[fg_admin]

deejay,

1. Fixed and reposted. Thank you.

2. No reason why the form does not have a form Number. The section number is the form number, which you referred to as section 5.7.

[fg_admin]

Franklin,

Hilarious!

😆 😆 😆

[fg_admin]

Yes

[fg_admin]

If the FOIA response is an IMF, then the following tool is useful in decoding it:

Master File Decoder

http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Programs/MFDecoder/MFDecoder.htm

[fg_admin]

Swine flu vaccine from a CBS 60 Minutes Report

Must-see video:

You've got to see this disturbing video about the 1976 swine flu vaccine from a 60 Minutes report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7oL7wdQqKQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqye_IYi1t4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLPAGcmvcfM&NR=1

Please listen to this as it could save your life along with your children. Stand tall and do not let this happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIuYNaDIFm0&feature=channel_page

[fg_admin]

FINALLY…THE $50,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED !!!!!…..YESTERDAY ON THE “ABC, BETTER KNOWN AS THE ALL BARRACK CHANNEL, THE OBAMA SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE”……OBAMA WAS ASKED

“MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW “UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM” THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????….. OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND DIDN'T ANSWER IT !!!…A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED T HE SAME QUESTION AND THERE RESPONSE WAS…WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT !!!! AND THEY DID.

IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE “KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL”… HAS WRITTEN INTO IT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE EXEMPT (FROM THIS GREAT HEALTH CARE PLAN)..

HOW ABOUT THOSE APPLES…NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA OR CONGRESS.. BUT “OK” FOR THE REST OF US ????????

WE..THE AMERICANS NEED TO STOP THIS …ASAP !!!!… AND REVOLT.. THIS IS WRONG !!!!!

IF YOU AGREE PLEASE PASS THIS ON ….IF NOT PLAN TO SUFFER ( WITH THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN ….FOR FREE….WHILE OUR POLITICIANS MAKE SURE THAT THEY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES TO YOUR EXCLUSION )

[fg_admin]

Thanks for the encouragement and even the rebuke, but it wasn't necessary in order for you to earn what you think you deserve and are indignant about not receiving. If you want encouragement, add value to the information and weapons here that help people and you'll get plenty of it. We need help and participation, not encouragment or yet more people who only take from these forums and disappear after their own selfish personal emergency is solved.

We weren't referring to you personally and there is no need to personalize your response. We COLLECTIVELY as Americans are left with the choice described. If you read our Disclaimer, you will see that the word “you” is defined to mean the authors and other readers. That is how we talk to ourself. This whole website is a freedom journal directed at the authors and not other readers. How is it possible to strive with yourself? It isn't. Is having a differing opinion that doesn't translate into action “striving”? NO.

http://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm

This destructive tendency of most Americans to always PRESUME things that arent true, personalize things, and to assume that what other people say refers to them personally is the very way they trapped you into their matrix to begin with. By your presumptions and your willingness to emotionalize issues, you have proven that you aren't ready to be free, that you need this website, and that you have a tendency to criticize the very thing you need the most help with. If you don't think “person” or “taxpayer” refers to you in their void for vagueness codes, why would you believe that “you” refers to anyone other than the author? REAL governments can only write law for themselves. Likewise, we can only talk to ourselves because we have no authority over you, who is a “sovereign” according to the courts.

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

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

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

Those who love approval and affirmation from others more than they love the truth can never be free and will always be the slave of tyrants in the a corrupted de facto government. Your exhortations, while well intentioned, mean nothing because they are ill informed and presumptuous and because our approach is the same as God in Prov. 1. He says that for those who don't want to do things His way and according to His sovereign law, its the highway. Are you saying that's not biblical? You better read your bible.

Quote:

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

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

If no one ever rebukes you, then you have no REAL friends. A flattering tongue works ruin, according to the Bible. What God is alluding to here is that the wounds of a friend are faithful and that what separates the men from the boys or the lukewarm Christians from the REAL Christians are those who seek out His rebuke and the rebuke of His messengers.

Quote:

“Let the righteous [NOT self-righteous, but “righteous”] strike me;

It shall be a kindness,

And let him rebuke me;

It shall be as excellent oil;

Let my head not refuse it.”

[Psalms 141:5, Bible, NKJV]

If you want political correctness, you're on the wrong website. This is a freedom boot camp and a mock court, not a mutual admiration society. No lawyer worth his salt takes what a judge or opposing party says emotionally or personally. God, in fact, says he HATES political correctness. Most of what is wrong with America is in fact the overemphasis of political correctness and a disdain for messengers of the naked truth such as us:

Quote:

A Rebellious People

⁸ Now go, write it before them on a tablet,

And note it on a scroll,

That it may be for time to come,

Forever and ever:

⁹ That this is a rebellious people,

Lying children,

Children who will not hear [or follow or read] the law of the LORD;

¹⁰ Who say to the seers, “Do not see,”

And to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things;

Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits.

¹¹ Get out of the way,

Turn aside from the path,

Cause the Holy One of Israel

To cease from before us.”

¹² Therefore thus says the Holy One of Israel:

” Because you despise this word,

And trust in oppression and perversity,

And rely on them,

¹³ Therefore this iniquity shall be to you

Like a breach ready to fall,

A bulge in a high wall,

Whose breaking comes suddenly, in an instant.

¹⁴ And He shall break it like the breaking of the potter's vessel,

Which is broken in pieces;

He shall not spare.

So there shall not be found among its fragments

A shard to take fire from the hearth,

Or to take water from the cistern.”

[Isaiah 30:8-14, Bible, NKJV

SOURCE: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_…&version=50]

Now that you are engaged, why don't you share with us the many lessons you have learned in your 35 years as an adult above and beyond what is available here so that you take as much as you give from these forums. We need fighters and helpers here, not critics and parasites like the huge socialist tumor the government has been growing on the body politic since the 1930's. We won't be around forever, and the legacy we want to leave is a cadre of people who help each other and govern themselves instead of sucking on either the government's tit or other people's tit.

With all due respect, we think the way to respect and love people is to educate, empower, and embolden them to learn and obey God's laws as the law book that the Bible is, not agree with them or butter them up or discount the role of the Bible as a law book.

Thanks in advance for any wisdom you can share and any value you can add rather than only take from these forums.

Quote:

“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

[John 7:24, Bible, NKJV]

[fg_admin]

SEDM is actively decoding:

1. Full Service Decoding:

http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Services/IMFDecod…IMFDecoding.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

2. Master File Decoder software:

http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Programs/MFDecoder/MFDecoder.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

We don't answer for them, but looks like they're doing it.

[fg_admin]

The problem is, what is THEIR legal definition of “government”? A family is a government. A church is a government, and especialy one that has its own ecclesiastical courts. Ask them what definition they use for “government” and where it is found in the statutes. If there is no legal definition, you are free to call whatever you want a government. The minute they try to define it is the minute they have to admit that what we have not ISN'T a real government, which consists of a body politic AND a body corporate. All we have left is the body corporate and “citizens” have been replaced with government employees. That is what a de facto government is legally defined as in Black's Law Dictionary: A corporation and not a body politic.

Quote:

de facto: In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, a position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. MacLeod vl United States, 229 U.S. 416, 33 S.Ct. 955, 57 L.Ed. 1260. A wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. Compare De jure.

[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 416 SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…pic/defacto.htm]

For further details on the corruption of the present government, see:

Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…aw/CorpGovt.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

Make your own government using the following document, which is a “government in a box”:

Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ArtOfConfed.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

See section 6.2.7 of the above for information about making your own ID cards. You can start with a small group to govern initially, using your own freedom loving friends, then grow it. Elect officers, etc.

Design and issue your own GOVERNMENT ID using Adobe Illustrator by submitting your artwork to the following and having ID cards printed for a small fee:

http://easyidcard.com

Alternatively, you can make your own ID cards:

1. Buy a Fargo ID card printer.

http://fargo.com

If you want a less expensive used printer, search on ebay. There are tons of them waiting for a home. The DTC550 is the low end but decent one:

http://www.hidglobal…ersEncoders.php

2. Buy ID card design software:

http://www.jollytech…oducts/id_flow/

3. Buy a laminating machine with the holographic overlays from an ID supply store. See section 9 of the following:

http://famguardian.o…ertyPrivacy.htm

If one REALLY wants to be free, they will HAVE to be more resourceful than simply asking others for solutions and not taking any of the learning and doing pain upon themself. The best things in life are worth EARNING, instead of expecting someone else to provide them. Those who want to be free will have to earn it like our brave founding fathers. Now get creative and use one's initiative or learn to be a good little government whore and bend over. Its harsh, but its the truth. That, unfortunately, is the only choice the tyrants in government have left us collectively with. Don't take it personal, but get mad AT THEM and do something about it.

[fg_admin]

Republic,

Fixed. Thanks.

Admin

[fg_admin]

Dear readers,

As we promised we would do, the interchange in this forum has been summarized and added to the following article on this website:

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Section 7

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Reme…_PAYEE,_or_BOTH

Interchanges like this are one of the important methods that we use to improve our materials and offerings. Thanks for your feedback on this issue so far, folks.

Enjoy!

[fg_admin]

Yes. Updating the passport is among the first steps, not the last. Maybe they got the order messed up in the Path to Freedom. I don't control what the author did nor did I write it. This is not legal advice, but we would do ONLY in our own circumstances. What you do is entirely your choice and exclusive responsibility as a co-equal “sovereign”.

[fg_admin]

Dominoes,

The only forms of GOVERNMENT ID that do not include an association with franchises such as SSNs are:

1. A non-citizen national passport. See:

Applying for a Passport as a “national”

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

2. ID issued by your church or civic group. The U.S. Supreme Court said WE THE PEOPLE are the government. We have a government OF, BY, and FOR the people. Therefore, whatever your group or family issues becomes “GOVERNMENT ID”.

Quote:

“The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives [they are the government, not their servants]. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. …”

[Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)]

3. A notarized affidavit with your picture on it. The notary is a “public officer” and therefore a government officer. Anything they issue that authenticates your identity is “government ID”.

Quote:

Chapter 1Introduction

§1.1 Generally

A notary public (sometimes called a notary) is a public official appointed under authority of law with power, among other things, to administer oaths, certify affidavits, take acknowledgments, take depositions, perpetuate testimony, and protect negotiable instruments. Notaries are not appointed under federal law; they are appointed under the authority of the various states, districts, territories, as in the case of the Virgin Islands, and the commonwealth, in the case of Puerto Rico. The statutes, which define the powers and duties of a notary public, frequently grant the notary the authority to do all acts justified by commercial usage and the “law merchant”.

url=”http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/product/45106.html”]Anderson's Manual for Notaries Public, Ninth Edition, 2001, ISBN 1-58360-357-3[/url

This information is further discussed in the following, which was added only in the last month or so and therefore you may have missed it:

1. Why Domicile and Becoming a “taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Sections 12.4 and 12.5

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

2. Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Sections 12.4 and 12.5

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

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

The above observations are the reason why the first steps in becoming sovereign in section 2 of the Path to Freedom document is to obtain a “national” passport not connected to franchises as a PRIVATE person instead of a public officer called a “taxpayer”: So you have ID to complete the rest of the process that doesn't link you to franchises that you no longer want to participate in and have never lawfully been eligible to participate in as a human being domiciled outside the statutory “United States” and within a state of the Union.

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015

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

[fg_admin]

Thanks for that post. Well stated. Some initial responses:

1. “nonresident alien individual” status is not “harmless” or a “safe entity” to be as you allege. A “nonresident alien individual” is a “person” who has a LEGAL DUTY to file a return under the I.R.C. Subtitle A franchise agreement in 26 CFR 1.6012-1(b ). If it were truly harmless, the status would not carry any obligations or liabilities. Even if the “nonresident alien individual” doesn’t satisfy the 26 USC 6671(b) and 7343 definition of “person”, it’s still not a harmless status because they can still be tried for failure to file under 26 CFR 1.6012-1(b) and 26 USC 7203. This is covered in the following:

Legal Requirement to File Federal Income Tax Returns, Form #05.009, Section 8.

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

Furthermore, I think you are going to have a hard time convincing a judge that the three types of “persons” you refer to are in any sense not synonymous or not equivalent. It’s better to describe yourself as a “nonresident” but not “alien” or “individual”. That is done by adding an extra block to the W-8BEN form or by attaching a form that qualifies the term “individual” to EXCLUDE anything mentioned in federal law such as the following:

Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/TaxFormAtt.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

2. Your insights into Pub 519 are something we hadn’t seen before and were helpful. Thank you.

3. As far as the definition of “United States” within Title 8, it can only have the meaning EXPRESSLY given in the title itself. Since it is statutorily defined, then the statutory definition supersedes rather than enlarges the commonly understood definition. That definition DOES NOT expressly include any state of the Union. Nowhere is the term “State” EXPRESSLY DEFINED to include a state of the Union within the title, and therefore they are purposefully excluded. This is clarified in:

Tax Deposition Questions, Section 14, questions 14.77 through 14.83

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Di…ection%2014.htm

If you disagree, please show me a definition of “State” and “United States” that EXPRESSLY INCLUDES any state of the Union. Otherwise, those in a state of the Union must be non-citizen nationals. The pamphlet on citizenship proves this exhaustively:

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

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

4. We agree on the definition of “United States” in the I.R.C. and that it implies federal territory only. No argument there. We disagree whether the “United States” in Title 26 and Title 8 are the same “United States”. I think they are, you don’t. The above pamphlet proves they are the same. What’s wrong with the analysis?

5. All of your arguments about the definition of “United States” in Title 8 are moot, because a “citizen” is simply someone who has VOLUNTARILY JOINED a political community and thereby submitted themselves to its CIVIL laws.

Quote:

“There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [88 U.S. 162, 166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States[***]. When used in this sense it [the word “citizen”] is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States[***] before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.”

[Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)]

How I describe and classify my status (e.g. “citizen” v. “national”) is the method by which I “associate” under the First Amendment. Since no one in the government can compel me to associate without violating the First Amendment, then no one can compel me to take on a status I don’t want to have, including that of a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 USC 1401. See:

Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008

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

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

The First Amendment protects my right of freedom from compelled association, and 22 U.S.C. 2721 also prevents the passport issuing agencies from discriminating against me for failure to be associate and thereby become a “citizen”. No one but me can make me into such a “citizen”, and becoming a “citizen” involves an act of LEGAL association of choosing a domicile on federal territory in the case of federal law. Whatever the definition of “United States” is, I still have the right to choose HOW I associate, which of the two distinct political communities (federal territory v. status of the Union) I associate with, and what I want to describe myself as a consequence of that association. I’m not required to be a “citizen” in order to get a passport, but only a “national”. See 22 USC 212. That’s that status I claim and that makes me a “non-citizen national” but NOT a statutory “U.S. citizen”.

6. As far as U.S. military members changing their status to resident aliens under the I.R.C. (but NOT under other titles of the code) by enlisting AND signing a W-4, no arguments there, but try convincing a payroll clerk that you are a resident alien instead of a “citizen”. Pretty crazy. Enlistment is undoubtedly a contract and those who sign up for contracts are “resident aliens” from a legal perspective. The following document actually describes from a court perspective how that contract operates and why they can’t force you to contract:

Lawfully Avoiding the Military Draft, Form #09.003

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

7. No arguments with your assertion that FG/SEDM appear to vacilate between de jure/de facto. What we have is obviously ONLY de facto rather than de jure. Since it is de facto, they obviously operate under private law contracts. Although the statutes create the pretense that we are dealing with government law by, for instance, requiring domicile in the case of Social Security (see 20 CFR 422.104), the requirement in practice is ignored both by the courts and the SSA as a matter of public policy and NOT law, thus forcing us back into the private law and private corporate venue. Even that venue does not afford them standing to enforce because their franchise offering STILL does not qualify as a valid contract, as all franchises MUST be to be enforceable. See:

7.1 Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee

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

7.2 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/Franchises.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

In practice, they cherry pick the best of both sides: de jure v. de facto. They pretend they are a government and assert sovereign immunity on the one hand, but on the other hand, they abuse sovereign immunity to protect what are actually private business concerns and ignore the chief characteristic that even makes them government concerns to begin with, which is DOMICILE and the status of being a statutory “U.S. citizen”, “U.S. resident”, and “U.S. person”! HYPOCRISY!

8. You state that anyone can sign up for the franchise. I argue that they can’t without committing perjury on a government form and becoming a criminal, and I use this fact as a defense against those who compel me to participate in franchises. See:

Why It is Illegal for Me to Request or Use a “Taxpayer Identification Number”, Form #04.205

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…yTINIllegal.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

Christians are called to follow all laws to which they are subject and by doing so they avoid hurting their neighbor. You are violating the law as shown above by committing perjury on a government form, knowing full well that you can’t have any status under the laws of a knowingly forieign jurisdiction without misrepresenting your status, violating the Constitution, or worse yet perjuring your oath as a military member to support and defend the Constitution. The heart of the Constitution is the separation of powers, and yet you have to violate it to even sign up for any status under a code that obviously can have no jurisdiction over anything but those domiciled on federal territory.

9. I added the following to my earlier post as a reason for why there IS harm done by calling yourself an “individual”, which we invite a rebuttal to:

You asked what is wrong with being an “individual”? The answer is:

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

9.2 It is inconsistent with how franchises actually MUST operate.

9.3 It extends federal civil jurisdiction beyond federal territory unlawfully.

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

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

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

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

Social Security: Mark of the Beast

http://famguardian.o…ecurity/TOC.htm

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

Quote:

Avoid Bad Company

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

Do not consent

If they say, “Come with us,

Let us lie in wait to shed blood;

Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause;

Let us swallow them alive like Sheol,

And whole, like those who go down to the Pit:

We shall fill our houses with spoil [plunder];

Cast in your lot among us,

Let us all have one purse”–

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

Keep your foot from their path;

For their feet run to evil,

And they make haste to shed blood.

Surely, in vain the net is spread

In the sight of any bird;

But they lie in wait for their own blood.

They lurk secretly for their own lives.

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

It takes away the life of its owners.”

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

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

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

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

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

10. As far as whether a human being domiciled in the exclusive jurisdiction of a de jure state of the Union is an “individual” under the I.R.C., based on your earlier analysis, once again you can’t have a status under a private law GOVERNMENT franchise without domicile and consent, and a human being in a state can’t “alien” their rights by contracting with the government as explained earlier and thereby can’t assume any status that carries any obligation or conveys any right to the government.

Quote:

“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”

[

Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]

MORE QUOTES LIKE THE ABOVE: http://sedm.org/Commandments.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

We just showed that “nonresident alien individual” does have an obligation and that the status conveys an enforcement right to the government. Every “benefit” you receive from “The Beast” (Rev. 19:19 calls the government “The Beast”) will always have strings attached, and the method of attaching the strings is acquiring a status under federal law that is the object of enforcement activity. Therefore, the status “nonresident alien individual” can’t include any human being domiciled in a state of the Union without violating the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence by “aliening” rights. Our rights are unalienable, which means they can’t be sold, bargained away, or transferred by any commercial process, including a franchise, which is a commercial process. Only by violating the Constitution as a human being protected by it and by misrepresenting your status as a “person” or “individual” or “taxpayer” under federal law can one acquire any right, “benefit”, or privilege under any federal franchise. In other words, the only ones who can receive payments from the government who are domiciled in a de jure state of the Union are those who love money and “benefits” so much that they are willing to LIE and commit PERJURY on a government forms in describing their status. Words of art have been used to make the perjury less painful and disguise its nature, but it is STILL perjury and it is still a crime.

Quote:

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”

[

1 Tim. 1:10, Bible, NKJV]

11. If you want to take on the PRIVILEGED status of “nonresident alien individual” under a government franchise that you can’t lawfully participate in and do so by PERJURING government forms in order to become the recipient of stolen property as a military retiree, that is your choice. The fact of the matter is, however, that as a retiree who no longer has an active service commitment, you are a nonresident NON-individual rather than a “resident alien individual”, and you can’t therefore be a “person”, “individual”, or “taxpayer”. What they try to do to sidestep this with NRAs is create the PRESUMPTION that they became “individuals” by applying for numbers. The W-7 form causes the issuance of “INDIVIDUAL Taxpayer Identification Number” (ITIN), as if to suggest that the applicant BECAME an individual by applying. See:

About SSNs and TINs on Govenrment Forms and Correspondence, Form #04.104

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…s/AboutSSNs.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

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

The Tax form Attachment, Form #04.201, however, prevents the establishment of this status by defining the terms on such a form to include “individual” in such a way that it EXCLUDES that found in any federal statute INCLUDING 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c ) and 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(13). If you are going to go the route you suggest, the least you can do is use an ITIN instead of a TIN or SSN and attach the following to the application for the ITIN application so that they can’t enforce the requirement to file a tax return upon you:

Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/TaxFormAtt.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)

If you don’t go the route suggested above and dutifully file tax returns, then you may be prosecuted for failure to file under 26 CFR 1.6012-1(b).

Ultimately, all those who participate in the “benefits” of socialism, including those receiving military retirements, are practicing idolatry. The I.R.C. is and always has been a state sponsored religion which all those in receipt of “benefits”, including military retirees, are going to worship and serve and glorify and perpetuate. See:

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016

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

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…vilReligion.pdf

Those who rob peter (us and other NONTAXPAYERS who become the unwilling hosts for the BEAST and a target of legalized ROBBERY and plunder) to pay paul’s “benefits” can always count on the support of paul, and you have just admitted that you want to be yet another paul. It would be socially irresponsible to have that status and:

11.1 Serve as a a registered voter. It is illegal to bribe a voter, and all voters are going to vote for the political who will protect and expand their “benefits”. That’s a criminal conflict of interest.

11.2 Serve as a jurist. A committee of numbered federal “employees” should not be put in charge of deciding whether those who aren’t “public officers” shoudl contribute to their retirement plan. Thats a criminal violation of 18 USC 208.

11.3 NOT turn yourself in for bribery to procure a public office. By paying taxes as other than a REAL public officer in exchange for the right to occupy a “public office” that you wouldn’t otherwise occupy without being a “taxpayer”, then you are bribing the IRS to procure a public office in criminal violation of 18 USC 201 and 210. By occupying said office physically outside the District of Criminals as required by 4 U.S.C. 72, you are also occupying said office illegally. Nowhere are said offices expressly authorized to exist within states of the Union and therefore they CAN’T lawfully exist. Anyone who perpetuates their existence is conspiring to commit election fraud and to defraud the United States in criminal violation of 18 USC 286 for the sake of receiving “benefits” they aren’t entitled to.

12. We must always remember that there are only two ways for a de jure government to acquire jurisdiction extraterritorially: Domicile and contract. Since government contracts such as franchises are all implemented with civil law, it really only devolves down to domicile and a nonresident doesn’t have a domicile. He also can’t elect to become a resident without a physical presence in the “United States”, which very few taxpayers ever satisfy. Consequently, they can’t lawfully be “taxpayers”. You can’t have a “residence” in a place you don’t physically occupy and claiming that you do or that you are a “resident alien” in a place you don’t occupy in conformance with the presence test (26 USC 7701(b)(4)) is FRAUD and perjury, in fact.

_________________

IN CONCLUSION, let me emphasize that we in this ministry have tremendous respect for those who protect us in the military. We have friends and loved ones who have served, in fact, and we have nothing but praise to them for doing so. We don’t mean to belittle any attempt to compensate them for the service and dedication they have rendered as a retiree. Unfortunately, however, the unlawful enforcement of the tax system in states of the Union and the unlawful extension of it to these people, almost all of whom are outside its jurisdiction and purview, has rendered an otherwise honorable profession and calling into an ABOMINATION through no fault of their own. The love of money by those in power is the origin of that corruption and the root of the evils and unlawful activity that we criticize and try to prevent on this website. Greed by politicans hungry for power has destroyed any possibility of financial honor for those who have served our country. Any attempt to convert rights protected by the Constitution into franchises or statutory “privileges” is WHOREDOM. The unlawfully compelled use (42 USC 408(a)(8)) of government identifying numbers as a matter of policy and not law, and the destruction of rights and status that this use entails is really the heart of the problem, not those who are victimized by it.

My hat is off and I salute you if in fact you have dedicated your life to serving in the military. As an officer in the miltary, you deserve a salute anyway, if that is what you are.

[fg_admin]

Neo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Stop calling the franchise fees “taxes”

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2 It is inconsistent with how franchises actually MUST operate.

4.3 It extends federal civil jurisdiction beyond federal territory unlawfully.

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

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

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

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

Social Security: Mark of the Beast

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

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

Avoid Bad Company

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

Do not consent

If they say, “Come with us,

Let us lie in wait to shed blood;

Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause;

Let us swallow them alive like Sheol,

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

Cast in your lot among us,

Let us all have one purse”–

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

Keep your foot from their path;

For their feet run to evil,

And they make haste to shed blood.

Surely, in vain the net is spread

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

They lurk secretly for their own lives.

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

It takes away the life of its owners.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Section 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citizenship Requirement for Employees Compensated From Appropriated Funds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Hire Paperwork Attachment, Form #04.203

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers

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

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

“The Trade or Business Scam”

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