On Why You MUST Define Franchise “words of art” on all Government Forms and How to Do It

Throughout our site, we say you should NEVER produce evidence that you consent to acquire a franchise privilege, “benefit”, or civil status. This includes but is not limited to:

1. “taxpayer”
2. “person”
3. “resident”
4. “citizen”
5. “United States”
6. “State”
7. “individual”

The problem is, if you have had money unlawfully withheld as a nontaxpayer, you MUST fill out a tax return in order to get it back, and thereby BY DEFAULT refer to yourself as a privileged “taxpayer” on the tax return form. How does one get out of doing this? Some options include:

1. Saying what you are NOT, such as a STATUTORY “taxpayer“. This puts you into the unfortunate position of proving a NEGATIVE, which is nearly impossible.
2. Not defining terms on the form and letting the recipient PRESUME whatever definition they want. This is dangerous, because they will always PRESUME it has its statutory meaning, and thus that you are enfranchised.
3. Using your own form that doesn’t invoke the statutory terms, which is usually rejected or ignored and thus you don’t get the refund.

None of the above ever really work. The solution lies in doing what LOOKS the same as what everyone else does but actually accomplishes the goal of getting your money back without acquiring a privileged civil status of STATUTORY “taxpayer”. The way you do this much more successfully is the following:

1. Use the standard form 1040NR.
2. Include a MANDATORY attachment referenced in the address block of the form that includes the address and can’t be separated.
3. Define franchise terms on the form such as “taxpayer” as follows:
   
   “Taxpayer” means someone protected by the constitution and not subject to any civil statute, and who is asking for a return of UNLAWFULLY withheld and incorrectly reported earnings that are and always have been absolutely owned and thus controlled by me. This definition applies to ALL filings with the IRS, past, present, and future, regardless if attached or not.”
4. Using small print in the attachment so they are unlikely to read it but it still applies (just like THEIR forms and publications do).
5. If they don’t like the definition, it still applies even on a future refiling, because it defines all FUTURE meanings of the term on every filing with the government, even if not explicitly attached.

In the attachment, use the following language:

The following limitations apply to all perjury statements contained on any government form signed by the Protected Party and all information verified by such perjury statements:

1. None of the terms PREPRINTED on any attached GOVERNMENT SUPPLIED forms therefore:
   1.1. Are to be construed or interpreted by the Protected Party, Government Actor, or RECIPIENT in a CIVIL STATUTORY context.
   1.2. Are to be used to enforce any CIVIL STATUTORY or QUASI-CRIMINAL obligation upon the SUBMITTER. By “quasi-criminal”, we mean a PENAL provision that has a predicate civil statutory status, such as “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, “individual”, etc that owes an obligation to do something CIVIL in nature. An example is the definition of “person” found in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343. For an explanation of how the quasi-criminal SCAM works, see:
   Withdrawal of Plea-Federal, Litigation Tool #03.007
   https://sedm.org/product/withdrawal-of-plea-federal-litigation-tool-03-007/
   1.3. Are to be used or construed as an act of “election”, political association, or consent in any form which might give rise to rights on the part of the Recipient. This includes, but is not limited to any of the following statutory civil statuses:
   1.3.1. “Person”
   .3.2. “Individual”
   1.3.3. “Taxpayer”
   1.3.4. Citizen”.
   1.3.5. “U.S. citizen”.
   1.3.6. “U.S. resident”.

2. The only legal context and choice of law in which the statements of the Protected Party may be interpreted is the common law, the Constitution (Bill of Rights), and the criminal law (not penal or quasi-criminal) of the place he or she was physically standing on at the time the form was filled out.
3. All RIGHTS RESERVED: U.C.C. §1-308; https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308.
4. The perjury statement on any attached government form(s) verifies ONLY information ADDED to the form, and not information PREPRINTED on the form by the government. If the government isn’t accountable for preprinted information, then under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment, neither can I be, and it would be STUPID of me to surrender my equality in relation to any government in court, since it would in effect create an unconstitutional civil religion in violation of the First Amendment to do so.
5. This statement does not INVALIDATE or limit the perjury statement, but merely controls the SPECIFIC information that is verified under penalty of perjury on the PREPRINTED form and USE and legal CONTEXT of the information provided. As you probably know, CONTEXT of words is EVERTHING in the legal field: CONSTITUTION v. STATUTORY.

The above restrictions on perjury statements and information on the forms you submit comes from the following:

1. Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027, Section 5.1
   https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf
2. Avoiding Traps in Government Forms, Form #12.023, p. 109
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidingTrapsGovForms.pdf

By taking the above approach:

1. You prevent them from PRESUMING the STATUTORY context for the term.
2. You prevent having to argue or debate with them about the meaning of terms. If they do, they are interfering with your First Amendment right to communicate and the right to define the meaning of the communications that is part of it.
3. You protect your PRIVATE status and the protections of the constitution that enforce it.
4. You relieve yourself from the burden or proving a negative, which is that you are NOT a statutory “taxpayer”.
5. You do NOT manifest consent to acquire a civil status that would cause a conversion of the owner from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
6. You LOOK like everyone else (by using the SAME forms OTHERS use) without actually BEING like everyone else.
7. You FORCE the CREATOR of the civil franchise status to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the OWNERSHIP they claim to have and the right to use it as their SOURCE of control over you. The CREATOR is always the OWNER, and you can’t OWN anything without taking RESPONSIBILITY for it. OWNERSHIP and RESPONSIBILITY always go together and should NEVER be separated or INJUSTICE will prevail. Click here for details.
8. You make it IMPOSSIBLE for them to make YOU responsible for THEIR creations, offices, and property. Thus, you avoid becoming SURETY for anything, because the bible FORBIDS surety in Prov. 6:1, Prov. 11:15, Prov. 17:18, Prov. 20:16, Prov. 22:26, Prov. 27:13.
9. They can’t argue with you or change your definition, because THEY say on their website and the courts agree that you can’t trust ANYTHING they say, print, or write. See:
   Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
10. Therefore, you HAVE to do it this way, because you can’t trust THEIR definition, and you need a legally actionable DEFINITION of the terms before anything on the form becomes legally actionable. in court in the case of a dispute. Presumptions about the meaning of terms in court are a violation of due process of law and make the judge unconstitutionally into a “legislator”.

A 1040NR tax return form attachment that does the above is listed below:

1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf

Another form that accomplishes the above for ANY tax form is the following:

Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf

REMEMBER: The CREATOR of a thing is always the OWNER.
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm

When you are creating a form, you are the owner and creator of the terms on the form and by submitting it, you are in fact CREATING rights against yourself. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court says about those who CREATE rights against themselves, which includes you:

“These general rules are well settled:

(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431-433; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212.

(2) That, where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35.

Still, the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374; United States v. Laughlin, 249 U.S. 440. “

[United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328 (1919)]

As the CREATOR of the rights against yourself resulting from the perjury statement you sign on a government form, you have a right to LIMIT those rights with the definitions you provide as the original OWNER of those rights, just like when Uncle Sam uses the same technique in the process of LEGISLATIVELY creating rights against itself. No one can LIMIT those rights by redefining the terms and if they DO, they are STEALING, because RIGHTS are property. See:

Authorities on Rights as PROPERTY, SEDM
https://sedm.org/authorities-on-rights-as-property/