Weaponization of Government: “Citizen” legal status

Throughout this site, the main focus is the abuse of Weaponization of Government to bundle things you don’t want with things that you do, resulting in the destruction of any and all constitutional and natural rights and substituting privileges in their place. This article will examine how that bundling occurs in reference to the civil/legal status of STATUTORY “citizen”. Citizen is merely one of many different franchise statuses, civil statuses, or legal statuses one can have. Each is an indication of “membership” of one kind or another, and EVERY type of membership carries with it an exchange of constitutional rights for statutory privileges, as the U.S. Supreme Court indicated:

When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which, as an individual [***24]  not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. HN4 “A body  [**84]  politic,” as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, “is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively private, Thorpe v. R. & B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143; but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and  [*125]  has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas. From this source come the HN5 police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Cases, 5 How. 583, “are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty, . . . that is to say, . . . the power to govern men and things.” Under these powers the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall [***25]  use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. 
[Munn. v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]

The key to understanding “membership” and the loss of rights it implies is that the First Amendment makes all forms of membership within our system of government optional and consensual. If you are forced to become a member of anything, then this is a violation of your right to NOT associate and your freedom from compelled association. Since an act of birth is not an act of consent, then both naturalization and birth cannot carry any innate privileges. That is why the term “national” cannot and does not carry privileges with it: because it is a PRODUCT of birth or naturalization, which are not consensual. Yes, an act of naturalization might be consensual, but indirectly it is a product of economic duress, because the privileged status of alien that precedes it is a punishment for those who don’t abandon that privileged civil status.

On this site we identify the following components of being a STATUTORY “citizen”, all of which are privileges. They are privileges because any they are all granted through civil legislation and can be taken away at any time, either legislatively or even administratively :

1. Ability to vote, which is a privilege called “elective franchise”.
2. Ability to serve on jury duty.
3. Obligation to pay income tax.
4. Having or claiming the the civil statutory status or legal status of “citizen” or “resident”
5. Ability to invoke CIVIL STATUTES to obtain specific government “civil services”, also called “benefits”. We define such services in our Disclaimer, Section 4.6. Such civil services are all franchises funding through excise taxation and might include:
   5.1 Social Security.
   5.2 Medicare.
   5.3 Driver Licensing.
   5.4 Marriage licensing.
   5.5 Professional licensing.
   

Domicile is a prerequisite to ALL of the above and it is voluntary. If you don’t have a domicile, typically you can’t exercise ANY of the above within the venue that you don’t have a domicile in. Domicile, in turn is also a privilege but you have to choose it and must consent to it. Once you choose it and consent to it, it can’t be taken away but the “BENEFITS” or privileges that it enables that are listed above can be taken away individually for any reason by civil legislation. Domicile is a privilege because it represents a BUNDLE of both RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS, neither of which can be forced upon you without your individual consent. Courts also identify it as a “benefit” and you have a right to NOT receive or pay for a “benefit”. Benefits and privileges are synonymous on this site. Below is an example of this phenomenon:

The obligation of one domiciled within a state to pay taxes there, arises from unilateral action of the state government in the exercise of the most plenary of sovereign powers, that to raise revenue to defray the expenses of government and to distribute its burdens equably among those who enjoy its benefits. Hence, domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are inseparable from the responsibility for sharing the costs of government. See Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U.S. 54, 58; Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 14, 17; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 498; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 50. The Federal Constitution imposes on the states no particular modes of taxation, and apart from the specific grant to the federal government of the exclusive 280*280 power to levy certain limited classes of taxes and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, it leaves the states unrestricted in their power to tax those domiciled within them, so long as the tax imposed is upon property within the state or on privileges enjoyed there, and is not so palpably arbitrary or unreasonable as to infringe the Fourteenth Amendment. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, supra.

Taxation at the place of domicile of tangibles located elsewhere has been thought to be beyond the jurisdiction of the state, Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194; Frick v. Pennsylvania, 268 U.S. 473, 488-489; but considerations applicable to ownership of physical objects located outside the taxing jurisdiction, which have led to that conclusion, are obviously inapplicable to the taxation of intangibles at the place of domicile or of privileges which may be enjoyed there. See Foreign Held Bond Case, 15 Wall. 300, 319; Frick v. Pennsylvania, supra, p. 494. And the taxation of both by the state of the domicile has been uniformly upheld. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, supra; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, supra; Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1; Maguire v. Trefry, supra; compare Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U.S. 204; First National Bank v. Maine, 284 U.S. 312.

The present tax has been defined by the Supreme Court of Mississippi as an excise and not a property tax, Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, 126 Miss. 34; 88 So. 4; Knox v. Gulf, M. & N.R. Co., 138 Miss. 70; 104 So. 689, but in passing on its constitutionality we are concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it. See Educational Films Corp. v. Ward, 282 U.S. 379, 387; Pacific Co. v. Johnson, 285 U.S. 480; Shaffer v. Carter, supra, pp. 54-55.

It is enough, so far as the constitutional power of the state to levy it is concerned, that the tax is imposed 281*281 by Mississippi on its own citizens with reference to the receipt and enjoyment of income derived from the conduct of business, regardless of the place where it is carried on. The tax, which is apportioned to the ability of the taxpayer to bear it, is founded upon the protection afforded to the recipient of the income by the state, in his person, in his right to receive the income, and in his enjoyment of it when received. These are rights and privileges incident to his domicile in the state and to them the economic interest realized by the receipt of income or represented by the power to control it, bears a direct legal relationship. It would be anomalous to say that although Mississippi may tax the obligation to pay appellant for his services rendered in Tennessee, see Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, supra; Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, supra, still, it could not tax the receipt of income upon payment of that same obligation. We can find no basis for holding that taxation of the income at the domicile of the recipient is either within the purview of the rule now established that tangibles located outside the state of the owner are not subject to taxation within it, or is in any respect so arbitrary or unreasonable as to place it outside the constitutional power of taxation reserved to the state. Maguire v. Trefry, supra; see Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, supra.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi found it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of so much of the statute, added by the amendment of 1928, as exempted domestic corporations from the tax on income derived from activities outside the state. It said that if the amendment were valid, appellant could not complain; if invalid, he would still be subject to the tax, since the act which it amended, § 11, c. 132, Laws of 1924, would then remain in full force, and under it individuals and domestic corporations are taxed alike. Knox v. Gulf, M. & N.R. Co., supra.

282*282 But the Constitution, which guarantees rights and immunities to the citizen, likewise insures to him the privilege of having those rights and immunities [statutory privileges] judicially declared and protected when such judicial action is properly invoked. Even though the claimed constitutional protection be denied on non-federal grounds, it is the province of this Court to inquire whether the decision of the state court rests upon a fair or substantial basis. If unsubstantial, constitutional obligations may not be thus avoided. See Ward v. Love County, 253 U.S. 17, 22; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 164; Fox River Paper Co. v. Railroad Commission, 274 U.S. 651, 655. Upon one of the alternative assumptions made by the court, that the amendment is discriminatory, appellant’s constitutional rights were infringed when the tax was levied upon him, and state officers acting under the amendment refrained from assessing the like tax upon his corporate competitors. See Iowa-Des Moines National Bank v. Bennett, 284 U.S. 239, 246. If the Constitution exacts a uniform application of this tax on appellant and his competitors, his constitutional rights are denied as well by the refusal of the state court to decide the question, as by an erroneous decision of it, see Greene v. Louisville & Interurban R. Co., 244 U.S. 499, 508, 512 et seq.; Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553, 564, for in either case the inequality complained of is left undisturbed by the state court whose jurisdiction to remove it was rightly invoked. The burden does not rest on him to test again the validity of the amendment by some procedure to compel his competitors to pay the tax under the earlier statute. Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Bennett, supra, p. 247. See Cumberland Coal Co. v. Board of Revision, 284 U.S. 23. We therefore conclude that the purported non-federal ground put forward by the state court for its refusal to decide the constitutional question was unsubstantial and 283*283 illusory, and that the appellant may invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to decide the question.
[Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]

Government is a corporation AND a “business” created by the Constitution, which is a trust indenture. Like any other business, you have a right to NOT be a customer. The “products and services” it offers appear in the above list. The cost of delivering those “products and services” are bundled TOGETHER into one essential thing: income tax. If you don’t want to pay income tax, the only choice they give you is to avoid all the “products and services” above and the domicile that makes you eligible to receive them. If you make that choice, then you in essence CEASE to be a “customer” of their “protection racket”.

The problem with this scenario is that:

1. They bundle ALL the privileges together.
2. You can’t separate any of the above and buy or pay for them individually.
3. Those who have been recruited into this “protection racket” become unwitting recruiters to recruit OTHERS by being legally compelled in essence to:
   4.1 Force the use of Social Security Numbers or Taxpayer Identification Numbers so that all those they do business with must sign up for the PRIVILEGE of old age insurance.
   4.2 Abuse these “franchise marks” to file false information returns that, in effect, convert the legal status of your otherwise PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property.
   4.3 Institute “economic sanctions” against those who refuse to be privileged. For instance, deny you a bank account unless you claim to be a statutory “U.S. person” or refuse to provide a “franchise mark” that thereby donates the entire content of the account to a “public purpose”, which is what a “trade or business” is.
   4.4 Deny you a job, fire you, or discriminate against you if you claim a civil or legal status on withholding paperwork that is NOT privileged, such as “nonresident alien”.
   4.5 Rule against you in court as a judge or jurist if you challenge the income tax LEGITIMATELY as a nonresident alien not engaged in the “trade or business” franchise, because you will raise their income tax bill by dropping off the roster of “customers”. This represents a CRIMINAL conflict of interest.

Welcome to THE MATRIX, Neo!

1. Why You are Here
2. Devils Advocate: Lawyers
3. The Real Matrix

Ultimately then, the only choice they give you is to leave their MATRIX system entirely, reinvent it in a more egalitarian form, and go into direct competition with them in the process in a manner documented, for instance, in the following document:

Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/SGFArtOfConfed.pdf

The solution seems simple in implementing a system like the above:

1. Pay for services OTHER than “civil services” with taxes on imports and foreigners like the original constitution.
2. Implement the income tax as an annual bill for “civil services” which are all “domestic”.
3. On the income tax return provide a list of specific services that you want and must consent to.
4. Pay only for the services you WANT, like every other business.
5. Disputes over payment for these services must then be settled under the common law in court rather than the CIVIL law. That way, government cannot abuse the civil statutes to create or enforce any form of INEQUALTITY between the governed and the governors. Everyone is equal in a common law court, while government is a pagan idol in a civil statutory court that has superior or supernatural powers that you as the natural do not have. The GOVERNMENT servant can never be allowed to be a MASTER or to entice you to give up your equality in relation to them by in essence BRIBING you with “benefits” or privileges, because this creates a “dulocracy” if you allow it.

Ultimately, the government mafia will fight you in exiting their “protection racket” mainly because everything they do is all about money and power, and they lose BOTH when you leave their MATRIX. They prevent your exit by:

1. Confusing UNPRIVILEGED status of “national” with the PRIVILEGED civil status of STATUTUTORY “citizen”, thus allowing them to equivocate and make them appear essentially the same, even though they are NOT. Thus, you are deceived into believing that being PRIVILEGES is unavoidable.
2. Calling you “frivolous” without actually providing any evidence to prove it. See Form #05.027.
3. Making legal presumptions about your civil status or legal status that stick if you don’t know how to challenge them.
4. Quoting civil statutes against you that imply a waiver of rights in exchange for civil statutory privileges and immunities. If you don’t know how to challenge jurisdiction when they do this, the obligations attached to the civil status will stick.
5. Calling you “crazy”.
6. Censoring all of the documentation and information needed to learn how to exit, such as the content of this site.
7. Conveniently LOSING the document or notice you send them quitting their system so they don’t have to incriminate themselves in explaining why the lost it.
8. Refusing to give a civil status in their civil statutes that directly recognizes your PRIVATE right to leave their system. See Form #12.023.
9. Removing attachments you attach to government forms you are compelled to complete, even though you don’t want any privileges but are required by others to fill out to get a job or open a bank account. This way, they can force you to look like you consent even though you are under duress.
10. By the courts telling you that unless you take up a domicile in another jurisdiction, then you retain the one you have. Of course domicile is an act of LEGAL and POLITICAL association with the PEOPLE on a specific land mass that must be literally owned or at least controlled by that political body. Keep in mind, however, that the Bible says the Heavens and the Earth are His property, and everyone else temporarily occupying it is a mere steward under His divine laws (Form #13.001), and not man’s temporary and vain substitute.

Escaping this LITERAL MATRIX is therefore a daunting task that can require years of study to complete successfully. It took years of brainwashing to get in fully IN to their system and can take just as long to LEAVE it. You can’t free your BODY until you free your MIND. The purpose of this website is to show you how to leave it, in fulfillment of the biblical calling upon all Christians to do so.

⁴ And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. ⁵ For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. ⁶ Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. ⁷ In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’ ⁸ Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her.
[Rev. 18:4-8, Bible, NKJV]