What is an income tax “exclusion”?

SOURCE: How to File Returns, Form #09.074, Section 7.2 (Member Subscriptions); https://sedm.org/product/filing-returns-form-09-074/

For a downloadable and printable version of this form, see:

Excluded Earnings and People, Form #14.019
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/ExcludedEarningsAndPeople.pdf

1. Introduction

An exemption is a reduction of a tax liability of earnings that would otherwise be taxable. It is a PUBLIC privilege. An “exclusion” is the elimination of earnings from taxability that is NOT a privilege. EXEMPT earnings are PUBLIC property while EXCLUDED earnings are entirely PRIVATE and beyond the civil legislative control of Congress because protected by the Bill of Rights.

“Initially, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a tax exclusion and a tax exemption. Tax exemptions are items which the tax payer is entitled to excuse from the operation of a tax and, as such, are to be strictly construed against the tax payer. Tax exclusions, on the other hand, are items which were not intended to be taxed in the first place and, thus, to the extent there is any doubt about the meaning of the statutory language, exclusionary provisions are to be strictly construed against the taxing body. In fact, tax laws in general (with the exception of exemption clauses) are construed in favor of the tax payer and against imposition of the tax unless the legislative intent is clear and unambiguous.”

[In re Twisteroo Soft Pretzel Bakeries, Inc., 21 B.R. 665, 667 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1982)]

In order to make your earnings taxable, they must be converted from PRIVATE to PUBLIC as described below:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

Another way of saying this is that the earnings must be REMOVED from the protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so that they can be put under civil statutory control.

“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. ”
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]

There are only two ways to CONVERT PRIVATE to PUBLIC:

Convert the civil status of the PROPERTY. This is done, for instance, by:
1.1 Calling the earnings “wages” when filing a W-4 as a private man or woman per 26 U.S.C. §3402(p).
1.2 “Effectively connecting” earnings to the “trade or business” franchise as a nonresident alien. In effect, the earnings are converted from PRIVATE to PUBLIC to procure the PRIVILEGE of some kind of deduction as a benefit or advantage. This is done by placing the earnings on the 1040NR form instead of the Schedule NEC, for instance.
Convert the civil status of the OWNER (jurisdiction over the PERSON). This is done, for instance, by changing your DEFAULT civil status of “nonresident alien” as a state national by “electing” to be treated as a PRIVILEGED STATUTORY “citizen” or “resident”, who file a 1040 instead of a 1040NR and can then take privileged “deductions” under 26 U.S.C. §162. The cost of PROCURING this “benefit” or privilege is that the character of your earnings changes from being taxable only from U.S. sources in 26 U.S.C. §872 to being taxable on your worldwide EARNINGS UNDER 26 U.S.C. §61 and §861. NOT a good deal.

The following court case acknowledges the above two mechanisms to convert PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property:

“In the case of the federal government where the individual is either a United States citizen or an alien residing in the taxing jurisdiction, the tax under section 1 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the person; where the individual is an alien [LEGISLATIVELY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY “foreign”, INCLUDING states of the Union] not residing in the taxing jurisdiction [the “geographical United States”, meaning the District of Columbia per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), the tax under section 871 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the [PUBLIC] property or income of the nonresident individual [GEOGRAPHICALLY and PHYSICALLY] located or earned in the taxing jurisdiction”
[Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d 301, 307 (3d Cir. 1974)]

An “EXCLUSION” happens when any of the following methods are employed to reduce taxable income without invoking an “EXEMPTION” or “DEDUCTION” under 26 U.S.C. §162:

Avoiding clouding the ownership or title to the payment as “property” by:
1.1 Not getting involved in or accepting payments from sources within the geographical “United States” under 26 U.S.C. §872(a).
1.2 Not getting involved in or accepting payments from activities involving a “trade or business” under 26 U.S.C. §872(b).
Avoiding clouding the civil status of the OWNER of the income by connecting him, her, or it to a public office or “trade or business” by pursuing a civil status that is a privilege, such as STATUTORY “citizen” or STATUTORY “resident” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a). These two civil statuses are voluntary and avoidable PRIVILEGES. Those who don’t consent to them simply declare themselves as “nonresident aliens”, which does not have any civil statutory duties, liabilities, or obligations directly attached to it. See:
Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidGovernmentObligations.pdf

Once property is converted from PRIVATE to PUBLIC as described in item 1, those in in possession of it “may be treated as” public officers. This is because a “public officer” is legally defined as someone in charge of the PROPERTY of the public:

“Public Office. [. . .]Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public“

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1235]

The authority to exercise DIRECT, CIVIL legislative control over those in charge of the “property of the public” originates from Constitution Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, which says:

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2

Congress shall have the power to make all needful rules respecting the Territory and Other Property of the United States.

Statutes at 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) and 44 U.S.C. §1505(a) implement the above method of DIRECT LEGISLATIVE CONTROL over those in possession of PUBLIC property WITHOUT the need for implementing regulations.

Below is an example from our website to accomplish item 1 above:

“2. Earnings in this section come ONLY from the statutory geographical “United States” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d).

3. Earnings from any place OTHER than the statutory geographical “United States” are purposefully excluded under 26 U.S.C. §872. They don’t need to be exempt, because they are excluded from being listed in the schedule NEC. This means all earnings received from geographical sources outside the STATUTORY, but not CONSTITUTIONAL “United States” are purposefully not listed in this section. This includes all of my earnings, because I do not do business with or in the statutory geographical “United States”.”

[1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077, Section 6: Schedule NEC Information]

___________________________________

5. Effectively connected” means otherwise private property CONSENSUALLY donated to a public use, a public purpose, or a public office within the national and not state government, and thus connected to the statutory “trade or business” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”. None of God’s entirely private property under my stewardship falls into this category. All of Gods’ property is absolutely owned private property protected by the constitution and defined as a “foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) and the First Amendment separation of church and state. Ownership of “trade or business” property, on the other hand, is QUALIFIED (shared) rather than ABSOLUTE (singular). “Trade or business” property ownership or control is shared by the officer occupying the office and its government parens patriae, Creator, and owner. A portion of the shared ownership becomes a kickback (called a return) to compensate its trustee for his or her services.

[1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077, Section 7: Definitions]

Below is an example from our website to accomplish item 2 above:

8. The term “U.S. citizen” is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401, 26 C.F.R. §31.3121(e)-1(b), and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). Regulation at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) identifies 8 U.S.C. §1401-1459 as the source of the definition for “citizen”, and none of the statutes referenced identifies a “citizen” as a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment. The “United States” in the Constitution includes states of the Union and excludes that mentioned in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). The “citizen” status in the I.R.C. is privileged and statutory and is always geographical in this context and therefore is tied to the statutory geographical “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d). Because liability is attached to this status in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a), it must be voluntary or unconstitutional slavery and human trafficking is the result. Those who don’t volunteer would drop back to “nonresident alien” civil status, which doesn’t have a direct liability associated with it. This inference is consistent with Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d. 301, 307 (3d Cir. 1974). The D.C. circuit court even held that the range of statutes cited in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) defining what a “citizen” was did NOT include constitutional citizens, when it held: ““Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes [8 U.S.C. §1401-1459 mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)] would have been unnecessary.” Tuaua v. U.S.A, 951 F.Supp.2d. 88 (2013). OF COURSE the government can tax privileges. I would never argue with that. However, privileges are voluntary and avoidable or we have unconstitutional slavery, and I therefore choose to avoid them. And if I can’t make that choice, I’m a slave. All just powers, according to the Declaration of Independence, derive from the CONSENT of the governed. I consent to NOTHING. Anything not consensual in a civil context is therefore inherently UNJUST. To equivocate between CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY “citizens”, which are mutually exclusive and non-overlapping, is to essentially KIDNAP the identity of people in states of the Union to federal territory without their consent and enslave them, in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. Identity theft is a criminal offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. §911 in the case of a statutory “U.S. Citizen” franchise/privilege. More at: Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm.

[1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077, Section 7: Definitions]

2. SEDM Limited to Exclusions rather than Exemptions

SEDM focuses EXCLUSIVELY on eliminating liability through “excluded” income rather than “exempt” income. This is because:

“Reducing liability” rather than “excluding” liability implies that one has some amount of liability to begin with, and if such is the case, then it necessarily means that the person is a statutory taxpayer. The SEDM website should not be used by taxpayers.
“Reducing liability” also implies that some portion of one’s earnings or gross income after said reduction, are taxable. And this would require them to be effectively connected to a statutory trade or business or be from a source located within the federal United States, which, would mean that the person meets the definition of a “taxpayer”. SEDM does not cater to taxpayers.
Exclusions, either constitutional or statutory, are geared towards protecting one’s assets and putting the IRS on notice that none of the assets are taxable because as a foreign estate, they are not subject to the IRS’ jurisdiction or control.

Below is what our Member Agreement says on this subject:

SEDM Member Agreement
1.1 My Status and Standing

By seeking the information and services of SEDM, I do not seek to “exempt” my earnings from taxation or to reduce my existing tax liability as a “taxpayer” through deductions or exemptions, but rather to EXCLUDE earnings that never were subject to taxation to begin with under 26 U.S.C. §872(b). In that sense, I am not seeking a “tax shelter“, which is a device used by a statutory “taxpayer” to REDUCE an existing liability. Pursuant to 26 C.F.R. §1.6662-4(2)(ii), neither SEDM nor I can therefore be subject to accuracy related penalties for tax shelters.

“Initially, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a tax exclusion and a tax exemption. Tax exemptions are items which the tax payer is entitled to excuse from the operation of a tax and, as such, are to be strictly construed against the tax payer. Tax exclusions, on the other hand, are items which were not intended to be taxed in the first place and, thus, to the extent there is any doubt about the meaning of the statutory language, exclusionary provisions are to be strictly construed against the taxing body. In fact, tax laws in general (with the exception of exemption clauses) are construed in favor of the tax payer and against imposition of the tax unless the legislative intent is clear and unambiguous.”[In re Twisteroo Soft Pretzel Bakeries, Inc., 21 B.R. 665, 667 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1982)]
[SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001, Section 1.1, Item 13; https://sedm.org/participate/member-agreement/]

3. Example Exclusions

3.1 Statutes

1. 26 U.S.C. §864(b)(1)(A)

(b)Trade or business within the United States

For purposes of this part, part II, and chapter 3, the term “trade or business within the United States” includes the performance of personal services within the United States at any time within the taxable year, but does not include—

(1)Performance of personal services for foreign employer

The performance of personal services—

(A) for a nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or

2. 26 U.S.C. §872(d) Gross Income

3. 26 U.S.C. §861(a)(3)(C)(i)

(a)Gross income from sources within United States

(3)Personal services

(C)the compensation is for labor or services performed as an employee of or under a contract with—

(i) a nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or

4. 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31)

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

(31)Foreign estate or trust

(A)Foreign estate

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

(B)Foreign trust

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

3.2 Regulations

1. 26 C.F.R. §1.872-1(3) Gross income of nonresident alien individuals

(3) Exclusions.

For exclusions from gross income, see §1.872–2.

2. 26 C.F.R. §1.872-2 Exclusions from gross income of nonresident alien individuals.”

(f) Other exclusions.

Income which is from sources without the United States, as determined under the provisions of sections 861 through 863, and the regulations thereunder, is not included in the gross income of a nonresident alien individual unless such income is effectively connected for the taxable year with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by that individual. . .

3. 26 C.F.R. §1.871-7(a)(4)

4. Do not earn statutory “wages” per:

4.1 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)(6)-1(b) in the case of income tax.

4.2 26 C.F.R. §31.3121(b)-3(c)(1) in the case of Social Security.

5. 26 C.F.R. §1.871-8(c)(1) Taxation of nonresident alien individuals engaged in U.S. business or treated as having effectively connected income

(1) In general.

The determination as to whether a nonresident alien individual is engaged in trade or business within the United States during the taxable year is to be made for each taxable year. . . Income, gain, or loss of a nonresident alien individual is not treated as being effectively connected for the taxable year with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States if he is not engaged in trade or business within the United States during such year, even though such income, gain, or loss may have been effectively connected for a previous taxable year with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States. . .”

4. An example of someone who earns nothing BUT excluded earnings

Our SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.25 defines someone who earns nothing BUT excluded earnings as follows:

4.25 “Non-Person” or “non-resident non-person”

The term “non-person” or “non-resident non-person” (Form #05.020) as used on this site we define to be a human who is all of the following:

Tax status:
1.1. Is NOT a STATUTORY “nonresident alien individual” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §1441(e) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii), both of which are alien residents of Puerto Rico AND NO ONE ELSE.
1.2. Because they are “nonresident aliens” but not “nonresident alien individuals”, then they are not a statutory “person”. You must be a statutory “individual” to be a statutory “person” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a) if you are a man or woman.
More on this at: Tax Status Presentation, Form #12.043.
Not domiciled on federal territory and not representing a corporate or governmental office that is so domiciled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. See Form #05.002 for details.
Not engaged in a public office within any government. This includes the civil office of “person”, “individual”, “citizen”, or “resident”. See Form #05.037 and Form #05.042 for court-admissible proof that statutory “persons”, “individuals”, “citizens”, and “residents” are public offices.
Not “purposefully or consensually availing themself” of commerce with any government. Therefore, they do not waive sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97.
Obligations and Rights in relation to Governments:
5.1. Waives any and all privileges and immunities of any civil status and all rights or “entitlements” to receive “benefits” or “civil services” from any government. It is a maxim of law that REAL de jure governments (Form #05.043) MUST give you the right to not receive or be eligible to receive “benefits” of any kind. See Form #05.040 for a description of the SCAM of abusing “benefits” to destroy sovereignty. The reason is because they MUST guarantee your right to be self-governing and self-supporting:
Invito beneficium non datur.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est.
A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]5.2. Because they are not in receipt of or eligible to receive property or benefits from the government, they owe no CIVIL STATUTORY obligations to that government or any STATUTORY “citizen” or STATUTORY “resident”, as “obligations” are described in California Civil Code Section 1428. This means they are not party to any contracts or compacts and have injured NO ONE as injury is defined NOT by statute, but by the common law. See Form #12.040 for further details on the definition of “obligations”.
5.3. Because they owe no statutory civil obligations, the definition of “justice” REQUIRES that they MUST be left alone by the government. See Form #05.050 for a description of “justice“.
For the purposes of citizenship on government forms:
6.1. Does NOT identify as a STATUTORY “citizen” (8 U.S.C. §1401 and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)), “resident” (alien under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)), “U.S. citizen” (not defined in any statute), “U.S. resident” (not defined in any statute), or “U.S. person” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)).
6.2. Identifies themself as a “national” per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and per common law by virtue of birth or naturalization within the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States***”.
Earnings originate from outside:
7.1. The STATUTORY “United States**” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) (federal zone) and
7.2. The U.S. government federal corporation as a privileged legal fiction.
Thus, their earnings are not includible in “gross income” under 26 U.S.C. §871 and are a “foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31). See 26 U.S.C. §872 and 26 C.F.R. §1.872-2(f) and 26 C.F.R. §1.871-7(a)(4) and 26 U.S.C. §861(a)(3)(C)(i) for proof.
Does not earn STATUTORY “wages” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) because all services performed outside the STATUTORY “United States**” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) (federal zone) and the CORPORATION “United States” as a legal fiction. Therefore, not subject to “wage” withholding of any kind for such services per:
8.1. 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)(6)-1(b) in the case of income tax.
8.2. 26 C.F.R. §31.3121(b)-3(c)(1) in the case of Social Security.
Expressly exempt from income tax reporting under:
9.1. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(b)(5)(i).
9.2. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(e)(1)(ii)(A)(1).
9.3. 26 C.F.R. §1.6041-4(a)(1).
Exempt from backup withholding because earnings are not reportable by 26 U.S.C. §3406(g) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3406(g)-1(e). Only “reportable payments” are subject to such withholding.
Because they are exempt from income tax reporting and therefore withholding, they have no “taxable income”.
11.1. Only reportable income is taxable.
11.2. There is NO WAY provided within the Internal Revenue Code to make earnings not connected to a statutory “trade or business”/public office (Form #05.001) under 26 U.S.C. §6041 reportable.
11.3. The only way to make earnings of a nonresident alien not engaged in the “trade or business” franchise taxable under 26 U.S.C. §871(a) is therefore only when the PAYOR is lawfully engaged in a “trade or business” but the PAYEE is not. This situation would have to involve the U.S. government ONLY and not private parties in the states of the Union. The information returns would have to be a Form 1042s. It is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §912 for a private party to occupy a public office or to impersonate a public office, and Congress cannot establish public offices within the exclusive jurisdiction of the states of the Union to tax them, according to the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 68 S.Ct. 331 (1866).
Continue to be a “national of the United States*” (Form #05.006) and not lose their CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship while filing form 1040NR. See 26 U.S.C. §873(b)(3). They do NOT need to “expatriate” their nationality to file as a “nonresident alien” and will not satisfy the conditions in 26 U.S.C. §877 (expatriation to avoid tax). Expatriation is loss of NATIONALITY, and NOT loss of STATUTORY “citizen’ status under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
If they submit a Form W-8 to control withholding and revoke Form W-4, then they:
13.1. Can submit SSA Form 7008 to correct their SSA earnings to zero them out. See SEDM Form #06.042.
13.2. Can use IRS Form 843 to request a full refund or abatement of all FICA and Medicare taxes withheld if the employer or business associate continues to file W-2 forms or withhold against your wishes. See SEDM Form #06.044.
Are eligible to replace the SSN with a TEMPORARY International Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) that expires AUTOMATICALLY every year and is therefore NOT permanent and changes. If you previously applied for an SSN and were ineligible to participate, you can terminate the SSN and replace it with the ITIN. If you can’t prove you were ineligible for Social Security, then they will not allow you to replace the SSN with an ITIN. See:
14.1. Form W-7 for the application.
14.2. Understanding Your IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, Publication 1915
14.3. Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001 for proof that no one within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union is eligible for Social Security.
Must file the paper version of IRS Form 1040NR, because there are no electronic online providers that automate the preparation of the form or allow you to attach the forms necessary to submit a complete and accurate return that correctly reflects your status. This is in part because the IRS doesn’t want to make it easy or convenient to leave their slave plantation.
Is a SUBSET of “nonresident aliens” who are not required to have or to use Social Security Numbers (SSNs) or Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) in connection with tax withholding or reporting. They are expressly exempted from this requirement by:
16.1. 31 C.F.R. §1020.410(b)(3)(x).
16.2. 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b)(2).
16.3. W-8BEN Inst. p. 1,2,4,5 (Cat 25576H).
16.4. Instructions for the Requesters of Forms W-8BEN, W-8BEN-E, W-8ECI, W-8EXP, and W-8IMY, p. 1,2,6 (Cat 26698G).
16.5. Pub 515 Inst. p. 7 (Cat. No 16029L).
More on SSNs and TINs at:
About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012
About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #04.104

They are “non-persons” BY VIRTUE of not benefitting from any civil statutory privilege and therefore being “PRIVATE”. By “privilege”, we mean ANY of the things described in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2):

5 U.S. Code § 553 – Rule making

(a)This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved—

[. . .]

(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.

The above items all have in common that they are PROPERTY coming under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution that is loaned or possessed or granted temporarily to a human being with legal strings attached. Thus, Congress has direct legislative jurisdiction not only over the property itself, but over all those who USE, BENEFIT FROM, or HAVE such property physically in their custody or within their temporary control. We remind the reader that Congress enjoys control over their own property NO MATTER WHERE it physically is, including states of the Union, and that it is the MAIN source of their legislative jurisdiction within the exclusive jurisdiction of Constitutional states of the Union!:

United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

“The Constitution permits Congress to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. This power applies as well to territory belonging to the United States within the States, as beyond them. It comprehends all the public domain, wherever it may be. The argument is, that the power to make ‘ALL needful rules and regulations‘ ‘is a power of legislation,’ ‘a full legislative power;’ ‘that it includes all subjects of legislation in the territory,‘ and is without any limitations, except the positive prohibitions which affect all the powers of Congress. Congress may then regulate or prohibit slavery upon the public domain within the new States, and such a prohibition would permanently affect the capacity of a slave, whose master might carry him to it. And why not? Because no power has been conferred on Congress. This is a conclusion universally admitted. But the power to ‘make rules and regulations respecting the territory‘ is not restrained by State lines, nor are there any constitutional prohibitions upon its exercise in the domain of the United States within the States; and whatever rules and regulations respecting territory Congress may constitutionally make are supreme, and are not dependent on the situs of ‘the territory.‘”
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 509-510 (1856)]

By property, we mean all the things listed in 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) such as SSNs (property of the government per 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d)), contracts (which are property), physical property, chattel property, “benefits”, “offices”, civil statuses, privileges, civil statutory remedies, etc. A “public office” is, after all, legally defined as someone in charge of the PROPERTY of the “public”:

“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]

Even the public office ITSELF is property of the national government, so those claiming any civil statutory status are claiming a civil office within the government. It is otherwise unconstitutional to regulate private property or private rights. The only way you can surrender your private status is voluntarily adopt an office or civil status or the “benefits”, “rights”, or privileges attaching to said office or status, as we prove in:

It is custody or “benefit” or control of government/public property that grants government control over those handling or using such property:

“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

“The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender.”
[Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]

Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]

“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.

“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]

You cannot MIX or comingle PRIVATE property with PUBLIC property without converting the PRIVATE property ownership from absolute to qualified. You must keep them SEPARATE at all times and it is the MAIN and MOST IMPORTANT role of government to maintain that separation. Governments, after all, are created ONLY to protect private property and the FIRST step in that protection is to protect PRIVATE property from being converted to PUBLIC property. For proof, see:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

What Congress is doing is abusing its own property to in effect create “de facto public offices” within the government, in violation of 4 U.S.C. §72, as is proven in:

Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf

This is how we describe the reason why people should avoid privileges and thereby avoid possession, custody, use, or “benefit” of government/public property on the opening page of our site:

“People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.”

[SEDM Opening Page; http://sedm.org]

“Non-resident Non-Person” or “non-person” are synonymous with “transient foreigner”, “in transitu”, and “stateless” (in relation to the national government). We invented this term. The term does not appear in federal statutes because statutes cannot even define things or people who are not subject to them and therefore foreign and sovereign. The term “non-individual” used on this site is equivalent to and a synonym for “non-person” on this site, even though STATUTORY “individuals” are a SUBSET of “persons” within the Internal Revenue Code. Likewise, the term “private human” is also synonymous with “non-person”. Hence, a “non-person”:

Retains their sovereign immunity. They do not waive it under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 or the longarm statutes of the state they occupy.
Is protected by the United States Constitution and not federal statutory civil law.
May not have federal statutory civil law cited against them. If they were, a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and a constitutional tort would result if they were physically present on land protected by the United States Constitution within the exterior limits of states of the Union.
Is on an equal footing with the United States government in court. “Persons” would be on an UNEQUAL, INFERIOR, and subservient level if they were subject to federal territorial law.

Don’t expect vain public servants to willingly admit that there is such a thing as a human “non-person” who satisfies the above criteria because it would undermine their systematic and treasonous plunder and enslavement of people they are supposed to be protecting. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the “right to be left alone” is the purpose of the constitution. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. A so-called “government” that refuses to leave you alone or respect or protect your sovereignty and equality in relation to them is no government at all and has violated the purpose of its creation described in the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, anyone from the national or state government who refuses to enforce this status, or who imputes or enforces any status OTHER than this status under any law system other than the common law is:

“purposefully availing themselves” of commerce within OUR jurisdiction.
STEALING, where the thing being STOLEN are the public rights associated with the statutory civil “status” they are presuming we have but never expressly consented to have.
Engaging in criminal identity theft, because the civil status is associated with a domicile in a place we are not physically in and do not consent to a civil domicile in.
Consenting to our Member Agreement.
Waiving official, judicial, and sovereign immunity.
Acting in a private and personal capacity beyond the statutory jurisdiction of their government employer.
Compelling us to contract with the state under the civil statutory “social compact”.
Interfering with our First Amendment right to freely and civilly DISASSOCIATE with the state.
Engaged in a constitutional tort.

If freedom and self-ownership or “ownership” in general means anything at all, it means the right to deny any and all others, including governments, the ability to use or benefit in any way from our body, our exclusively owned private property, and our labor.

“We have repeatedly held that, as to property reserved by its owner for private use, “the right to exclude [others is] `one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.’ ” Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 433 (1982), quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979). “
[Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)]

__________________________________________________________

“In this case, we hold that the “right to exclude,” so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right,[11] falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation.”
[Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)]

__________________

FOOTNOTES:

[11] See, e. g., United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 206 Ct.Cl. 649, 669-670, 513 F.2d. 1383, 1394 (1975); United States v. Lutz, 295 F.2d. 736, 740 (CA5 1961). As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis, “[a]n essential element of individual property is the legal right to exclude others from enjoying it.” International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (dissenting opinion).

If you would like a W-8 form that ACCURATELY describes the withholding and reporting status of a “non-resident non-person”, see:

W-8SUB, Form #04.231
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf