these two distinct jurisdictions, they must ALSO be an alien in relation to BOTH jurisdictions, because the status of being an alien is in relation to the central government in BOTH cases, not just one of them. Otherwise, your analysis suggests a contradiction, which is that one can be an alien for the purposes of the municipal District of Columbia but not an alien for the purpose of federal jurisdiction. Am I missing something here? You state that some courts call the nonresident alien position “frivolous”. I wish you would be MUCH more specific by citing a few cases so we have something to respond to. There are several rebuttals to such nonsense in section 21 of the following pamphlet, and you didn’t respond to these rebuttals, so we don’t know what to say without further details:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
[url url=”http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm”]http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm[/url]The word “frivolous” by an alleged “court” really just proves that the judge is operating in a political capacity over franchises under Article IV as an officer within the legislative branch, rather than in a legal capacity as a true article III judge. The only thing a REAL article III judge can do is produce the statute that includes what he wants to include in the definition of a term and if he can’t, to declare that he has no jurisdiction. Anything more than that amounts to a violation of the separation of powers by involving the so called “court” in political questions and bestowing upon it the authority to in effect “legislate from the bench” without authority through omission. The abuse of the word “frivolous” doesn’t serve the function of identitying the authority by which something is “included” and therefore, any judge who uses the word is really just admitting that he can’t operate in a legal capacity but rather in an administrative capacity as a corporate arbitrator over the “trade or business” franchise. He is in effect little more than an administrative corporate binding arbitration board for federal property, because all franchises are property of the Creator, which is the government if it is a government franchise.
You state that there isn’t anything wrong with being an “individual” or a “nonresident alien individual” under the civil provisions of the I.R.C. I argue that you are WRONG because:
1. The I.R.C. imposes duties upon “nonresident alien individuals” at 26 CFR 1.6012-1( 😎 to file tax returns. The only way they could lawfully impose such a duty is if that legal “person” had a domicile on their territory and lawfully occupied a public office BEFORE they filled out any tax form or franchise form. No tax form can be used to CREATE any new public offices, but rather can only serve to regulate the exercise of EXISTING public offices already lawfully occupied.
2. You can’t lawfully acquire a domicile or residence in a place by exercising your right to contract. The law of domicile requires a physical presence in a place BEFORE you can have a domicile or residence there. Therefore, you can’t become either a “citizen”, a “resident”, or an “individual” in relation to federal territory simply by signing an SS-5 form if you have never LIVED on federal territory. We agree that those who are commissioned officers in the government and who lawfully occupy an elected or appointed position can be “individuals”, and 5 USC 2105(a) proves that they are individuals. When they agree to accept the commission in fact, they must change their effective domicile under F.R.Civ.P. 17( 😎 to the District of Columbia while serving because if they didn’t, there would be a separation of powers problem. If the Declaration of Independence says our rights are “unalienable”, then there is no way for us to contract them away to a real, de jure government unless we are physically situationed in a place where the constitution doesn’t recognize them, which is federal territory. However, we also emphasize that an ordinary American domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state who is neither elected nor appointed lawfully to a “public office” cannot use any tax or franchise form as a method to unilaterally “elect” him or herself into a public office, and they also would not and cannot meet the statutory requirements for lawfully occupying a public office. Those requirements are documented in section 11 of the following:
[url url=”http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm”]http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm[/url]3. Therefore, is constitutes a fraud upon the “United States” to allow anyone not already lawfully occupying a public office, such as most Americans, to participate or even make application to participate in any federal franchise, including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment compensation, driver’s licensing, and marriage licensing, all of which MUST presuppose a physical presence and domicile on federal territory at the time application is made in order to avoid separation of powers problems that would otherwise result.
You may want to go back and reread the domicile article below, which proves that you can’t be physically domiciled in a single place and at the same time be subject to two mutually exclusive civil jurisdictions at the same time. State and federal civil jurisdictions DO NOT overlap, except in a few very rare circumstances that DO NOT include jurisdiction to even define one’s citizenship. Think about it: If the U.S. could even define the citizenship status of people in the states using civil law, they could kidnap everyone and move them all to federal territory, leaving the states with no one to govern or protect.
We won’t come to the bottom of this matter until wishful thinking and naive assumptions on your part stop and we look at the WHOLE truth, not just the portion you know about or which benefits you. Try not to allow self-interest or ignorance to cloud your judgment as it seems to have done so far. Don’t take this personally, but consider it to be an academic matter worthy of your full attention. We attack ideas, not people, on this website. It’s evident why you are advocating the position you take, which is that you want to be able to collect the perks associated with a commissioned office in the military as a retiree, while also being a “nontaxpayer” in the context of your private earnings that do not originate from the national government. You want to pay tax on the retirement check and not your other earnings, and you want to defend your right to do both with the law. Your desire to avoid throwing all that faithful service time in the toilet because you want to avoid being a “tapayer” but still receive the “benefit” of retirement income is understandable. There is a way to approach this situation that does accomplish that result and it is the ONLY way you can approach it without contradicting some portion of our earlier dialog. Keep in mind that even as a military retiree, it doesn’t seem as though that compensation could be taxable either because:
1. What you collect is deferred compensation.
2. As a retiree, you are no longer a commissioned officer. Therefore you are neither an “employee” as described in 5 USC 2105(a) nor a “taxpayer” nor a public officer engaged in the “trade or business” franchise.
3. The monies you do collect from retirement would originate from the “United States” and therefore “U.S. sources”, but could not be subject to tax without having information returns submitted against them. Any information return submitted in connection with such payments would be FALSE because you are not a public officer engaged in the “trade or business’ franchise as required by 26 USC 6041(a) if you no longer hold the commission.
Now let me establish a way for you to prove our research (not us, but our research) incorrect:
1. Show me a definition of “State” within Title 8 that includes any state of the Union. It DOESN’T exist. Even if “continential United States” means the 50 states, that is ONLY the case with aliens because aliens are subject to federal jurisdiction even within states of the Union. The same requirements, however, DO NOT apply to constitutional “citizens”. This is explained above in Form #05.020, Section 21.1.2.
2. Explain how you can be an alien and a constitutional “Citizen” at the same time in relation to the SAME government responsibile for both the District of Columbia and federal law. These two statuses are mutually exclusive.
3. Explain how a “resident” (alien) can lawfully serve in a public office in the U.S. government. Only constitutional citizens can lawfully serve in public offices in the government, and you can’t be an alien and a citizen at the same time:
4. Lack of Citizenship
§74. Aliens can not hold Office. – –It is a general principle that an alien can not hold a public office. In all independent popular governments, as is said by Chief Justice Dixon of Wisconsin, “it is an acknowledged principle, which lies at the very foundation, and the enforcement of which needs neither the aid of statutory nor constitutional enactments or restrictions, that the government is instituted by the citizens for their liberty and protection, and that it is to be administered, and its powers and functions exercised only by them and through their agency.”
In accordance with this principle it is held that an alien can not hold the office of sheriff.[url url=”http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm#_ftn1″][2][/url]
[A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Officers, Floyd Russell Mechem, 1890, p. 27, §74;
SOURCE: [url url=”http://books.google.com/books?id=g-I9AAAAI…page%5d”]http://books.google.com/books?id=g-I9AAAAI…page][/url]4. Explain how it is even possible to be a “taxpayer” as an alien, since all “taxpayers” are public officers and aliens can’t be public officers. See:
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You Are a “public officer” for income tax purposes, Form #05.008
[url url=”http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm”]http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm[/url]Until all the above conflicts are explained consistent with prevailing law without using the word “frivolous”, then the views described in Form #05.020 must stand because they are the only perspective that is both consistent with itself and consistent with every other source of law we can find. Otherwise, what you are advocating is little more than wishful thinking and a religion, because you can’t prove its existence with evidence.
We didn’t intend to blow your asbestos drawers off with this friendly interchange, but simply to analyze all the dissonance your perspective creates that renders it impossible to be the truth. The truth cannot conflict with itself or it isn’t the truth, and your position contradicts not only itself, but also other available law on the subject as we pointed out above.
Ciao!
[code of Federal Regulations][Title 8, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 8CFR215]
TITLE 8–ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER I–IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 215–CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES
(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii.
Under the rules of statutory construction and the exclusio rule, if the states of the Union are not expressly included within the above regulation or SOMEWHERE within the title 8, then they are purposefully excluded by implication:
“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”
Therefore, the term “continential United States” includes only the federal statutory “States” defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(36), and therefore excludes sovereign states of the Union for the purposes of control over aliens in Title 8. This is also consistent with the definition of “residence” found in the regulations, whereby the ONLY “persons” who can have a “residence” within the I.R.C. are aliens and NOT “citizens” or even “statutory citizens”:
Title 26: Internal Revenue
§ 1.871-2 Determining residence of alien individuals.
( 😎 Residence defined.
An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien makes his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Tax liability attaches to domicile, which in the I.R.C. is referred to as “residence”. Since only “aliens” can have a “residence” as shown above, then only aliens can have a tax liability. NOWHERE is the term “residence” defined to relate to a a “citizen” of any kind. Even statutory “U.S. citizens” pursuant to 8 USC 1401 can be “aliens” in relation to the statutory but not constitutional “United States” under 26 USC 911 while they are abroad, because they are aliens in relation to the foreign country they temporarily occupy and interface to the code as aliens under a tax treaty, as we have discussed before.
Your analysis also overlooks the fact that whether you are talking about the federal government of the constitutional but statutory “States” or the national government of the municipal District of Columbia, the term “alien” must be relative to EITHER of these two separate jurisdictions because both jurisdictions are owned and controlled by the same legal person. That legal person is a federal corporate fiction called the “United States” (28 USC 3002(15)(A)) which is a foreign state with respect to every state of the Union for the purposes of civil legislative jurisdiction.
19 Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), United States, §§883-884:
The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
If one is in fact and in deed an “alien” in relation to one of these two distinct jurisdictions, they must ALSO be an alien in relation to BOTH jurisdictions, because the status of being an alien is in relation to the central government in BOTH cases, not just one of them. Otherwise, your analysis suggests a contradiction, which is that one can be an alien for the purposes of the municipal District of Columbia but not an alien for the purpose of federal jurisdiction. Am I missing something here? You state that some courts call the nonresident alien position “frivolous”. I wish you would be MUCH more specific by citing a few cases so we have something to respond to. There are several rebuttals to such nonsense in section 21 of the following pamphlet, and you didn’t respond to these rebuttals, so we don’t know what to say without further details:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The word “frivolous” by an alleged “court” really just proves that the judge is operating in a political capacity over franchises under Article IV as an officer within the legislative branch, rather than in a legal capacity as a true article III judge. The only thing a REAL article III judge can do is produce the statute that includes what he wants to include in the definition of a term and if he can’t, to declare that he has no jurisdiction. Anything more than that amounts to a violation of the separation of powers by involving the so called “court” in political questions and bestowing upon it the authority to in effect “legislate from the bench” without authority through omission. The abuse of the word “frivolous” doesn’t serve the function of identitying the authority by which something is “included” and therefore, any judge who uses the word is really just admitting that he can’t operate in a legal capacity but rather in an administrative capacity as a corporate arbitrator over the “trade or business” franchise. He is in effect little more than an administrative corporate binding arbitration board for federal property, because all franchises are property of the Creator, which is the government if it is a government franchise.
You state that there isn’t anything wrong with being an “individual” or a “nonresident alien individual” under the civil provisions of the I.R.C. I argue that you are WRONG because:
1. The I.R.C. imposes duties upon “nonresident alien individuals” at 26 CFR 1.6012-1( 😎 to file tax returns. The only way they could lawfully impose such a duty is if that legal “person” had a domicile on their territory and lawfully occupied a public office BEFORE they filled out any tax form or franchise form. No tax form can be used to CREATE any new public offices, but rather can only serve to regulate the exercise of EXISTING public offices already lawfully occupied.
2. You can’t lawfully acquire a domicile or residence in a place by exercising your right to contract. The law of domicile requires a physical presence in a place BEFORE you can have a domicile or residence there. Therefore, you can’t become either a “citizen”, a “resident”, or an “individual” in relation to federal territory simply by signing an SS-5 form if you have never LIVED on federal territory. We agree that those who are commissioned officers in the government and who lawfully occupy an elected or appointed position can be “individuals”, and 5 USC 2105(a) proves that they are individuals. When they agree to accept the commission in fact, they must change their effective domicile under F.R.Civ.P. 17( 😎 to the District of Columbia while serving because if they didn’t, there would be a separation of powers problem. If the Declaration of Independence says our rights are “unalienable”, then there is no way for us to contract them away to a real, de jure government unless we are physically situationed in a place where the constitution doesn’t recognize them, which is federal territory. However, we also emphasize that an ordinary American domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state who is neither elected nor appointed lawfully to a “public office” cannot use any tax or franchise form as a method to unilaterally “elect” him or herself into a public office, and they also would not and cannot meet the statutory requirements for lawfully occupying a public office. Those requirements are documented in section 11 of the following:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm
3. Therefore, is constitutes a fraud upon the “United States” to allow anyone not already lawfully occupying a public office, such as most Americans, to participate or even make application to participate in any federal franchise, including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment compensation, driver’s licensing, and marriage licensing, all of which MUST presuppose a physical presence and domicile on federal territory at the time application is made in order to avoid separation of powers problems that would otherwise result.
You may want to go back and reread the domicile article below, which proves that you can’t be physically domiciled in a single place and at the same time be subject to two mutually exclusive civil jurisdictions at the same time. State and federal civil jurisdictions DO NOT overlap, except in a few very rare circumstances that DO NOT include jurisdiction to even define one’s citizenship. Think about it: If the U.S. could even define the citizenship status of people in the states using civil law, they could kidnap everyone and move them all to federal territory, leaving the states with no one to govern or protect.
We won’t come to the bottom of this matter until wishful thinking and naive assumptions on your part stop and we look at the WHOLE truth, not just the portion you know about or which benefits you. Try not to allow self-interest or ignorance to cloud your judgment as it seems to have done so far. Don’t take this personally, but consider it to be an academic matter worthy of your full attention. We attack ideas, not people, on this website. It’s evident why you are advocating the position you take, which is that you want to be able to collect the perks associated with a commissioned office in the military as a retiree, while also being a “nontaxpayer” in the context of your private earnings that do not originate from the national government. You want to pay tax on the retirement check and not your other earnings, and you want to defend your right to do both with the law. Your desire to avoid throwing all that faithful service time in the toilet because you want to avoid being a “tapayer” but still receive the “benefit” of retirement income is understandable. There is a way to approach this situation that does accomplish that result and it is the ONLY way you can approach it without contradicting some portion of our earlier dialog. Keep in mind that even as a military retiree, it doesn’t seem as though that compensation could be taxable either because:
1. What you collect is deferred compensation.
2. As a retiree, you are no longer a commissioned officer. Therefore you are neither an “employee” as described in 5 USC 2105(a) nor a “taxpayer” nor a public officer engaged in the “trade or business” franchise.
3. The monies you do collect from retirement would originate from the “United States” and therefore “U.S. sources”, but could not be subject to tax without having information returns submitted against them. Any information return submitted in connection with such payments would be FALSE because you are not a public officer engaged in the “trade or business’ franchise as required by 26 USC 6041(a) if you no longer hold the commission.
Now let me establish a way for you to prove our research (not us, but our research) incorrect:
1. Show me a definition of “State” within Title 8 that includes any state of the Union. It DOESN’T exist. Even if “continential United States” means the 50 states, that is ONLY the case with aliens because aliens are subject to federal jurisdiction even within states of the Union. The same requirements, however, DO NOT apply to constitutional “citizens”. This is explained above in Form #05.020, Section 21.1.2.
2. Explain how you can be an alien and a constitutional “Citizen” at the same time in relation to the SAME government responsibile for both the District of Columbia and federal law. These two statuses are mutually exclusive.
3. Explain how a “resident” (alien) can lawfully serve in a public office in the U.S. government. Only constitutional citizens can lawfully serve in public offices in the government, and you can’t be an alien and a citizen at the same time:
4. Lack of Citizenship
§74. Aliens can not hold Office. – –
It is a general principle that an alien can not hold a public office. In all independent popular governments, as is said by Chief Justice Dixon of Wisconsin, “it is an acknowledged principle, which lies at the very foundation, and the enforcement of which needs neither the aid of statutory nor constitutional enactments or restrictions, that the government is instituted by the citizens for their liberty and protection, and that it is to be administered, and its powers and functions exercised only by them and through their agency.”
In accordance with this principle it is held that an alien can not hold the office of sheriff.[2]
[A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Officers, Floyd Russell Mechem, 1890, p. 27, §74;
SOURCE: http://books.google.com/books?id=g-I9AAAAI…page]
4. Explain how it is even possible to be a “taxpayer” as an alien, since all “taxpayers” are public officers and aliens can’t be public officers. See:
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You Are a “public officer” for income tax purposes, Form #05.008
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Until all the above conflicts are explained consistent with prevailing law without using the word “frivolous”, then the views described in Form #05.020 must stand because they are the only perspective that is both consistent with itself and consistent with every other source of law we can find. Otherwise, what you are advocating is little more than wishful thinking and a religion, because you can’t prove its existence with evidence.
We didn’t intend to blow your asbestos drawers off with this friendly interchange, but simply to analyze all the dissonance your perspective creates that renders it impossible to be the truth. The truth cannot conflict with itself or it isn’t the truth, and your position contradicts not only itself, but also other available law on the subject as we pointed out above.
Ciao!
-
Deejay,
Fixed and reposted. Thanks again.
Admin
-
Dear deejay,
Thank you for your very helpful feedback so far. All of your changes have been implemented in the document and the document was reposted at:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Em…stIndenture.pdf
In the future, please also ensure that you include the document revision date in the lower left hand corner of the document so that we know which version you are referring to. Sometimes we get feedback on older versions of documents that aren't even available anymore. We shouldn't have to guess which version you are referring to.
Please keep your excellent suggestions coming.
-
QUESTION:
Thank you for your reply. Could you kindly show me the law that would make one liable for federal income taxes if they did provide government identifying numbers for such things as a bank account, drivers license, etc., to satisfy requirement number 1 in your reply.
If one can eliminate any information returns (requirement number 2 in your reply) from being sent to the irs by employers, etc. that should be all that is needed according to the law, but even then what law still would make one liable for federal income taxes.
Thank you for your kindness,
ANSWER:
The liability to file returns is imposed by 26 CFR 1.6012-1 upon government instrumentatlities who are public officers, including:
1. Statutory “U.S. persons” (per 26 USC 7701(a)(30)), which includes statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizens” and “U.S. residents”.
2. “nonresident alien individuals” (per 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3)) . Note that one may be a “nonresident” or a “nonresident alien” WITHOUT also being a “nonresident alien individual. An example of someone who is a “nonresident” and a “nonresident alien” who is NOT an “individual” would be a human being born anywhere in America but domiciled in a foreign state such as either a state of the Union or a foreign country. This is covered in the following:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Sections 2 and 3
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm26 CFR 1.6012-1 is published int he Federal Register and therefore binding upon the public per 5 USC 553(a) and 44 USC 1505(a). Those who therefore describe themselves on government forms as as “persons”, “U.S. persons”, “U.S. citizens”, “nonresident aliens”, or “taxpayers”, all of which are franchisees, government instrumentalities, and statutory creations of Congress are liable to all the duties imposed upon such franchisees, all of whom are government instrumentalities. This includes the legal duty to file tax returns per 26 CFR 1.6012-1. The liability to file return is exhaustively described in:
Legal Requirement to File Income Tax Returns, Form #05.009
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmThose who apply for a government identifying number create a prima facie presumption that they are “U.S. persons”, public officers, and government instrumentalities by applying under 26 USC 6109 and 26 CFR 301.6109-1, because the application for the number, the form W-9, says it is only for use by “U.S. persons”. Same for SSNs at 20 CFR 422.104. Note that applying for such a number:
1. Does not in fact and in deed MAKE one into a “U.S. person” who was not already lawfully occupying a public office BEFORE they applied.
2. Create any new public offices subject to tax within the government.Instead, filling out these forms simply makes the applicant LOOK like one of these government entities. That is what “prima facie” means: to look at first appearance like something. Anyone who fills out these forms to request a number therefore is also called a “dissumulated” person, meaning someone who is made to APPEAR to be what they in fact and in deed are NOT, for the purposes of making them the target of criminal extortion by a rogue agency that doesn’t follow its own laws. In short: Use of the number provides the legal equivalent of a license to STEAL to a private corporation called the IRS that has no statutory authority to even exist either within the I.R.C. or within Title 31 of the U.S.C. either. See the following for exhaustive proof:
Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmFor further details on how the numbers work and why they amount to a de facto license to engage in federal franchises unlawfully within a state of the Union, see:
Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee, Form #06.002
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmAbout SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #07.004
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmYou need to do your homework by following:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htmAll your questions can and will be answered by the curricula described in Section 2 of that document, as well as the documents you send in as part of that process, which includes form 06.002 above. Please quit jumping the gun and simply follow the rules. If you find yourself unable to find the time to comply with the process, then turn off your TV and take it to the dump. Its TRASH.
As far as avoiding the duties of the public officer who is custodian over the number, we use the following form, which destroys the prima facie presumption that those who use identifying numbers are either “U.S. Persons” or “nonresident alien individuals”. Use of this form is MANDATORY in the context of the use of all identifying numbers and all tax forms for those using this website:
Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm -
stija,
Now THAT's a very interesting administrative battle you have undertaken. You are to be commended for your persistence in that pursuit. It appears to us that you are taking the same approach that we would have taken.
As far as determining whether a specific regulation is published in the Federal Register, you can find that at the bottom of the regulation itself in the CFR. It will say “XX F.R. YYYY”, where “XX” is the federal register volume and “YYYY” is the year. If nothing appears at the bottom of the regulation in that format, then it is safe to assume that:
1. The reg was never published in the F.R. and therefore never noticed to the private public as required by the Constitution.
2. Absent the constitutionally required “reasonable notice”, the reg ONLY applies to federal instrumentalities and not the private public as required by 44 USC 1505(a) and 5 USC 553(a).
This is covered in section 6 of the following pamphlet:
Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
We would also very much appreciate if you could post MS Word versions of the letters you sent out with your personal information and even the person they are addressed to removed. Others may find that information very useful and if it is well done, we also may consider posting it on this website.
Thanks in advance for your efforts, which are likely to be useful to many members of this fellowship, and especially if you have done your homework to make them bulletrproof. Even if you haven't, we intend to massage them into that form anyway, if you decide to share the sanitized versions, because this sort of information is needed by a large audience.
-
Ozma,
1. As far as how to ask questions, we pointed you at the protocol for answering questions already, but here it is again:
FAQ 1.16
Please pay attention. Here is what we said earlier:
Quote:4. Your question is phrased in such a way that you are asking for legal advice, and we can't give it on these forums. This is covered in our About Us page, Section 12 under “Prohibited Activies”. Follow the above FREE document and you will know exactly how to commercially, legally, and politically disassociate so that you can be free again. You can't choose to do only a portion of that disconnection. It is an all or nothing thing. You do it all or you do NONE of it. You should rephrase your questions to be consistent with the following in order to avoid being accused of seeking legal advice. We didn't write it but we agree with it:FAQs, Question 1.16
The protocol in FAQ 1.16 also appears in section 10 of the Path to Freedom Document we mentioned. You can read either.
2. As far as the word “advice”, you can't use that word here. What you seek is:
“Information about options available to you and examples of how others handle given situations”
. . .but you don't want advice because you can't ask for advice and be sovereign. The minute anyone makes decisions for you, you simply aren't sovereign anymore. Therefore, please follow the above protocol for asking questions in these forums. Otherwise, we won't be able to help you because we are undermining your sovereignty. If you don't want to be sovereign and take complete and exclusive responsibility for yourself to the exclusion of any government or ruler, then you don't belong here.
Quote:“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”[George Barnard Shaw]
The only weapon that lawyers and judges and government has to enslave and oppress you without pulling out their guns are words. If you want to stay free and want to keep both us and you out of trouble, you will need to be much more attentive and much more careful about the words you use. We aren't trying to be anal, but simply to help emphasize what is important so we can help you without you dragging us into a deep pit crafted by the government using “words of art”. There is a reason they call lawyers “silver tongued devils”. Because they get all their silver from their tongue, and it is usually stolen from you, in many cases without you even realizing it. Law is a chess game and these forums are here for practicing chess.
-
1. All the government's forms require you to sign under penalty of perjury. Perjury is a CRIME!
2. They don't make forms for those who are not exempt but also not subject or who are not “persons”, “individuals”, or “taxpayers” because they want to fool everyone into believing there is no such thing, even though even the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the existence of “nontaxpayers” in South Carolina v. Regan. See:
2.1 Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 6.10
http://famguardian.org/Publications/Flawed…ArgsToAvoid.pdf
2.2 “Taxpayer” v. “Nontaxpayer”: Which one are you?
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…Nontaxpayer.htm
3. For those who are in fact and in deed “nontaxpayers”, the only way to provide evidence that you aren't subject but at the same time not “exempt” is either:
3.1 Make your own form.
3.2 Modify their form to add “nontaxpayers” who are not “persons”, “individuals” and who are nonresidents but not aliens.
4. The ONLY reason for modifying their forms is:
4.1 If someone tells you that you MUST submit a form.
4.2 There are no forms available that describe your status or provide options to accurately describe your status. In fact, the IRS Mission Statement at IRM 1.1.1.1 says they can ONLY help “taxpayers”, which means if you are a “nontaxpayer”, then you are on your own.
4.3 You want to avoid committing the crime of perjury by associating yourself with a status on a form that you don't have.
5. If someone tells you that you can't modify the form and must sign it, then they are tampering with a witness, which is a crime called “subornation of perjury”. In that case, demand that THEY and not you sign it, becuase it is really the action of those instituting the duress. Then attach a affidavit of duress to the completed form.
More information on this subject can be found at:
1. Liberty University, Section 4.3
http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm#4.3….FORM_ATTACHMENT
2. Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Section 20.3
http://famguardian.org/Publications/FedSta…teWHOptions.pdf
My thoughts.
-
Franklin,
Very well said and we agree with what you said. We could have saved a lot of writing by taking your approach. Your comments will be helpful in improving our materials and focusing effort of the reader where it needs to go.
Thanks
-
Ozma,
Thanks for your feedback.
1. It is not dangerous to have the document out there, because there is no harm in asking questions. The minute you begin arging with people is the minute you cross the line.
2. You are correct that the main function of the tax system is to regulate the supply of fiat currency generated from the debt based Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise. For proof, see:
The Money Scam, Form #05.041
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. We agree that the tax is a fraud but it can only be eliminated AFTER the Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise is abolished and only in that order without causing economic instability.
4. You asked what “benefits” you are receiving. If you have ever filed, are eligible to file or intend at any time to file a claim under any of the following programs, then both the government and the judge, and not us, will claim that you re receiving “benefits” that must be paid for and that you are a “tax protester” if you don't pay up, regardless of what the law says. In case you haven't noticed, our society runs on policy and largely ignores what the law says:
4.1 Social Security.
4.2 Medicare.
4.3 Unemployment insurance.
4.4 Temporary Aid for Needy Families
4.5 Federal disaster relief.
5. You have no idea how many thousands of hours we spend compiling all this information to make your job easier. It's ten times harder to produce this information than it is to simply read it, and yet you want us not only to produce it, but to do all the work of applying it for you to your specific circumstances. That's unreasonable and places us in the position of giving legal advice, which we can't and won't do. If you phrase your inquiries as described you can and eventually will get your questions answered,but they have to be presented properly or you will get us in trouble by creating the appearance that we are giving legal advice. Ultimately, that could lead to the demise of this website. If you appreciate the information that is here, the least you can do is your part in protecting us by phrasing your questions properly. If you don't want to play by our rules, then don't waste your time here. It's insulting to talk to people who think they are entitled to things and yet who also hypocritically insist that they are “sovereign” or somehow better than others. Only those who are fully responsible for all their own decisions and actions ever hope to be sovereign, and those who are sovereign don't ask for “advice”, but simply information and options necessary to make their own informed decision.
Quote:“Don't go telling the world that it owes you anything. It was here first.”Mark Twain
We remind you that what appears on this website is FREE, and that you have no right to insist on ANYTHING if you aren't contributing anything. If you don't like the level or quality of help people get here, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from providing it. The fact that everyone decides to make their problems our problems and yet doesn't reciprocate the help they receive is why they reap what they sow, which is nothing. Stopping the complaining, rolling up your sleeves and helping others is the best way to learn any subject. We don't need to learn as much as you do at this point, so you are the one who ought to be helping to improve the so-called poor quality of this website by helping rather than bitterly complaining.
6. You don't have to read everything. The Path to Freedom document whittles your studies down to the barest essentials to accelerate your learning and progress. If you had read that document before attacking us or getting peevish, you would have seen that. However, you have a lifetime of false teachings to undo that you learned in the public fool system and from friends and parents before you can create ground fertile enough to plant and grow the truth. That takes time and you can't be impatient. A year of UNLEARNING and another year of LEARNING is important. You want to be rash and jump right in, but ultimately that will get you in trouble. Then, if we give you the advice that you seek, you will turn around and blame us instead of taking responsibility for yourself or your own decisions. We want sovereigns here who take full responsibility for themselves.
7. The crucial point you are missing is that what you SAY you are and the way you ACT are two different things. You may think you are a “nontaxpayer”, but chances are good that at one point or another, you submitted a form to the government, an employer, or a financial institution that indicated otherwise. What matters is not what you SAY you are after the litigation or administrative dispute starts, but what the written evidence in the possession of the governent describes you as BEFORE the dispute happened. Both what you say and what the evidence in their possession about you say MUST be consistent in every particular, and until it is, they are going to make a prima facie and usually FALSE presumption that you are a “taxpayer”, and we can't interact with “taxpayers”. When the talk matches the walk and all the available evidence and they all consistently point to the same conclusion, then and only then can one truthfully and convincingly prove in court that they are a “nontaxpayer”. If you did any of the following, then you have already contradicted your claim that you are a “nontaxpayer” and will discredit yourself in any legal setting because of this if you try to enforce your alleged status:
7.1 Submitted a resident tax form, IRS form 1040.
7.2 Used a government identifying number on a government form.
7.3 Not contradicted other people's use of said number in their correspondence with you.
7.4 Submitted IRS form W-4 to your private employer, which is a “taxpayer” form for public officers of the United States government.
7.5 Opened a financial account with an identifying number.
7.6 Applied for an SSN on SSA form SS-5
7.7 Applied for a TIN on IRS form W-9.
7.8 Registered to vote as a statutory “U.S. citizen” without clarifying what that means.
7.9 Served as a jurist and a statutory “U.S. citizen” without clarifying WHICH of the three “U.S.'s” you mean.
7.10 Applied for any kind of license. All licenses can only lawfully be offered to those domiciled on federal territory and if you applied, the presumption is that you are domiciled on federal territory not protected by the Constitution.
7.11 Identified yourself as a “U.S. citizen” on any government form. The “U.S. citizen” they mean on the government form is a public officer in the government and not a private human being.
8. The tax does not apply ONLY to federal employees and federal territory, but to those engaged in the “trade or business” franchise AND who have a domicile on federal territory no matter where they are. See:
8.1 The “Trade or Business” Scam
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…usinessScam.htm
8.2 Why Domicile and Becoming a “taxpayer” require YOur Consent
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…ForTaxation.htm
All of above forms of evidence can and will be used to convict you of “taxpayer” status and all of them must be corrected until you can confidently and with integrity claim to be a “nontaxpayer” and defend that assertion with a mountain of evidence in any court of law. Until then, you are presumed to be “guilty until proven innocent” in the corrupted courts that plague this land, which means you are a “taxpayer” until you can prove yourself a “nontaxpayer”.
The minute you begin contributing to this ministry either financially or by setting the example and helping others is the minute you earn the right to criticize the FREE service you receive. Until then, looking a gift horse in the mouth and attacking your benefactors seems rather rude and presumptuous. Liberty isn't something you deserve. Its something you have to EARN. If you think we are hard on newbies, just wait until you have your first friendly visit with an IRS agent or DOJ lawyer. Then you will be glad we were hard on you: It was practice and these forums are FREEDOM BOOT CAMP, in case you haven't noticed! But of course you may be naive enough to not even realize this until that reality is staring you in the face. Then it will be too late. If you are perturbed even at efforts to help you, then you probably shouldn't do any of this, because your ego will make a victim out of you and they will use it against you to play you like a fiddle.
-
Ozma,
1. You are on the WRONG website if you are protesting income taxes. You can't even use our materials if you are a “taxpayer” or “protesting income taxes” or intend to use our materials as a “tax shelter”. We don't protest “taxes” on this website, but crime and violations of law. The moment one politically, legally, and commercially divorces the state and changes their status in government records to evidence that situation, what is being collected becomes THEFT and not taxes, and it is THEFT that we protest on this website.
2. The place to start learning about how to disassociate and withdraw consent to all contracts and franchises and how to change your status to reflect the fact is to read and follow the following in the sequence provided. Links to this document appear in the header to most pages on this website under “START HERE!”, at the top of our “Taxation Page” (http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm) in BIG LETTERS “START HERE” surrounded by flags, and on the opening page of this website (http://famguardian.org). There should be no reason you could have missed this document:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. Until you have read the above document and completed steps 1 through 14 and gotten educated, you shouldn't even THINK about doing anything because you are acting like a “taxpayer” and you would contradict yourself to claim otherwise or file otherwise based on your actions. That document will make the walk and the talk consistently reflect your decision to abandon all contracts and franchises, to disassociate commercially, politically, and legally from a corrupted “state”, and to withdraw your “consent to be governed”, leaving the government no basis to claim the authority to govern you. You will need to abandon all government “benefits”, franchises, and licenses and completely disconnect from the system. If you want to continue participating in government “benefits” and not withdraw participation in them, but at the same time stop paying the taxes that pay for them, then you are a thief and we don't want you here because we will have no part of those who seek to STEAL from the government. Everyone should pay for ALL the government services they use, but at the same time, we seek to defend the right of all not to receive those services or be a customer of government protection called a “citizen”, “resident”, or “inhabitant”.
4. Your question is phrased in such a way that you are asking for legal advice, and we can't give it on these forums. This is covered in our About Us page, Section 12 under “Prohibited Activies”. Follow the above FREE document and you will know exactly how to commercially, legally, and politically disassociate so that you can be free again. You can't choose to do only a portion of that disconnection. It is an all or nothing thing. You do it all or you do NONE of it. You should rephrase your questions to be consistent with the following in order to avoid being accused of seeking legal advice. We didn't write it but we agree with it:
FAQs, Question 1.16
5. If reducing your tax bill is your only motivation, you are on the wrong website and you shouldn't be using our materials. You cannot have a commercial motive for using our materials. Your only motives must be spiritual, religious, moral, and legal. We seek to defend the right of all not to associate with or contract with or do business with or subsidize any government or “state” other than God's government. Enforcing our right to NOT contract and NOT associate protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the only way to describe your motivations and if you describe them any other way, and especially using the word “protest taxes”, then you are not welcome on this website and certainly not welcome to use our materials.
6. In the future, you should be MUCH more careful about your choice of words. You betray yourself as a neophyte whose mouth is going to get him in LOTS of trouble if he doesn't get educated BEFORE shooting it off. There is nothing wrong with being a neophyte, because we all start there, but neophytes should be doing a LOT more reading and listening than talking, and now you know what you need to read and listen to.
7. We hope you will come back to these forums only AFTER you have followed the Path to Freedom and completed Steps 1 through 14. Before then, you are a danger to yourself and will surely discredit the freedom community and this ministry by asking such simplistic questions that betray ill and unwelcome commercial motives. Don't rush yourself. If you don't have time to do your homework and sharpen your sword of intellectual tools before you step onto the battle field, then you ought to go back to your government cage on the federal slave plantation and quit complaining.
Only the educated are free. Freedom is a long, careful, and deliberate path that should not be trodden recklessly or taken so lightly or nonchalantly. The words you use are EVERYTHING in a legal setting. Words are the only tool that lawyers have to enslave you, and you will need to be much more careful how you use them if you want to be well received and supported here.
Quote:“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”[James Madison]