[fg_admin]

Bing,

Thanks for those comments. You are correct, of course:

1. What we wrote was a knee jerk reaction.

2. Your comments explain the reason why every time one talks with the government, it's better to invent one's own forms and use the same tactics against them that they use against use by saying the user agrees to penalties for the abuse of the form, like the 4852 has penalties.

3. Your comments are entirely consistent with the Reasonable Belief pamphlet and IRM 4.10.7.2.8, which prove that you can't rely on anything the IRS publishes, including a 4852.

[fg_admin]

chte,

Thanks for your feedback. Our view of UCC redemption is summed up in the following article:

Policy Document: UCC Redemption, Form #08.002

http://sedm.org/Forms/PolicyDocs/UCC.pdf

Anything in conflict with the above should be removed from our website and is fiction that is not to be trusted. If you can find anything that is in conflict with the above, please point it out so we can remove it.

The only document we can find on the site from William Avery is:

Dispatch of Merchants

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Arti…OfMerchants.htm

Is there some aspect of that article that conflicts with other information on this website? The article is about banking, not redemption as far as we can tell.

You should not assume that we agree with EVERYTHING an author has written or anything else he/she has written that is not posted on our website. What is dissonant about that particular article?

[fg_admin]

Franklin,

I don't remember reading anything in the book about the power to appoint Article III judges being given to the President vice the congress.

[fg_admin]

Franklin,

Thanks for sharing your astute observations. Obviously, you have read the What Happened to Justice Book and have even expanded upon its conclusions further. We'll notify the authors to see if this new material can be added.

Good job!

🙂

[fg_admin]

See:

Competent Counsel Questionnaire, Litigation Tool #01.004

http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

[fg_admin]

craterc

The passage you cite says that Jesus is a NONtaxpayer:

Quote:

24 When they had come to Capernaum,[a] those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, ?Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax??

25 He said, ?Yes.?

Jesus summed it up by saying who the REAL taxpayers are, where the “sons” are citizens and “strangers” are all aliens. All “taxpayers” are aliens in the I.R.C.:

Quote:

From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers??

26 Peter said to Him, ?From strangers [aliens].?

Jesus said to him, ?Then the sons [citizens] are free [exempt or NOT subject].”

The biblical approach towards taxation is also exhaustively examined further in:

1. Jesus Is an Anarchist

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

2. What Pastors and Clergy Need to Know About Government and Taxation

SEDM Form #12.006

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

3. Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #10.008,

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

If you have feedback on any of the items in SEDM, please direct them to the SEDM website and not me, but I can't find anything wrong with them.

Government is in “business” to provide protection and ONLY protection. Everyone has a right NOT to become their customer or buy their product by paying “taxes” or “tribute”. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the government is exempt from the anti-trust laws and that there is no equal protection of the law. The people cannot delegate to the government the authority to protect if they themselves do not have that right direct from the Creator.

Those who are customers of government protection are called citizens and residents. Those who are not are called “transient foreigners” and nonresidents. I choose not to be a customer of the de facto government's protection racket, and therefore, the law requires me to render NOTHING. By that choice, I am NOT a “person”, “inhabitant”, “individual”, “citizen”, or “resident” under the protection contract called “domicile” or the revenue scheme to pay for the protection called the Internal Revenue Code.

If you are a customer of the government called a “citizen” or a “resident” and participate in their protection racket or “protection franchise”, you should pay for ALL the services that status entitles you to. However, you have no right to recruit me to be you parens patriae government's customer as a jurist by ruling that I did not “pay my fair share” or that I OUGHT to be a “citizen” or “resident”. My “fair share” is determined by the status that I and only I declare under the civil law. If you and not I choose my status, you are compelleing me to contract with the government. Governments are established to protect your right to NOT contract with anyone, including them in the case of their protection racket called “domicile”.

See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent

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

___________________________

Bing,

I would also add that the Bible says the heaven and the earth belong to the Lord and NOT Caesar. This also implies that anything that Caesar could make out of things that come from the Earth ALSO belongs to God, including gold and silver coins, paper money, etc. :

Quote:

“Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the LORD your God, also the earth with all that is in it.”

[Deut. 10:14, Bible, NKJV]

Therefore, there is NOTHING left that belongs to Caesar so there is nothing left to “render” to him, except that which he has rendered to everyone else, which is lies, fraud, and THEFT.

Quote:

?Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her [Babylon the Great Harlot] sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. 7 In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ?I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.? 8 Therefore her plagues will come in one day?death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges[d] her.

[Rev. 18:4-8, Bible, NKJV]

The “double” they are talking about above comes from the following, which is a tacit admission that Caesar and the harlot are both THIEVES:

Quote:

?If a man [or a government] delivers to his neighbor? money [such as in a Social Security check] or articles to keep, and it is stolen [taken without the EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT] out of the man?s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double.“

[Exodus 20:7, Bible, NKJV]

[fg_admin]

Bing,

We agree with your perspective. However, the post is a seasonal link that will disappear quickly. It is only up for election season and will be taken down. We want to preserve the evidence and the context for the comments in these forums because we know it will quickly DISAPPEAR.

[fg_admin]

Stija,

There you go again using the forbidden “advice” word. We don't give “advice” or “legal advice”, but only education.

The links in section 6 of the Property and Privacy Protection page do have books you can go and check out. The best is the “Drafting California Irrevocable Trusts”, which is what the lawyers themselves use in preparing trusts.

Other links there are online books on the subject from none other than Standford Law library. If that doesn't qualify as a “good read”, you need to have your head examined, especially considering that it is free.

So once again, the links provided DO directly address your question, if you would have looked at them. They don't address “asset protection”, but they DO address PRIVATE property protection of property NOT connected to a “trade or business”, not located in the statutory but not Constitutional “United States”, and not subject to tax. Please do your homework before pointing fingers.

[fg_admin]

You are NOT allowed to inquire on these forums about “asset protection”. This is prohibited by section 12 of our About Us page, which lists prohibitied activities. The name of this forum is “Private (not public) PROPERTY Protection” not “asset protection”. Asset protection generally connotes PUBLIC property connected to the “trade or business” franchise that is therefore subject to tax and is PUBLIC rather than private. You really mean PRIVATE property protection, not asset protection. Please choose your words carefully so you don't invite busy government bees to this otherwise safe haven for freedom lovers.

If you were paying attention and you cared, you would have referenced the “Welcome” post that started the “Privacy and Private Property Protection” forum here, which links you to exactly what you are looking for.

http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1416

All of our forums are structured the same. They begin with a Welcome link that points to all the relevant resources on the website that deal with the subject of the forum. Among those links in this forum is section 6 of the Privacy and Property Protection page.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/PropertyPr…ertyPrivacy.htm

We don't have anything to add to those links. Everything you need is on that page and we can't babysit you. We found those items by digging and searching and not asking anyone, and you can be just as dilligent by finding additional resources and posting them to these forums as you find them.

Thanks for doing your homework and exercising due dilligence before you make your problems into other people's problems by posting them on these forums. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[fg_admin]

The reason they can lawfully pull this crap is encrypted using “words of art”, as usual. That’s why they call it “the code”:

1. 26 U.S.C. 877 is the authority for doing it:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…77—-000-.html

2. The section ONLY applies to “nonresident alien individuals”, not “nonresident aliens” who are NOT “individuals”. An “individual” is someone with a residence on federal territory. Otherwise, they would be a “transient foreigner”. See 5 USC 552a(a)(2).

3. You can be a “nonresident alien” without being a “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL”. An “individual” is a public officer in the government, and they can put whatever they want in their employment agreement that they want. See:

Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Sections 2 and 3

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

4. I.R.C. 877 above recognizes that a “nonresident alien individual” can lose their nationality, meaning “national” status. Indirectly, they are admitting that non-citizen nationals are “nonresident aliens”!

If you don’t want to be subject to the above requirement or the requirement to file a tax return imposed on “nonresident alien INDIVIDUALS” found in 26 CFR 1.61012-1(b ), then simply make sure you don’t check “individual” on the IRS Form W-8BEN block 3. Instead, add a new option “transient foreigner” as the following article suggests:

About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.001

[url url=”http://sedm.org/compliant-member-only-forms/about-irs-form-w-8ben-form-04-002/“]http://sedm.org/compliant-member-only-forms/about-irs-form-w-8ben-form-04-002/[/url]

They aren’t interfereing with rights because you had to volunteer to be subject to the franchise agreement as a “person” by declaring yourself to be subject to the franchise agreement as a “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL” to begin with. Since the obligation can be avoided by properly describing your status on government forms, there can be no injury to rights. There is a maxim of law that says what you consent to cannot be a source of injury. You manifest your consent just by how you describe yourself on government forms:

Volunti non fit injuria.

He who consents cannot receive an injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.

Consensus tollit errorem.

Consent removes or obviates a mistake. Co. Litt. 126.

Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire.

It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it. 3 Co. Inst. 23.

Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt.

One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.

[Bouvier?s Maxims of Law, 1856;

SOURCE:? http://famguardian.org/Publications/Bouvie…viersMaxims.htm]

For more interesting supporting information, see:

State Created Office of “Person”

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/So…iceOfPerson.htm

My two cents.

[fg_admin]

Hilarious!

[fg_admin]

Bruce,

Thanks for the plug of FG. Mega-dittos to you, sir. 🙂

Sonik,

I find it interesting that you so doggedly and hypocritically nix those who want to immitate the tactics of the government and yet you do not also balance your criticisms of commercial liens by criticizing the government's abuse of the same concept in the form of bogus IRS “Notice of Liens”.

Take a look at the free books on liens available on Google books. For instance:

Treatise on the Law of Liens-book by Leonard Jones, 1894. Google books.

Vol 1: http://books.google.com/books?id=mVI9AAAAI…ntsec=titlepage

Vol 2: http://books.google.com/books?id=3lI9AAAAI…ntsec=titlepage

The above two free books conclude the following about liens:

1. Private liens can only be filed against consenting parties who have a contract with the filer. For example, a mechanic's lien can only be filed against someone the mechanic has a contract or agreement with to perform specific work, and only in connection with the authorized work.

2. Liens filed against parties that the filer has no contract with are unenforceable in a court of law.

Now let's apply the SAME limitation upon liens of the government that it applies to private parties enforcing private liens. The U.S. Supeme Court has repeatedly held that our government is one of delegated powers ALONE.

Quote:

“The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone.? Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution.? All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people.”?

[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

EQUAL PROTECTION, in fact, is the foundation of the constitution, which means that no man or no group of men called a “government” can have any more rights than a single man. Therefore, we cannot delegate to the government a power that we ourselves do not have. If we don't have the right to file commercial liens against non-consenting (non-contracting) parties, then neither does the government!

Therefore, those who are the proper subject of income tax liens must be party to a contract with the government to perform some service. We all know that the contract is a franchise agreement, and that IRC Subtitle A is the codified version of that franchise agreement, which describes a kickback scheme for people otherwise lawfully occupying public office in the government. I might also add that they MUST occupy said office BEFORE they fill out any tax forms and that tax forms cannot lawfully be used to recruit public officers into the government. That's a crime pursuant to 18 USC 912 and 18 USC 201. The only possible “contract” that could be used as a basis to file a lien by the IRS is a contract to procure public office. See:

Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You Are a “Public officer”, Form #05.008

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

We also emphasize that the Declaration of Independence says our rights are “unalienable”, which means they can't be bargained away through any commercial process, and thereby transferred to a REAL, DE JURE government.

Quote:

?Unalienable.? Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.?

[Black?s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]

Consequently, if a self-proclaimed representative of “the government” such as an IRS agent does attempt to entice us out of our rights, that person:

1. Is LYING and is not representing a REAL, DE JURE government.

2. Is acting as a private party and not a government representative. They are employed with a PRIVATE, for profit corporation called the “IRS” that has not statutory authority to even exist anywhere in the Internal Revenue code or elsewhere. The below cite gives an example, but I would argue that they are WRONG as a matter of principle on the immunity issue as well. The reason is that if they weren't, then the authority of law could be used in effect as a method to sanction a state-created monopoly in any industry, the ultimate result being in conflict with the Sherman Anti-trust act and the centralization of all market power ultimately in the government.

Quote:

“When a state enters into business relations, and makes contracts with private persons, it waives its sovereignty, and is to be treated as a private person, and subjected to the principles of law applicable as between individuals, save only in respect to its immunity from suit.”?

[Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246; 27 S.Ct. 600 (1907)]

3. Has implicitly waived sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity can only protect a DE JURE government, not a de facto usurper who attempts to make a business out of destroying rights. That “business” is called a franchise.

We cannot have a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde government that on the one hand is created to protect PRIVATE rights and yet on the other hand makes an entire business and industry out of enticing people to convert private rights into PUBLIT rights and franchises.

Why aren't you, Mr. Sonik, being equally critical of the government for instituted BOGUS private liens against non-consenting and non-contracting parties. Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here?

We're all hypocrites and sinners here, but I think you ought to balance your bashing or PRIVATE liens by being equally critical of PUBLIC liens for the very same reasons. Otherwise, you're just another employment recruiter for the government.

Those wishing to learn more about this subject may wish to read:

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

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

[fg_admin]

Here is another interview on her book on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LhaAZjQAoc&feature=related

[fg_admin]

Pavlograd,

Don't place the burden of acknowledging acceptance on him. The best approach we have found after a document is filed, request a certified copy from the clerk with the raised seal. They don't need to sign anything and you will end up on their bad side if you ask them to sign.

[fg_admin]

The only thing that matters in the passport application process and the only thing they will accept is what you put on the DS-11 application and any additional documents they specifically request.

A declaration of political status doesn't affect the passport application process. Fill out the passport application as described below and you will accomplish the result yoyu seek.

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