Debate About How to Attack and Destroy the “Weaponization of Government” Problem in Court in the Case of Income Tax

The following debate is a follow-up over the following article on this site:

State Jurisdiction According to ChatGPT
https://sedm.org/state-jurisdiction-according-to-chatgpt/

The term “weaponization of government” is defined on the SEDM Disclaimer page at:

SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.30
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm

This debate is a demonstration of exactly how to use the Merchant/Buyer paradigm and private property to control government actors as described in:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.5-5.7
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

The debate begins after the following horizontal line:

DEBATE OVER MATRIX DOCUMENTATION AT:

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 8:33 AM]

No living person “becomes” a taxpayer.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on.

From an income tax standpoint, Congress Treasury and IRS recognize only two possible statuses for the taxpayer: United States person (under personal jurisdiction) and foreign person (not under personal jurisdiction).

SEDM, [3/25/2023 8:36 AM]

So after all that work, you aren’t thankful for any of it and zero in on attacking what you view as the only hole.  That’s mighty neighborly of you.  Who needs enemies with friends like that?

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 8:36 AM]

It’s a fundamental flaw in your approach

SEDM, [3/25/2023 8:37 AM]

Where is the Christian virtue of HUMILITY and and THANKFULNESS for the things people get RIGHT, instead of only taking about what they do WRONG?  You need more time at church, obviously.

All sin and law and no grace.

If you were a pastor, NO ONE would ever join your church. You’re a legend in your own mind, like satan was.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 8:38 AM]

For income tax purposes, it simply doesn’t matter what you call yourself (“state national”, national of the United States”) if you don’t establish foreign status for the SSN/individual, then the individual will be deemed a United States person.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 8:43 AM]

ANY civil status without consent, whether express or implied from behavior,  is your problem.  You missed item 8 above.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 8:45 AM]

It’s not a problem because the IRS doesn’t need your consent to identify a status for a SSN.

They also don’t need your consent to assess a tax based on available information and assuming United States person for the individual (which, again, is not the living man).

If you fail to establish foreign status for the SSN, you fail to mitigate your damages and have only yourself to blame.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 8:49 AM]

The straw man is their creation and their property.  Thus, they are responsible for its liabilities.  As long as the office and the alleged but not actual officer (dissimulation) remain legally separate and there is no evidence of a consensual connection between them, and the straw man name has a Service Mark that makes them the liable party, then they can do anything they want.  They can’t create and own the strawman without being exclusively RESPONSIBLE for every aspect of its affect on others.

https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/OwningStrawManName.pdf

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 8:52 AM]

In a typical SFR examination the available evidence indicates voluntary use of the SSN (identified as belonging to a United States person) in connection with evidence of receipt of income.

Duress is a possible defense, but such a defense must be affirmatively made by the one alleging duress

SEDM, [3/25/2023 8:53 AM]

And it is here:

https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf

And the number provided is connected with a private franchise and NOT identified as a statutory number.  So its not public property they have a right to regulate the use of, penalize, or use in a public capacity.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 8:54 AM]

However, it’s far easier to simply establish a different status for the SSN, which requires only filing a VALID 1040NR.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 8:55 AM]

You never gave feedback whether the above attachment filed with a 1040NR would be considered valid. You were asked repeatedly, so your comments are not constructive but destructive in this area.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 8:56 AM]

That establishes the individual’s right to exclude from gross income any income or earnings not federally connected under IRC Sec. 872.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 8:57 AM]

Statutory “individuals” don’t have rights, but only public privileges.  Constitutionally protected “persons” are not statutory “individuals”, and when the two are separated by a Service Mark, there isn’t shit the IRS can do.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 8:57 AM]

I would never attach such a document to a 1040NR. That is very likely to result in the submission being flagged as a frivolous return

SEDM, [3/25/2023 8:58 AM]

You never even read it.  It addresses the frivolous subject and an examination of everything that is frivolous and concludes that it isn’t.

That’s my biggest problem with you.  You never look at other people’s stuff and just throw rocks, and then use the rocks as an excuse to force other people to do your homework.

That’s parasitic

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:00 AM]

They are concerned only with the individual or corporation or other artificial person.

It matters not that you argue the artificial person is somehow separate from a certain living person. This is a frivolous argument because it’s irrelevant to the determination of obligations/tax liability

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:00 AM]

Service marks and ownership of the straw man’s name is frivolous?  Why does the USPTO offer Service marks then?

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:00 AM]

I’m not your research assistant

I categorically reject the entire document because it’s unusable

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:01 AM]

Where is that in the list of frivolous arguments? Satisfy your burden of proof, and if you aren’t willing, shut your mouth because real courts can’t rule on opinions.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:02 AM]

Look it up. The strawman argument has been tried and rejected

The IRS publicizes this stuff, it’s not hard to find

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:03 AM]

There is nothing in the frivolous positions list that references service marks or ownership of the straw man name using the service mark.  I’ve read all of them.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:03 AM]

Ironically you are using a “straw man” tactic here, misstating what I said.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:04 AM]

If I own the name, how can it be used in any way without my consent and if they violate my wishes as the owner, why isn’t that a service mark infringement and criminal identity theft?

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:05 AM]

What would be the point of raising such an argument?

That the individual is not liable for a tax they assessed?  That’s why it’s frivolous. There is no argument that entitles one to blow off an assessed tax

That’s nothing more than a scheme to evade taxes. It’s a transaction with no actual business purpose. See Gregory v Helvering

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:06 AM]

I don’t argue that statutory “individuals” that are their creation and their property they are responsible for are not liable.  Why do I care what they do with their property.  But when that individual is connected to  a private service mark not owned or controlled by them, then I have standing.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:08 AM]

You have standing to do what? Evade taxes?

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:08 AM]

The business purpose is to own yourself and to be able to decide who you render services to.  There is nothing wrong with making a business out of avoiding slavery or identity theft.

Standing to sue for misuse of the private service mark or the involuntary servitude that misuse facilitates.

Are you now going to call avoiding involuntary servitude or making a business out of doing it tax evasion?  Then you better also be consistent and call changing your status from U.S. person to NRA also a crime for the same reason.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:13 AM]

There is a legitimate way to avoid taxes completely (provided you have arranged your affairs to avoid having federally connected earnings or income).

What you’re talking about is not a lawful means of avoiding tax.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:13 AM]

Proof?

No opinions please.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:14 AM]

I gave you the SCOTUS case. No business purpose other than avoiding tax = not lawful means of avoiding tax

Such a suit would be quickly dismissed under the Anti-Injunction Act. So you have no more standing with your “service mark” to enjoin assessment or collection of tax than you would without it

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:18 AM]

It wouldn’t be a statutory suit.  it would be a Fifth Amendment suit.  AIA is statutory.

As the Chatgpt conversation showed, those without a domicile wouldn’t be subject to the AIA but could still invoke the common law or the constitution/fifth amendment for a taking of private property.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:23 AM]

This is no different than the secured party creditor garbage

Or the “taxpayer” identity theft garbage.

I’ll believe this when you actually do it

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:24 AM]

There’s one in the hopper on that one, my friend.

And he’s been following the chatgpt lead post

Gregory v. Helvering in inapposite. because both entities that were part of the reorganization were privileged and the litigant is identified as a consensual “Taxpayer”. 

My client:

1.  One of the two entities is private.  Both are not public.

2.  Defined “taxpayer” as someone who is not subject and

3.  Is using a Service Mark for ALL purposes, not just taxation purposes.  So its a legitimate use of a service mark.

4.  Has the intention only to obey the obligations of his religion not to CIVILLY legally associate  with the secular state.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:30 AM]

I think you are like Don Quixote chasing after windmills

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:32 AM]

JUSTICE is the end of government, according to the founders.  Justice is legally defined as  the right to be LEFT alone. 

https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf

That can only happen when one DOES NOT legally civilly associate.  If justice is chasing windmills, then your entire business model is a farce.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:32 AM]

This is in substance nothing more than a tax evasion scheme

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:33 AM]

Not in a foreign state it isn’t. But on federal territory maybe.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:34 AM]

The right (and very simple) way of handling tax matters is before you. But like Satan, you insist on your will

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:35 AM]

Not my will but thine be done is what Jesus said.  And God said you can’t civilly legally associate. 

“Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers [the heathens], nor observe their [STATUTORY but not COMMON LAW]

judgments, nor defile yourselves  with their  [pagan government] idols. I am the LORD your God: Walk in [obey]

My statutes, keep My judgments,  and do them; hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between

Me and you,  that you may know that I am the LORD your God.”

[Ezekial 20:10-20, Bible, NKJV]

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:35 AM]

Are you counting on this crap to get you out of taxes on any government “benefit” you currently receive?

SEDM, [3/25/2023 9:35 AM]

Are you counting on calling the pursuit of justice a tax evasion scheme?

In that case, we should call it “The Department of INjustice”

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:38 AM]

“Prima Facie Service Mark Infringement

To prove service mark infringement in this case, plaintiff must prove (1) that defendant used a term in commerce (2) in connection with their services (3) which is likely to be confused with the term (4) in which plaintiff possesses the right to use to designate their services. Appellee concedes that elements (1) and (2) are present. The district court, however, found that plaintiff did not own the right to designate its services with the term “Investacorp” and hence had no protectable interest that could be infringed. Consequently, summary judgment was entered for defendant.”

[Investacorp v. Arabian Inv. Banking Corp., 931 F.2d. 1519, 1521-22 (11th Cir. 1991)]

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 9:58 AM]

It’s unjust for you to accept federal money and not pay the taxes on it. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. You made the contract, you have to live with it. 

Or just refuse the money.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 10:04 AM]

True, but under the same concept, its EQUALLY unjust for the government to accept MORE than what is owed as a grant with conditions, and not obey MY rules for receiving or keeping the money.  If every tax bill is paid that way, by paying more than what is owned and bundling private property with public property exactly the way they do it, then that is how it has to work. And if you can’t do it exactly the same way THEY do it, then NEITHER can they do it OR government becomes a pagan god with supernatural powers.

ALL are treated equally under REAL law.

This tactic, by the way, is defined on our website Disclaimer as “weaponization of government”.  So you are fighting weaponization using  weaponization:

Disclaimer, Section 4.30

https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.30._Weaponization_of_government

SEDM, [3/25/2023 10:06 AM]

“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) ]

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 10:08 AM]

I don’t understand what you mean by the government “accepting more than is owed”

SEDM, [3/25/2023 10:10 AM]

If your tax bill is $100, and you pay $200 and identify the overage as a loan or grant from a separate legal person who is NOT the “taxpayer”, and provide a copy or link to the grant conditions, then if they cash the check, they are enfranchised.

In OTHER words, you bundle PRIVATE property with PUBLIC property exactly the way they do in reverse.  The money you earned working is supposed to be entirely private, but they designate a portion of it as PUBLIC, so the remainder they “return” is private.

As long as you owe them money at the end of the year, this will work.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 10:14 AM]

No they’re not. By law it becomes a credit on your account. They can simply refund you the money.

This is secured party creditor crap I learned about more than a decade ago. It doesn’t work at all.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 10:16 AM]

Its an overage if a taxpayer, person, or resident is doing both.  But they aren’t.  The overage is paid by a nontaxpayer or a taxpayer who is off duty, while the rest is paid on duty.  And if you don’t have a right to decide when you are duty and off duty, then you are a FULL TIME slave.

A SEPARATE bill is included with the return, which identifies the overage as private property not owned by the taxpayer.

Two SEPARATE legal persons are involved in the transaction, PUBLIC and PRIVATE, and their property is comingled with the return filing.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 10:17 AM]

I’m surprised to see you underestimate your adversary to this degree. You think they didn’t consider every possible tactic like this when they designed this tax system?

SEDM, [3/25/2023 10:19 AM]

You have proof this WON’T work?

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 10:19 AM]

An overpayment is an overpayment

SEDM, [3/25/2023 10:20 AM]

If it comes from a taxpayer it is.  But the taxpayer isn’t paying the overpayment.  Another party is but the two are mixed in the SAME check and the payer is acting as an AGENT for the PRIVATE you.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 10:21 AM]

The credit will be assigned to the individual taxpayer whether you like it or not. You cannot acquire control over how the IRS runs its operation

SEDM, [3/25/2023 10:22 AM]

And the attachment to the return contains the bill for the overage from THE OTHER separate legal person.  I don’t care how they run their show.  If they accept a loan of someone else’s property who is not party to the transaction, then they have to pay the tax due or satisfy the conditions for the grant or loan.  That’s exactly how THEY do it with THEIR straw man, friend.  They mix the PRIVATE you with THEIR straw man, and treat them the same.

Its called BUNDLING.

Google does it also with the android operating system, and the EU is REAMING them for doing it.  The EU should ALSO be reaming THEMSELVES for doing exactly what GOOGLE is doing for the SAME reason within THEIR tax system.

It ought to be easy to explain this to a jury.

The bundling of the PRIVATE you with the PUBLIC you is called “equivocation” or “dissimulation”

Fight fire with fire, is what Sun Tzu said:  Use your enemy’s greatest strength against them.  In that scenario, he will have to defeat the source of his own strength to defeat YOU.  He will never do that because even discussing that source of strength is a THIRD RAIL ISSUE.

Checkmate.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 10:40 AM]

What are your damages?

SEDM, [3/25/2023 10:41 AM]

Which legal person are you talking about:  The PUBLIC statutory me, or the PRIVATE constitutional me who is off duty?

I’ve got multiple personality disorder, thanks to the IRS.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 10:43 AM]

Aren’t you suing the government?

SEDM, [3/25/2023 10:45 AM]

The PRIVATE me would have to sue, not the PUBLIC me.  That party can use the terms of the PRIVATE contractual grant to make all defendants PRIVATE, and thus not in the government.  The government is a fiction, and they dictate the terms through sovereign immunity, so they wouldn’t be the proper defendant because they would abuse sovereign immunity to subvert the contract or grant.

Anyone who accepts the benefit becomes the PRIVATE defendant under YOUR grant, just like how they run their system. The grant terms can dictate choice of law, who the parties are, and what constitutes a “benefit”.  My choice would be the common law and equity as a contract action.

If IRS cashed the check and put it into general revenues, then EVERYONE paid from general revenues would be a PRIVATE defendant.  Just pick one you don’t like and go after him.  Make it the IRS commissioner, but make sure you give ADVANCED NOTICE before enforcing the terms of the grant.

Either the government or any of the defendants would be violating your private right to contract and committing a common law trespass upon your private property to challenge your enforcement action, which they universally CANNOT do.

The BUSINESS conducted by the Service Mark would be owned by the PRIVATE ME, by the way.  The PRIVATE me would have an NRA account without a number.  The public me would have an enumerated account that is NRA.  The funds would never comingle.  BOTH would be NRAs. One would be connected to a trade or business.  The other would be an entirely foreign estate.  Neither the PUBLIC me nor the PRIVATE me would be “U.S. persons”.

My divine appointment, like Jesus, is to part the red sea for the slaves and show them the exit. People still have to walk through it. If you want to call that Don Quixote chasing windmills, this makes a travesty of the entire bible.

“Is this not the fast [act of faith, worship, and OBEDIENCE] that I [God] have chosen [for believers]:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free,
And that you break every yoke [franchise, contract, tie, dependency, or “benefit” with the government]?”
[Isaiah 58:6, Bible, NKJV]

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the [government] captives
And the opening of the prison [government FARM, Form #12.020] to those who are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;”
[Isaiah 61:1-2, Bible, NKJV]

_________________________

The law of the Lord [Form #13.001] is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
The statutes of the Lord [Form #13.001] are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
Moreover by them Your servant is warned,
And in keeping them there is great reward [“benefit” of the Heaven franchise, Form #05.030].

Who can understand his errors?
Cleanse me from secret faults.
Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins [Form #05.017];
Let them not have dominion [control, influence or “benefit”] over me.
Then I shall be blameless [under God’s laws],
And I shall be innocent of great transgression [Form #05.043].

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer.
[Psalm 19:7-14, Bible, NKJV]

GOVERNMENT only has ONE job: Protect the PRIVATE. The ONLY real “benefit” of the constitution, and the reason it was written, according to the Declaration of Independence is to protect “RIGHTS”, which are PRIVATE property in a constitutional sense but PUBLIC property in a STATUTORY sense. Without that “benefit” there is really NOTHING left to convey to the BENEFICIARIES of the constitutional trust, which the Constitution identifies as “we the people and our posterity”.

The FIRST step in that job in that protection is to prevent the conversion from PUBLIC to PRIVATE without the EXPRESS rather than IMPLIED consent of the owner.

If they fail at this job, which is their ONLY job and the purpose of their creation, they cease to be a de jure government and become a weaponized de facto government.

These principles are exhaustively explained in:

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

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 3:04 PM]
You never said what the damages are that would be sought in the lawsuit

SEDM, [3/25/2023 3:07 PM]

I didn’t state the VALUE of the damages, but I did state the basis, which is a common law trespass on private property under the Fifth Amendment and a breach of contract, and a violation of the rules of the UCC relating to merchant and buyer. And if that isn’t enough, they don’t have standing either because that’s how they run their program as far as I can tell. Ask yourself where THEY get the standing to impose obligations upon people they pay money to, and apply that same standing to me.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 3:09 PM]

“We can hardly find a denial of due process in these circumstances, particularly since it is even doubtful that appellee’s burdens under the program outweigh his benefits. It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.

FN30 s 7 of the amendment of May 26, 1941 provided that a farm marketing quota should not be applicable to any farm on which the acreage planted to wheat is not in excess of fifteen acres. When the appellee planted his wheat the quota was inapplicable to any farm on which the normal production of the acreage planted to wheat was less than 200 bushels. s 335(d) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by 54 Stat. 232, 7 U.S.C.A. s 1335(d).
FN31 ss 6, 10(c) of the amendment of May 26, 1941.
[Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82 (1942)]

Replace “government” in the above with YOU, and “regulate” with “control by contract” and you know what I mean. Now I’m regulating NOT “the government” but individual people inside a de facto government that refuse to do their ONLY job of protecting PRIVATE property and instead forcing me to convert ALL property into PUBLIC property in EVERY interaction with them. “Violation of due process” above implies a conversion of property from PRIVATE to PUBLIC without consent of the owner, and it goes BOTH ways IF, in fact, we are all equal. And if we AREN’T equal and can never be treated equally, there is no government, no private property, and you are a FULL TIME CIVIL STATUTORY SLAVE.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And if it isn’t, then government is a civil religion in violation of the First Amendment, in which they have “superior or supernatural powers” and become the object of “worship”, and therefore “obedience” in violation of the First Four Commandments of the Ten Commandments. THAT unconstitutional civil religion is described in:

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf

Religion, after all, is legally defined as obedience to a being with superior or supernatural powers, and which is the basis of the GOVERNMENT of ALL THINGS. See for yourself:

Government Establishment of Religion, Form #05.038
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovEstabReligion.pdf

Thanks for your help so far, friend! You have helped me refine the remedy to cover all bases so it doesn’t have weak spots. And now that it is organized and published, thousands of other members can help refine it further and practice implementing it. I already have a few members interested in implementing this.

I’m going to build this into my filing process as well for those who want to try it.

I’d much rather be beat up by a loving friend than a corrupt narcissistic psychopath judge who only cares about revenue collection and sits in the Executive Branch as a franchise judge under Article 1 instead of the Judicial Branch under Article III.

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”
[Prov. 27:6, Bible, NKJV]

And BEFORE you go toe to toe with the corrupt covetous judge, its best to practice the battle with that loving and hopefully skeptical friend as training for that battle. And the kind of love I’m talking about is called “tough love”. Its the BEST love of all, and God has it also.

OTHER GUY, [3/25/2023 5:13 PM]

You’re certainly not equal to government in that government’s courts

Its need for revenue to ensure survival of government means your personal concerns may have to yield until you have fully paid a disputed tax and claimed a refund. Unless you can establish that irreparable harm will result if they are not enjoined.

SEDM, [3/25/2023 5:36 PM]

I’m not disputing tax owed on money I received from them. There is nothing to dispute for the PUBLIC me and I would lose every time to engage in such a dispute. But the real dispute arises only if they don’t pay THEIR tax owed to the PRIVATE me under the terms of my grant conditions. Don’t confuse the public and the private. A common law court is not THEIR court anyway. The CONTRACT establishes what the court can even do in that scenario. Every good contract defines the terms of any dispute, and those terms are so thoughtfully prepared that there is no way to end up in THEIR statutory court, or be compelled to a civil statutory obligation or to dismiss the case, because it isn’t against a government anyway. It’s against individual beneficiaries who voluntarily accepted a PRIVATE property benefit under the terms of a contract that also functions as a PRIVATE membership agreement that contracts the CIVIL STATUTES out of the relationship. That PMA is the following:

https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf

Yes, you’re never equal if they are the lawgiver with sovereign immunity acting as a “government”. But you CAN be equal if YOU are EXCLUSIVELY under the terms of a grant of private property governed by a PMA/anti-franchise agreement against individuals in a court of equity or common law:
https://sedm.org/common-law-litigation/

“Consensus facit legem.
Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; https://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

The ONLY “LAWGIVER” with a contract written by a nonresident transient foreigner and litigated under the common law is the author of the contract. The ability to write such laws for the use of the property originates from absolute ownership itself.