Bing ChatGPT: Proof that a civil statutory “person” is an agent of the government granting the status – Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)

EDITORIAL:

Based on the answers below, the two key factors that decide if you are an agent of the government:

Right to control you. This includes making you a target of ENFORCEMENT activity.
Some “benefit” or “compensation”. CIVIL STATUTORY enforcement services in court constitute such a benefit.

THEREFORE: You’re an AGENT of the government if you claim “person” status whether you know it or not. THIS is why IRS focuses SO HARD on making you a “person”: they want to CONTROL you.

Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf

BING CHAT GPT QUESTION 1:

How might I go about proving that a civil statutory “person” is an agent of the government that legislatively created and granted that status?

ANSWER 1 USING “COMPOSE”:

One possible way to prove that a civil statutory “person” is an agent of the government that legislatively created and granted that status is to examine the legal definition and the rights and duties of such a person. A civil statutory “person” is a legal entity that is recognized by a specific statute or law, and that has certain rights and obligations under that law. For example, a corporation is a civil statutory “person” that is created by the law of incorporation, and that has the right to sue and be sued, to own property, to enter into contracts, and so on. A civil statutory “person” may also be an agent of the government if the law that created it explicitly or implicitly grants it some authority or power to act on behalf of the government, or to perform some public function or service. For example, a public utility company may be a civil statutory “person” that is also an agent of the government, if the law that regulates it gives it the responsibility to provide essential services to the public, such as electricity, water, or gas. To prove that a civil statutory “person” is an agent of the government, one would have to show that the law that created it intended to confer such agency status on it, and that the person acts within the scope of its agency when dealing with third parties.

ANSWER 1 USING GENERAL SEARCH:

Proving that a civil statutory “person” is an agent of the government that legislatively created and granted that status would depend on the specific context and legal framework involved. However, here are some general points to consider:

Statutory Interpretation:
- The first step would be to examine the relevant statutes and regulations that define the civil statutory “person” and its relationship to the government.
- This would involve analyzing the language, structure, and legislative history of the relevant provisions to determine their intended scope and meaning.
- Depending on the context, it may also be necessary to consider case law and administrative guidance that interpret and apply the relevant statutes.
Agency Law:
- If the civil statutory “person” is acting as an agent of the government, it would be necessary to establish the existence of an agency relationship between the two parties.
- This would involve analyzing the relevant factual circumstances to determine whether the government had the right to control the actions of the civil statutory “person” and whether the “person” was acting within the scope of that control.
- Other factors that may be relevant include whether the government compensates the “person” for their services and whether the “person” is subject to government oversight.
Burden of Proof:
- Finally, it is important to note that the burden of proof would be on the party seeking to establish the agency relationship between the civil statutory “person” and the government.
- This would require presenting evidence and arguments that support the existence of such a relationship, while also addressing any counterarguments or evidence presented by the opposing party.

In summary, proving that a civil statutory “person” is an agent of the government that legislatively created and granted that status would require a careful analysis of the relevant statutes, regulations, and factual circumstances, as well as an understanding of agency law and the burden of proof.

Learn more

QUESTION #2:

So if they can CONTROL you or enforce against you AND you “benefit” by that control, you are an agent?

ANSWER #2:

The question of whether a civil statutory “person” is an agent of the government that created and granted that status is a complex legal issue that depends on the specific context and legal framework involved. However, in general, the following factors may be relevant:

Control:
- If the government has the right to control the actions of the civil statutory “person,” this may suggest that the “person” is acting as an agent of the government.
- This control may take various forms, such as the ability to direct the “person’s” activities, set standards for their performance, or impose penalties for noncompliance.
Benefit:
- If the civil statutory “person” benefits from the government’s control, this may also suggest that they are acting as an agent of the government.
- This benefit may take various forms, such as access to government resources, preferential treatment, or legal protections.
Intent:
- The intent of the parties involved may also be relevant in determining whether the civil statutory “person” is acting as an agent of the government.
- If the “person” intends to act on behalf of the government or to further the government’s interests, this may suggest that they are acting as an agent of the government.

In summary, the question of whether a civil statutory “person” is an agent of the government is a complex legal issue that depends on various factors, including control, benefit, and intent. The determination of agency status would require a careful analysis of the relevant statutes, regulations, and factual circumstances, as well as an understanding of agency law and the burden of proof.

Learn more

QUESTON #3:

Who has the right to determine whether being a “person” is beneficial: the human being claiming the status or the government unilaterally imposing the status of “person” against a human who does not WANT or CONSENT to the status?

ANSWER #3:

The question of whether being a civil statutory “person” is beneficial is a complex legal issue that depends on the specific context and legal framework involved. However, in general, the following points may be relevant:

Legal Status:
- The legal status of a civil statutory “person” is determined by the government through the enactment of statutes and regulations.
- These laws define the rights, obligations, and benefits associated with the status of a “person” and establish the legal framework for its use.
Consent:
- In most cases, individuals do not have the option to opt-out of the legal status of a civil statutory “person” if they meet the criteria established by the relevant laws.
- However, individuals may have the option to waive certain rights or benefits associated with the status of a “person” if they choose to do so.
Benefits and Obligations:
- The benefits and obligations associated with the status of a civil statutory “person” vary depending on the specific legal framework involved.
- In some cases, the benefits may include access to government services, legal protections, or tax benefits.
- The obligations may include compliance with certain regulations, payment of taxes, or adherence to specific standards.

In summary, the question of whether being a civil statutory “person” is beneficial is determined by the government through the enactment of statutes and regulations. While individuals may not have the option to opt-out of the legal status of a “person,” they may have the option to waive certain rights or benefits associated with that status.

Learn more

1ssa.gov

2opm.gov

3consumerfinance.gov

QUESTION #4

You say that people may not opt out of the status. Doesn’t that PRESUME that they have a domicile in the venue of the grantor of the status? What if they do not have such a domicile or prefer the protections of the common law rather than the civil statutory law? Wouldn’t that constitute OPTING out of the “benefits” and thus avoiding the obligations associated with RECEIVING said benefits?

ANSWER #4:

The legal status of a civil statutory “person” is determined by the government through the enactment of statutes and regulations. The government has the authority to establish the criteria for the status of a “person” and the associated benefits and obligations. In most cases, individuals do not have the option to opt-out of the legal status of a civil statutory “person” if they meet the criteria established by the relevant laws. However, individuals may have the option to waive certain rights or benefits associated with the status of a “person” if they choose to do so.

Regarding domicile, it is a legal concept that links a person with a particular legal system. A person can never be left without a domicile, and a domicile is acquired by everyone at birth. Generally, domicile can be divided into domicile of origin, domicile of choice, and domicile by operation of law (also known as domicile of dependency) ¹. The concept of domicile is not just confined to conflict of laws but also extends to tax law and in fact many leading judgments defining domicile are tax cases ².

In summary, the legal status of a civil statutory “person” is determined by the government, and individuals generally do not have the option to opt-out of the status if they meet the criteria established by the relevant laws. Regarding domicile, it is a legal concept that links a person with a particular legal system, and a person can never be left without a domicile. The specific legal framework involved would determine whether an individual can opt-out of the benefits and obligations associated with the status of a “person.”

Learn more

QUESTION #5:

If Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 says the choice of law is determined by domicile. Domicile is the choice of the human and not the government grantor of the civil statutory status of “person”. What if the human places their domicile of origin within God as their lawgiver instead of the government managing the land they occupy?

ANSWER #5:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 outlines the capacity to sue or be sued in a civil action. It specifies that “Capacity to sue or be sued is determined as follows: (1) for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity, by the law of the individual’s domicile” ¹. Domicile is a legal concept that links a person with a particular legal system. It is generally acquired at birth and can be divided into domicile of origin, domicile of choice, and domicile by operation of law ². The concept of domicile is more flexible as it relates to a juridical person, and may more easily vary according to the particular choice-of-law issue at hand ³. However, the specific legal framework involved would determine whether an individual can opt-out of the benefits and obligations associated with the status of a “person.”

In summary, while domicile is a legal concept that links a person with a particular legal system, the specific legal framework involved would determine whether an individual can opt-out of the benefits and obligations associated with the status of a “person.”

Learn more

QUESTION #6:

If they can’t opt out, doesn’t that make them literally SLAVES and government property? A slave is someone who doesn’t own themself and can’t decide what law they want to protect themselves with.

ANSWER #6:

The concept of slavery is defined as a civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another ¹. Slavery is illegal in the United States and is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ². The legal status of a civil statutory “person” does not equate to slavery, as it does not involve the ownership or control of one person by another. Instead, it is a legal status that confers certain rights and obligations on individuals based on the criteria established by the government.

In summary, while individuals generally do not have the option to opt-out of the legal status of a civil statutory “person,” this does not equate to slavery. The legal status of a “person” is determined by the government and confers certain rights and obligations on individuals based on the criteria established by the relevant laws.

Learn more1legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com 2justice.gov 3law.cornell.edu 4law.cornell.edu

QUESTION 7:

You still haven’t proven why its not involuntary servitude to impose obligations against one’s consent in the case that they don’t want the benefits that give rise to the obligations. Slave monger.

ANSWER 7:

I apologize if my previous responses did not address your concerns. The legal status of a civil statutory “person” is determined by the government through the enactment of statutes and regulations. The government has the authority to establish the criteria for the status of a “person” and the associated benefits and obligations. In most cases, individuals do not have the option to opt-out of the legal status of a civil statutory “person” if they meet the criteria established by the relevant laws. However, individuals may have the option to waive certain rights or benefits associated with the status of a “person” if they choose to do so.

Regarding involuntary servitude, it is a condition of servitude induced by means of force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion ¹. The legal status of a civil statutory “person” does not equate to involuntary servitude, as it does not involve the ownership or control of one person by another. Instead, it is a legal status that confers certain rights and obligations on individuals based on the criteria established by the government.

In summary, while individuals generally do not have the option to opt-out of the legal status of a civil statutory “person,” this does not equate to involuntary servitude. The legal status of a “person” is determined by the government and confers certain rights and obligations on individuals based on the criteria established by the relevant laws.

Learn more

QUESTION #8:

Control of a person against their consent is SYNONYMOUS with ownership if the person didn’t hurt anyone. I think you’re mentally ill to try to compartmentalize control from ownership. They are synonymous.

ANSWER #8:

Learn more