This section deals with how to lawfully avoid government "franchises".  A "franchise" is an arrangement usually between you and the government, the voluntary acceptance of which puts you into a "privileged" state and causes a surrender of rights of one kind or another. The courts call "franchises" by various pseudonames to disguise the nature of the inferior relation to the government of "franchisees", such as "public right" or "privilege".   Franchises include but are not limited to:

  1. A public office:
    “Is it a franchise?  A franchise is said to be a right reserved to the people by the constitution, as the elective franchise. Again, it is said to be a privilege conferred by grant from government, and vested in one or more individuals, as a public office. Corporations, or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known to our laws."
    [People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859)]
  2. All federal and state income taxes. PDF Click here for details.
  3. Domicile in the forum state, which causes one to end up being one of the following:

    1.1  Statutory "U.S. citizen" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1401 if a domestic national.

    1.2  Statutory "Permanent resident" pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(A) if a foreign national.

  4. Becoming a notary public.  This makes the applicant into a "public official" commissioned by the state government.

    Chapter 1


    1.1 Generally


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

    [Anderson's Manual for Notaries Public, Ninth Edition, 2001, ISBN 1-58360-357-3]

  5. Becoming a registered "voter" rather than an "elector".
  6. Serving as a jurist.  18 U.S.C. 201(a)(1) says that all persons serving as federal jurists are "public officials".
  7. I.R.C. 501(c )(3) status for churches.  Churches that register under this program become government "trustees" and "public officials" that are part of the government.  Is THIS what you call "separation of church and state"?  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for details.
  8. Most but not all licensed activities, such as:
    7.1  Attorney licenses.  All attorneys are "officers of the court" and the courts in turn are part of the government.  Click here for details.
    7.2  Marriage licenses.  Click here for details.
    7.3  Driver's licenses.    Click here for details.
    7.4  Professional licenses.
    7.5  Fishing licenses.
  9. All government "benefits", including, but not limited to:
    8.1  Social Security benefits.  PDF Click here for details.
    8.1  Medicare.
    8.2  Medicaid.
  10. FDIC insurance of banks.    31 C.F.R. 202.2 says all FDIC insured banks are "agents" of the federal government and therefore "public officers".
  11. Participation of banks in the federal Reserve System.  12 U.S.C. 90 makes all "national banks" that are part of the Federal Reserve System into "agents of the government".
  12. Patents.
  13. Copyrights.

The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that private conduct is beyond the reach of the government and that certain harmful, and therefore regulated activities may cause the actors to become “public officers” when it held the following.

“One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. [500 U.S. 614, 620]

To implement these principles, courts must consider from time to time where the governmental sphere [e.g. “public purpose” and “public office”] ends and the private sphere begins. Although the conduct of private parties lies beyond the Constitution's scope in most instances, governmental authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that its participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints. This is the jurisprudence of state action, which explores the "essential dichotomy" between the private sphere and the public sphere, with all its attendant constitutional obligations. Moose Lodge, supra, at 172.“

[. . .]

Given that the statutory authorization for the challenges exercised in this case is clear, the remainder of our state action analysis centers around the second part of the Lugar test, whether a private litigant, in all fairness, must be deemed a government actor in the use of peremptory challenges. Although we have recognized that this aspect of the analysis is often a fact-bound inquiry, see Lugar, supra, 457 U.S. at 939, our cases disclose certain principles of general application. Our precedents establish that, in determining whether a particular action or course of conduct is governmental in character, it is relevant to examine the following:

[1] the extent to which the actor relies on governmental assistance and benefits, see Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961);

[2] whether the the actor is performing a traditional governmental function, see Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946); cf. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic [500 U.S. 614, 622] Committee, 483 U.S. 522, 544 -545 (1987);

[3] and whether the injury caused is aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of governmental authority, see Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

Based on our application of these three principles to the circumstances here, we hold that the exercise of peremptory challenges by the defendant in the District Court was pursuant to a course of state action.
[Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991)]

Note that the "statutory or decisional law" they are referring to above are ONLY.

  1. Criminal law.
  2. Civil franchises that you consensually engage in using your right to contract.
  3. The common law. This protects exclusively private rights beyond the control of government.

For an explanation of why this is, see: PDF Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037.

Nearly every type of government-issued benefit, license, or "privilege" you could possibly procure requires the participant to be a "public officer", "public official", "fiduciary", "alien", "resident", 'transferee", or "trustee" of the government of one kind or another with a "residence" on federal territory

“All the powers of the government [PDF including ALL of its civil enforcement powers (FORM #05.032) against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [private] individuals.
[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]

The application or license to procure the "PDF benefits" (FORM #05.040) of the franchise constitutes the contract mentioned above that creates the "RES" which is "IDENT-ified" within the government's legislative jurisdiction on federal territory.  Hence "RES-IDENT"/"resident".

"Res.  Lat.  The subject matter of a trust [the Social Security Trust or the "public trust"/"public office", in most cases] or will [or legislation].  In the civil law, a thing; an object.  As a term of the law, this word has a very wide and extensive signification, including not only things which are objects of property, but also such as are not capable of individual ownership.  And in old English law it is said to have a general import, comprehending both corporeal and incorporeal things of whatever kind, nature, or species.  By "res," according to the modern civilians, is meant everything that may form an object of rights, in opposition to "persona," which is regarded as a subject of rights.  "Res," therefore, in its general meaning, comprises actions [or CONSEQUENCES of choices and CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS you make by procuring BENEFITS]  of all kinds; while in its restricted sense it comprehends every object of right, except actions.  This has reference to the fundamental division of the Institutes that all law relates either to persons, to things, or to actions.

Res is everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status.  In re Riggle's Will, 11 A.D.2d 51 205 N.Y.S.2d 19, 21, 22.  The term is particularly applied to an object, subject-matter, or status, considered as the defendant [hence, the ALL CAPS NAME] in an action, or as an object against which, directly, proceedings are taken.  Thus, in a prize case, the captured vessel is "the res"; and proceedings of this character are said to be in rem.  (See In personam; In Rem.)  "Res" may also denote the action or proceeding, as when a cause, which is not between adversary parties, is entitled "In re ______".
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1304-1306]

The "subject matter or status" they are talking about includes all privileged statuses such as "taxpayer", "benefit recipient", or statutory "U.S. citizen" (8 U.S.C. 1401), or statutory "U.S. resident (alien)" (26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(A)).  Even domicile is a type of franchise--a "protection franchise", to be precise.  This "res-ident" is what most people in the freedom community would refer to as your "straw man".  If a state-issued license or benefit is at issue, the territory that the privilege or franchise attaches to is federal territory that is usually in a federal area within the exterior limits of the state.  The reason all licenses must presume domicile of the "person" on federal territory is that they are implemented using civil law and they regulate the exercise of rights protected by the Constitution, which in turn is a violation of rights.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution does not apply on federal territory, and therefore there is no conflict with the Constitution in regulating the exercise of rights there.

“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to 'guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government' (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, 'a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,' Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

Consent to the franchise contract or agreement is therefore what creates the statutory “person” and “individual”, or “res-ident” who is the only proper subject of the franchise in the otherwise foreign jurisdiction.  That is why the definition of “foreign” and “domestic” in the Internal Revenue Code hinges on whether the “person” is in fact a corporation:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

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

(4) Domestic
The term “domestic” when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State unless, in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides otherwise by regulations.

(5) Foreign
The term “foreign” when applied to a corporation or partnership means a corporation or partnership which is not domestic.
[26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4)-(5)]
Note that based on the above definitions, those who are NOT corporate statutory “persons” would be “foreign” rather than “domestic”, and a STATUTORY “non-resident non-person”.  This STATUTORY “non-resident non-person” is described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) as not engaged in a public office and whose property is a “foreign estate”.  The “partnership” they are talking about in the above definition is the same partnership invoked in the definition of “person” at 26 U.S.C. §§6671(b) and 7343, which is a partnership between the United States Federal Corporation and an otherwise PRIVATE human or entity.  That partnership gives rise to agency on behalf of said corporation, and the agency itself is the only proper subject of tax.   Remember: Contracts create agency:
“All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [private] individuals.
[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]
Notice that the tax extends wherever the GOVERNMENT extends, meaning the PUBLIC OFFICES of the government, because Congress can only tax what it creates, and it didn’t create HUMANS.  The only thing it can create are bogus franchise offices and fool legally ignorant humans into volunteering for them using deceptive government forms which are deliberately not trustworthy and contain LIES:
“Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L.Ed. 98, was an action of trespass or, as appears by the original record, replevin, brought in the circuit court for the District of Columbia to try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general purposes on that District. 3 Stat. at L. 216, chap. 60. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in one as legislating [182 U.S. 244, 260] for the states; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under art. 1, 8, giving to Congress the power 'to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,' which 'shall be uniform throughout the United States,' inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States [described in the Constitution]. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States. The fact that art. 1 , 2, declares that 'representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . according to their respective numbers' furnished a standard by which taxes were apportioned, but not to exempt any part of the country from their operation. 'The words used do not mean that direct taxes shall be imposed on states only which are represented, or shall be apportioned to representatives; but that direct taxation, in its application to states, shall be apportioned to numbers.' That art. 1, 9, 4, declaring that direct taxes shall be laid in proportion to the census, was applicable to the District of Columbia, 'and will enable Congress to apportion on it its just and equal share of the burden, with the same accuracy as on the respective states. If the tax be laid in this proportion, it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax in proportion to the census or enumeration referred to.' It was further held that the words of the 9th section did not 'in terms require that the system of direct taxation, when resorted to, shall be extended to the territories, as the words of the 2d section require that it shall be extended to all the states. They therefore may, without violence, be understood to give a rule when the territories shall be taxed, without imposing the necessity of taxing them.'”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

In fact, we refer to all statutory “residents” simply as “government contractors”. Below is an example of how this identity theft and kidnapping occurs in fraudulently creating this “res-ident”.  The word of art “trade or business” is defined as “the functions of a public office” in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26).  When one indicates that they are engaged in the privileged “trade or business”/public office activity, they at that point are treated as and are presumed to be “resident aliens” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code:

26 C.F.R. 301.7701-5 Domestic, foreign, resident, and nonresident persons.(4-1-04)

A domestic corporation is one organized or created in the United States, including only the States (and during the periods when not States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii), and the District of Columbia, or under the law of the United States or of any State or Territory. A foreign corporation is one which is not domestic. A domestic corporation is a resident corporation even though it does no business and owns no property in the United States. A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident foreign corporation, and a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident foreign corporation. A partnership engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident partnership, and a partnership not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident partnership. Whether a partnership is to be regarded as resident or nonresident is not determined by the nationality or residence of its members or by the place in which it was created or organized.
[Amended by T.D. 8813, Federal Register: February 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 21), Page 4967-4975]


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;

Applying for any kind of "privilege" or franchise from the government  or engaging in the activity that constitutes the privilege amounts to your constructive consent to be treated as a "resident alien" who is PDF domiciled on federal territory and who has no constitutional rights.  The following articles and forms describe this straw man and provide tools to notify the government that you have disconnected yourself from this "straw man" who is the "public officer" that is the only proper or lawful subject of most federal legislation:

  1. PDF Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a "Public Officer" for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
  2. PDF Proof that There Is a "Straw Man", Form #05.042
  3. State Created Office of "Person" (OFFSITE LINK)
  4. IRS Form 56: Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship, Form #04.204
  5. PDF Affidavit of Corporate Denial, Form #02.004

Participating in federal franchises has the following effects upon the legal status of various types of "persons" listed below.  The right column describes the status of the "public officer" you represent while you are acting in that capacity.  The right column is a judicial creation not found directly in the statutes and which results from the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1605.  It does not describe your own private status.  This "public officer" in the right column is the "straw man" that is the subject of nearly all federal legislation that could or does regulate your conduct.  Without the existence of the straw man, the Thirteenth Amendment would make it illegal to enforce federal civil law against human beings because of the prohibition against involuntary servitude.  For details on how the change in "choice of law" is effected by you voluntarily consenting to assume the duties of the "public officer" straw man, read sections 13 through 13.6 of our pamphlet below:

Entity type Sovereign status
within federal civil statutory law
WITHOUT franchises
Status in federal
AFTER accepting
Human being born within and domiciled within a state of the Union Non-resident non-person (Form #05.020) "Resident alien" (26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A))
"Alien individual" (26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3))
"Alien" (See Form #10.011, Section 12.1)
Private man or woman "Public officer"
Trustee of the "public trust"
Constitutional but not statutory "citizen"
(See PDF Why You Are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen)

Statutory "U.S. citizen" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1401 or 8 U.S.C. &1101(a)(22)(A) because representing a federal corporation under 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(A) which is a "citizen" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b)

NOT a constitutional "citizen of the United States" pursuant to Fourteenth Amendment

"Stateless person"
"Transient foreigner"

Domestic person

"U.S. person" (26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30))


State of the Union "state"
"foreign state"

Statutory "State" as defined in 4 U.S.C. 110(d)
(see Federal Trade Zone Act, 1934, 19 U.S.C. 81a-81u)



Foreign estate
(26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(31))

Nonstatutory trust

Domestic person

"U.S. person" (26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30))

Statutory trust

State corporation


Foreign estate
(26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(31))

Domestic person

"U.S. person" (26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30))

Federal corporation

Domestic person

"U.S. person"

"Person" (already privileged)

Domestic person

"U.S. person" (26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30))

"Person" (already privileged)


WARNING:  Participating in ANY government franchise can leave you entirely without standing or remedy in any federal court!  Essentially, by eating out of the government's hand, you are SCREWED, BLACK AND BLUED, and TATTOOED! 

"These general rules are well settled:

(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself [a "public right", which is a euphemism for a "franchise" to help the court disguise the nature of the transaction], is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U. S. 40, 9 Sup. Ct. 12, 32 L. Ed. 354;  Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439, 21 L. Ed. 696;   Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195, 19 L. Ed. 35;  De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431, 433, 18 L. Ed. 700;  Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212, 7 L. Ed. 108. 

(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, 35 Sup. Ct. 398, 59 L. Ed. 520, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 118;  Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U. S. 238, 3 Sup. Ct. 184, 27 L. Ed. 920;   Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U. S. 555, 558, 25 L. Ed. 212; Farmers' & Mechanics' National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 35, 23 L. Ed. 196. 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, 19 Sup. Ct. 503, 43 L. Ed. 779;   Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U. S. 124, 29 Sup. Ct. 556, 53 L. Ed. 936;  McLean v. United States, 226 U. S. 374, 33 Sup. Ct. 122, 57 L. Ed. 260;   United States v. Laughlin (No. 200), 249 U. S. 440, 39 Sup. Ct. 340, 63 L. Ed. 696,  decided April 14, 1919."
[U.S. v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464 (1919)]

For a detailed exposition of why the above is true, see also PDF Allen v. Graham, 8 Ariz.App. 336, 446 P.2d 240 (Ariz.App. 1968).  Signing up for government entitlements hands them essentially a blank check, because they, and not you, determine the cost for the service and how much you will pay for it beyond that point.  This makes the public servant into your Master and beyond that point, you must lick the hands that feed you.  Watch Out!  NEVER, EVER take a hand-out from the government of ANY kind, or you'll end up being their CHEAP WHORE.  The Bible calls this WHORE "Babylon the Great Harlot".  Remember:  Black's Law Dictionary defines "commerce", e.g. commerce with the GOVERNMENT, as "intercourse".  Bend over!

Commerce.  …Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities [governments] and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on…” 
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 269]

Government franchises and licenses are the main method for destroying the sovereignty of the people pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1603(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2).  They are also the MAIN method that our public servants abuse to escape the straight jacket chains of the constitution.  Below is an admission by the U.S. Supreme Court of this fact in relation to Social Security:

“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments… This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.” 
[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)]

For further details on how franchises destroy rights and undermine the constitutional requirement for equal protection, read the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005, Sections 1.4 though 1.11.

Go to beginning


This Powerpoint presentation presents the basic concepts of franchises simply and to an audience not schooled in the law.  You can use this presentation as a good starting point to learn about franchises.  Then you can follow up with the next section, which provides evidence to back up everything stated in this presentation.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


This memorandum of law describes in detail exactly how franchises and public benefits work, gives examples of franchises, and describes all the consequences upon your legal standing and rights that result from participation.  It is VERY important for freedom minded individuals to read and understand this document so that they know all the rights they are surrendering when they apply for public benefits, as well as how to end participation in the franchises to restore your rights.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


This memorandum of law will discusses and describe how government criminal identity theft occurs, how it is concealed and protected, how to prove it exists in a court of law, and remedies to fight it.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


An extremely important subject to learn is the legal separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE rights. An understanding of this separation is crucial to successfully prosecuting all violation of PRIVATE rights by government actors. This course covers the basics of this subject in a concise way to make this subject especially clear.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


This document corrects false or misleading government records about your citizenship and domicile status and politically and legally divorces the federal/national government in order to restore your sovereignty. It makes you into a "stateless person" (OFFSITE LINK) and a "foreign sovereign" in respect to the federal/national government without expatriating or abandoning your nationality.  The document below should help with that very popular goal.  Sending this document in according to the instructions included is also a MANDATORY requirement of our Member Agreement.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


Many people have asked if we have any information that may be helpful to those who wish to legally terminate participation in Social Security.  The document below should help with that very popular goal.  Sending this document in according to the instructions included is also a MANDATORY requirement of our Member Agreement.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


There are many occasions in which Christians are called to either request, to use, or to disclose government issued identifying numbers such as Social Security Numbers or Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs).  The Bible calls such numbers the “mark of the beast” and calls all governments who issue them “the beast”.

"And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army."
[Rev. 19:19, Bible, NKJV]

The focus of this form is to provide a compact, convenient form that can be presented by persons doing business with private employers and financial institutions that will prove that they may not lawfully have or use government issued identifying numbers and would be violating the criminal laws to do so.  This places the recipient of the form in the awkward position of either willfully engaging in a conspiracy to commit a crime or removing their demand for such a number.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


The IRS has no form that PDF non-resident non-person domiciled in states of the Union who are not engaged in a "trade or business" and not "individuals" (meaning "public officers" in the government) can use to describe their lawful citizenship and tax status to the government, businesses, and financial institutions.  Those who are "individuals" are described in 26 C.F.R. 1.871-1(b)(1)(i), but there is no equivalent regulation for those who are not "individuals" and no form available to use to document their immunity or sovereignty.

  1. PDF IRS Form 8233 is inadequate because it is for "personal services" rendered within the "United States" (e.g. federal zone).  The I.R.C. and regs PDF presume that "personal services" means services connected with a "trade or business".
  2. There is no form available to exempt from withholding a person not in receipt of taxable "privileges" because not engaged in "personal services" ("trade or business" services), not working within the federal zone ("United States"), not engaged in a "trade or business", not a "beneficial owner",  PDF not participating in Socialist INSecurity, and not in receipt of treaty benefits.  In effect, they are refusing to acknowledge that a person can be a nontaxpayer without accepting a "privilege" because they want to compel everyone into a privileged state to destroy their rights and sovereignty.
  3. The closest we have been able to come in searching for such a needed form is the AMENDED IRS form W-8BEN, but it still leaves much to be desired because it doesn't specifically indicate that withholding is unlawful in the case of such a person, even though PDF IRS Pub 519, the I.R.C., and the Treasury regulations authorize such an exemption from withholding and tax liability.  See 26 C.F.R. 1.872-2(f), 26 C.F.R. 31.3401(a)(6)-1(b), 26 U.S.C. 861(a)(3)(C)(i), 26 U.S.C. 3401(a)(6), 26 U.S.C. 1402(b), and 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(31).
  4. The PDF original IRS form W-8, discontinued in 2002, served the required purpose.  The IRS modified the form by replacing it with the W-8BEN so that people with the correct status above would have no remedy to defend their  status using what the law allows.  They did this to dupe even more people unwittingly into becoming "taxpayers". 

People have been asking us for a substitute form that does the job to make it easier to defend and explain their sovereignty on certain key occasions, and now they have authoritative tools to use to defend their status!  This item solves these problems and provides a very potent and compact form can be used for several important occasions in order to explain, defend, and justify your status as a constitutional citizen, not a statutory "U.S. citizen" as defined 8 U.S.C. 1401, a "national", a "PDF non-resident non-person", and a "nontaxpayer".  It is specifically designed to attach to any one of the following important applications to clarify your citizenship, domicile, and tax status:

  1. Financial account applications along with an AMENDED IRS form W-8BEN in order to open an account without an SLAVE SURVEILLANCE NUMBER or any kind of 1099 reporting or tax withholding.  NOTE:  DO NOT use the standard IRS form W-8BEN, because it makes you into a "beneficial owner" and therefore a "taxpayer".
  2. Job application
  3. Voter registration
  4. Jury summons response
  5. Government application or form

Below is a link to this very important form. The form is electronically fillable, so that you can fill in the fields from Adobe Acrobat and save your copy locally for reuse in the future to save you LOTS of time responding to tax collection notices.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


The terms used on the USA Passport Application, Dept. of State Form DS-11, relating to citizenship are deliberately vague and ambiguous and do not provide an option for THREE types of American citizenship that a person can have.  This is exhaustively explained in the following memorandum of law:

The DS-11 Passport Application form only gives one choice, and that choice creates a PDF presumption that one is a statutory rather than constitutional "U.S. citizen" as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1401. This presumption is FALSE in the case of all persons who are PDF domiciled in a state of the Union.  The only way to prevent this PDF false resumption is to either modify the form before you submit it or to attach this form.  Using this form is EXTREMELY important.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


The terms used on state voter registration forms relating to citizenship are deliberately vague and ambiguous and do not provide an option for THREE types of American citizenship that a person can have.  This is exhaustively explained in the following memorandum of law:

Most state voter registration forms only give one choice, and that choice creates a PDF presumption that one is a statutory rather than constitutional "U.S. citizen" as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1401. This presumption is FALSE in the case of all persons who are PDF domiciled in a state of the Union.  The only way to prevent this PDF false resumption is to either modify the form before you submit it or to attach this form.  Using this form is EXTREMELY important.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


STANDARD IRS forms are famous for creating the following PDF false presumptions:

  1. That you are a "taxpayer".  The only persons the IRS Mission Statement found in IRM authorizes the IRS to help or publish forms for are "taxpayers".  See PDF our Form #05.013 for for details.
  2. That because you provided a federal identifying number, you are a "franchisee" engaged in a "trade or business" and a "public office" within the U.S. government.  See our Form #07.004 for details.
  3. That you maintain a domicile in the "United States", which is defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as the federal zone and nowhere expressly includes any state of the Union.  The IRS Form 1040, for instance, is only for use by those who maintain a "domicile" or "residence" within the federal zone, which people domiciled in states of the Union do not.
  4. That you are an "individual", which is defined in 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1(c )(3) as a  "nonresident alien individual" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(B) or "alien individual" pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(A) domiciled in the "United States" who works for the U.S. government in a "public office" as the "employee" defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105.

    4.1  The term "individual" is deliberately not defined in the I.R.C. because this would spill the beans that you can't be       an "individual" subject to federal jurisdiction who is not an "employee", officer, or instrumentality of the U.S. government. 

    4.2  These same "individuals" are also defined as "federal personnel" in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2) and they are all federal trusts created under the authority of the Social Security Act.

    4.3  The income tax is a tax on these trusts, and this is confirmed by the definition of "income" found in 26 U.S.C. 643(b).  The Social Security Trust associated with the SSN/TIN is, in fact, the ONLY real or lawful "taxpayer".  This trust is  a wholly owned subsidiary of "PDF U.S. Inc.", which is a federal corporation and therefore the trust also is a federal corporation.  This is also clarified in:
           PDF  Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

All four of the above PDF false presumptions have the desired consequences of causing you to surrender your sovereign immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1603(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2) and making you into an indentured servant of the federal government who is surety for public debts and every pork barrel spending bill your public DIS-servants dream up.  There are three methods for preventing or overcoming these deliberately PDF false presumptions:

  1. Use AMENDED IRS forms that remove the presumptions.  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for a source of AMENDED IRS forms.
  2. Use STANDARD IRS forms and then modify them to correctly reflect your status.  The modifications required are listed in Section 1 of this link.  Sometimes, the IRS tries to penalize people who "alter" their forms.
  3. Use STANDARD IRS forms that you don't modify but above your signature write "Not valid, false, and perjurious without signed Tax Form Attachment attached" and then attach this form.  This approach avoids any penalties the IRS might attempt to impose for "altering" their forms, and yet avoids you having to commit perjury under penalty of perjury on a government form.

This form provides a standardized and very effective way to accomplish the last option above.  The last option above implemented with this form is the most convenient of the above three options and provides a very consistent and bullet-proof way to correctly describe your status as a Member using any government form.  Using this form with EVERY STANDARD IRS form you submit is a mandatory requirement of our Member Agreement.   

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


False information returns filed against people are the main method by which "nontaxpayers" are compelled unlawfully to become "taxpayers".  Filing of these false returns is a quite common criminal violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206 and 7207 and a civil violation of 26 U.S.C. 7434 for those who file them. Our Member Agreement requires Members to prevent these false returns from being filed in the first place and also calls for correcting all those that are filed so that they don't erroneously become connected to the "trade or business" (OFFSITE LINK) franchise that is codified within Internal Revenue Code Subtitles A and C.

Resources for further study:

NOTE:  The above document consolidates the first five links below into a single, convenient, terse PDF file that you can take on the road, which is also indexed and has tables of authorities so you can hand it to payroll clerks and company legal counsel.

Go to beginning


The most important thing you can do to defend your sovereignty is to defend your privacy.  The only thing the government can lawfully keep records on are its own agents, employees, officers, benefit recipients, and contractors without violating your Fourth Amendment right of privacy.  In order to restore your privacy, you must systematically disconnect yourself from all of these franchises and continually emphasize nonparticipation whenever you provide information to third parties about yourself.  This form protects your privacy from abuses and violations of law by government, private industry, and regulators by:

  1. Preventing the illegal enforcement of PDF government franchises against non-parties and restoring your character as a private person instead of a "public officer".
  2. Preventing compelled or illegal use or disclosure of public property such as Social Security Cards and Social Security Numbers.  PDF Click here for details.
  3. Preventing disclosure of personal information to government or regulatory agencies by disconnecting you from public benefits and franchises, thereby causing you to withdraw consent to maintain or disclose records or information about you pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b).
  4. Creating an anti-franchise franchise of your own whereby information about you is YOUR property and not that of the recipient and makes recipients of your personal information personally liable for any and all disclosures to third parties that are not expressly authorized IN WRITING.
  5. Preventing the filing of Currency Transaction Reports (CTR) and Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) against persons not engaged in the "trade or business" franchise.
  6. Educating regulators and compliance people in the government and private industry about the limitations upon their authority to disclose or share with third parties records about a person who does not participate in franchises.  Public servants who regulate and supervise financial institutions, public entities, and federal franchises typically misrepresent the requirements of the law and illegally enforce these franchises against nonparticipants by compelling disclosure to them of information that is NOT public and does not relate to activities of "public officers" or agents of the government.

Attach this form to all financial, account, government, and medical forms to ensure your privacy is protected and that you do not become the unlawful subject of any financial transaction report.  If you don't use this form, you could become the target of unlawful government enforcement and/or be prosecuted for "structuring" (31 U.S.C. 5324) or money laundering (18 U.S.C. 1956) if someone in the government wants to make trouble for those who refuse to participate in federal franchises.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


This memorandum of law describes why licenses to practice law are a fraud and are not necessary in most cases.  This memorandum comes from our Forms page, and is Form #05.029.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


This book is important for those who don't want the government or its pagan lawyers and laws running their family or their life.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


This book describes in detail how the driver's license franchise works and how to drive lawfully without a license.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


Legal domicile (OFFSITE LINK) is a voluntary franchise by which We The People procure "protection" from a specific government.  The military draft is a liability associated with "domicile" on federal territory.  It DOES NOT apply within states of the Union.  This free memorandum of law provides legal authorities that describe how to lawfully avoid but not unlawfully "evade" the military draft in the United States.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


Federal district and circuit courts are legislative franchise courts established pursuant to Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, not pursuant to Article III.  They are "property courts" and not "justice courts" that mainly administer, protect, and expand PDF federal franchises and other property.  If you aren't very careful, any attempt to petition such a court can cause the court or your government opponent to abuse PDF presumption to make you into government property or a custodian over government property by connecting you to PDF franchises and offices in the government against your will and thereby enslaving you.  Attach this form to every motion, petition, or pleading you file in federal court so that you can prevent all the following important games and obstruction of justice by the U.S. Attorney and the de facto judge:

  1. The default false presumption that you have a domicile on federal territory and therefore participate in their protection franchise and have a duty to pay for said protection.
  2. The default false presumption that you are a PDF statutory "U.S. citizen" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1401 subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress.
  3. Prejudicial PDF presumptions about the meaning of specific "words of art".
  4. Prejudicial PDF presumptions that you are a "taxpayer" subject to the I.R.C.
  5. Prejudicial PDF presumptions about the use of Taxpayer Identification Numbers by the U.S. attorney.
  6. The de facto magistrate assuming you consent to their jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636, which is mandatory if heard by a magistrate.  This form establishes that you have NO DELEGATED AUTHORITY to consent to their jurisdiction.
  7. The judge or U.S. Attorney from gaining an advantage by ignoring or omitting to address any objection or factual statement you make by invoking F.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(6).

Below is the form:

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


This document is intended to be used to protect you from unlawful government enforcement actions relating to various franchises and any court judgments resulting from the enforcement of these franchises against persons who are not participating.  Use this form to make the "public officer" straw man into a separate entity and then place a lien on the  straw man so that you have first priority ahead of the government in the context of court judgments, tax collections, family court judgments, and traffic court judgments.

WARNING!:  PLEASE DO NOT call us to obtain help filling out or using this form or the UCC1 form included in the ZIP file.  We won't return your call or answer your questions.  This FREE form is provided as a courtesy, not a service or a revenue generation device.  Our Member Agreement prohibits us from getting into asset protection or commerce and prohibits members from asking us about either, and this form might be misconstrued as having both flavors.  If you have questions about how to fill it out, please do your own homework by reading the resources listed below.  Sovereignty begins with taking complete, exclusive, and personal responsibility for your choices and for educating and empowering yourself by reading and applying the law yourself.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning


Those who refuse to accept PDF government franchises and services and lawfully refuse to pay for these services are sometimes illegally prosecuted by zealous but criminal government attorneys for "willful failure to file" under 26 U.S.C. 7203 and "tax evasion" under 26 U.S.C. 7201.  The government's offense in these cases is like a broken record:

"Mr./Ms. __________ accepts the 'benefits' of living in this country but refuses to pay his/her 'fair share'.  He/she is a LEECH and you ought to hang him!"

For an example of the above such rhetoric from an actual criminal tax case, Click Here (OFFSITE LINK).

Well, this memorandum proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all such rhetoric is not only FALSE, FRAUDULENT, and RIDICULOUS, but constitutes a criminal conspiracy against your constitutionally guaranteed rights.  You have a constitutionally protected right to NOT contract with or do business with the government protected by Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution.  The government is just like any other corporation or business and the only service it provides is "protection".  Those who are "customers" of this protection and PDF social insurance service must voluntarily choose a PDF domicile within the jurisdiction of the government and are then called  "U.S. citizens", "U.S. residents", or "U.S. persons".  When the "protection service" provided by government is ineffective, wasteful, inefficient, and/or actually harmful to us or our family, we always have the right to "fire the bastards" and cease to be "customers".  The Declaration of Independence, in fact, makes it our DUTY to pursue "better safeguards for our future security".  Those who do this are called "nonresidents", "nonresident aliens", and "transient foreigners".  Use this pamphlet as a powerful defense in court against such bogus charges.

Resources for further study:

Go to beginning