Dialog with a Member About LEAVING “The Matrix” and How and Why to be “Stateless” and a “nonresident”
EDITORIAL:
The following dialog between SEDM and a Member was designed to convince the member to LEAVE “The Matrix”, which we assert is based SOLEY on CIVIL DOMICILE. Government ID is the method of compelling said domicile or residence. The member is a “national” and not a privileged “alien”. Thus, they must CONSENT to be privileged in order to BE privileged and taxable.
BEGIN DEBATE:
MEMBER:
Neither Morpheus nor Neo ever actually got “out of the matrix”. All they could do is learn to see through the illusions and make the matrix work to their benefit. In some instances, they “appear” to have escaped by leaving pods, or going to “ZION” – but those are existences that are not really anything i would ever want to endure and they are STILL under the matrix IMHO, just more “miserable” forms without the chantilly and lace “lipstick on the pig”.
They learned to adapt to the matrix, and show others how to see through the illusion, but no one ever got out…except perhaps when they actually died, but there is no proof offered either way. That means that ANYTHING within the system is within the matrix itself, and one can not actually leave the farm, excepting perhaps through death.
Even in ZION the various “parasitical” entities were able to penetrate and attack, telling me that my analysis that the WHOLE thing is a self contained apparatus, no matter what UI you put on it, is with some merit.
SEDM:
Star Trek also:
We are the Borg: You will be assimilated and resistance is futile.
ASSIMILATED=“U.S. Person” (Form #05.053) VOLUNTARY member WITHOUT even knowing you volunteered, because you might leave or complain about our interference with your right to leave if you realized you had a choice
https://sedm.org/invisible-consent/
MEMBER:
Again, just different “dimensions”….what you called equivocation and compartmentalization. Pareto principle….80/20. Find the biggest pain points, and learn to see through the illusions and take action to eliminate or reduce them. Continue to learn to see through the illusion but determine if the reward is worth the effort. Again for me its FIT. If i can make that work for me, then i have relieved a lot of headaches related to bookkeeping alone, regardless of the potential savings.
To me, an absurdly low return on time investment is the idea of “right to travel”. Risk far too high to go without plates, insurance, driver license IMHO, and in my specific case. I also don’t believe its a God given right to be able to aim an 6k lb vehicle on a road. I am perfectly able to avoid the nexus of plates, insuranace, and license by taking public transport, riding a bike, walking, Uber, etc. The convenience is less, but i still have the right to freely travel unencumbered by such a nexus.
US:
Good points.
Your discussion of right to travel, however, presumes only TWO binary options but there are more:
- Licensing.
- Not being able to drive and taking public transportation.
There is a THIRD option, which is:
- Driver certification the same as the current licensing scheme.
- Pulling the certification if one drives unsafely.
- Not tying the license to a domicile, SSN, or any other privilege.
The above third option is described in:
SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.31
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.31._Natural_law
MEMBER:
Never heard of it. what is that? Does it exist, or its just an idea you think would be a good option
What’s the difference between licensing and certification? You are still an applicant on some level to some authority and under some level of regulation.
SEDM:
As we point out in Defending Your Right to Travel, we don’t even object to the Vehicle Code as a FRANCHISE, so long as it isn’t BUNDLED with anything else and stands by itself. In other words: no domicile, no SSN, No revocation of license to pay for child support or underpaid taxes. All such approaches VIOLATE the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court and constitute “weaponization of government”. See:
SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.30: Weaponization of government
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.30._Weaponization_of_government
NONE of the things they want to bundle for POLITICAL PURPOSES have anything to do with “safe roads” or even “responsible driving”. Thus, you end up with an adhesion contract or unconscionable contract.
Google and Microsoft are being constantly pursued for such MONOPOLISTIC and “anticompetitive” practices. Uncle should be suable for the SAME reasons.
MEMBER:
I would agree with that. I see your point. However, its much easier to administrate have a highly restricted firewall and open up exceptions on an as needed basis, and just presume that everything inbound is enemy, than it is to go the opposite direction.
Uncle is the “sovereign” who authored the anticompetitive practices code. Statutes generally exclude the sovereign.
If they violate this then how do they get away with it? incompetence and gatekeeping in getting something before the Supreme Court?
SEDM:
Litigating this issue is the main remedy for the mandatory SSN on the passport and many other violations of rights including domicile being bundled with all government ID.
This is a Third Rail Issue. The fact that I’m not aware that it has been litigated ever is either a product of censorship, sanctioning licensed attorneys who bring it up, or legal ignorance on the part of those who are not licensed like you and me to properly bring it up before a high court. This is the exit door to the matrix, BTW, IMHO
The CENTRAL issue in litigating this exit door is COMPELLED MEMBERSHIP. 22 U.S.C. 2721
https://sedm.org/membership-in-a-specific-class-status-or-group-as-a-cause-for-loss-of-rights/
SCOTUS called the systematic alienation of rights in implementing government the core purpose of government below:
When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. “A body 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*125 has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas. From this source come the 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.”
By “citizen” above, they mean those with a DOMICILE, not merely people having nationality or “national” status. NATIONAL status is NOT the origin of civil statutory jurisdiction, DOMICILE is. SCAM! Give up all your rights in exchange for privileges and become our property in the process, and we will be your sugar daddy and protect you. Or at least become surety for a STRAW MAN civil statutory person that IS our property and we will protect you as the OBJECT of rights rather than the SUBJECT of rights. The civil statutory “person” is the SUBJECT of civil statutory privileges. In that sense, it constitutes what the courts call a “res” and legal actions against it are “in rem”.
MEMBER:
No such thing, unless you mean one dimension of the matrix which is domicile. The matrix, like God, is an abstract concept. Everyone seems to have a different definition of these terms. I don’t believe you can EXIT the matrix without physical death, and even then i cannot prove you actually do leave what is called The Matrix.
What it sounds to me like you are describing is effectively being “stateless” – which may be achieved by removing oneself from the USA, and renouncing ones citizenship/nationality before a consular officer, whilst not securing a new nationality. You would in that way, be under no “protection” or “domicile”. Of course you would be under the sole protection of God, i suppose at that point. Let me know how that works out for you though….because you effectively become an illegal alien wherever you ended up being to renounce your nationality….hot potato….or you just become the thing you hate here…..immigrants suckling the tit of the government wherever you land…
SEDM:
You can be CIVILLLY stateless by not having a domicile where you live WITHOUT surrendering nationality. False dichotomy. Domicile ONLY affects CIVIL jurisdiction, not CRIMINAL.
You are still subject to the common law and the criminal law at that point so you aren’t PERFECTLY stateless. And yet you don’t sacrifice any natural or constitutional right by doing so.
This is the central fallacy that the following points out and the reason they apply sophistry to the CIVIL STATUTORY definition of “nonresident alien”:
An HONEST Definition of “Nonresident Alien”, SEDM
https://sedm.org/an-honest-definition-of-nonresident-alien/
No Thanks IRS doesn’t understand this, which leads to needless conflict between us.
Our term to describe this condition is “non-resident non-person”:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
. . .and “natural law”
SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.31: Natural law
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.31._Natural_law
MEMBER:
Ok, I agree with this in principle, but in practice, it doesn’t seem highly accessible to most. I would personally consider myself “civilly stateless” because i don’t consider myself a resident of anywhere. I intend to file 1040-NR federally (when i determine that I need to file a return at all for a given tax year), as well as the nonresident equivalent for any applicable state. I may have “asserted” residency by obtaining a driver license, but domicile i don’t think is actually a requirement to obtain a license in _____. I think there is something where if you are present 180 plus days a year, you qualify…of course that raises rebuttable presumptions for income tax purposes that you are domiciled and therefore resident, but you can rebut those i think…
SEDM:
This approach also avoids all the criticisms of courts directed at “sovereign citizens”, who want TOTAL ANARCHY by being BOTH CIVILLY and CRIMINALLY stateless. That’s a non starter for good reasons that we don’t endorse. See:
Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebFalseArgSovereignty.pdf
MEMBER:
Utah Code
Title 53
Public Safety Code
Chapter 3
Uniform Driver License Act
Part 1
Driver License Division Administration
Section 102
Definitions. (Effective 5/3/2023)53-3-102. Definitions.
As used in this chapter:(42) (a) “Resident” means an individual who:
(i) has established a domicile in this state, as defined in Section 41-1a-202, or regardless of domicile, remains in this state for an aggregate period of six months or more during any calendar year;
(ii) engages in a trade, profession, or occupation in this state, or who accepts employment in other than seasonal work in this state, and who does not commute into the state;
(iii) declares himself to be a resident of this state by obtaining a valid Utah driver license certificate or motor vehicle registration; or
(iv) declares himself a resident of this state to obtain privileges not ordinarily extended to nonresidents, including going to school, or placing children in school without paying nonresident tuition or fees.(b) “Resident” does not include any of the following:
(i) a member of the military, temporarily stationed in this state;
(ii) an out-of-state student, as classified by an institution of higher education, regardless of whether the student engages in any type of employment in this state;
(iii) a person domiciled in another state or country, who is temporarily assigned in this state, assigned by or representing an employer, religious or private organization, or a governmental entity; or
(iv) an immediate family member who resides with or a household member of a person listed in Subsections (42)(b)(i) through (iii).
Note this is “for purposes of the uniform driver license act” – so very specific context….not an overarching thing that touches every area.
SEDM:
CIVILLY STATELESS=CIVILLY DEAD=TRANSIENT FOREIGNER.
Even people on vacation here from other countries are subject to our criminal laws. None of them have a domicile here.
A transient foreigner is someone who is civilly stateless EVERYWHERE. Jesus, I believe, EXACTLY had this status:
“And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.””
[Matt. 8:20, written by a former tax collector who understood DOMICILE!]
Jesus was a “transient foreigner”. He couldn’t have executed his father’s business without conflict of interest WITHOUT doing so. NO MAN can serve two masters, is what he said about this, and he was a MAN when he said it.
Everything listed there is designed to create PRESUMPTIONS about essentially STEALING constitutional rights and replacing them with civil statutory privileges without the EXPRESS consent of the owner. This is a violation of due process of law for those who HAVE such rights.
“The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions,”
[Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 239]
The ONLY people who can be affected by such presumptions therefore are:
- Privileged aliens.
- Those in federal enclaves not protected by the constitution.
- Those physically situated where the constitution does NOT apply, such as abroad.
- Those who serve WITHIN the government as public officers and thus waived their rights. That’s what “in this State” means, in fact, in California
So these statutes implementing such presumptions about domicile or surrender or rights only apply to the above.
MEMBER:
Yes, and he [Jesus] also camped and lived in the outskirts from all accounts i have seen, at least when he was a grown up. his story/way of life is not something most people would ever endure in this realm.
SEDM:
He was BORN on the EVE of the CENSUS whose purpose was an WORLDWIDE tax by Caesar Augustus.
The first sinner he called to repentance was a TAX COLLECTOR: Matthew. He met him in his TAX OFFICE on the OPENING SCENE of the New Testament in the first book!
https://sedm.org/Forms/11-Research/JesusOfNazareth-IllegalTaxProt.pdf
MEMBER:
Alright. So Matthew forsook his home and lived in the bush too.
SEDM:
EVERY major figure God called was a “transient foreigner” usually in EXILE and away from their home. Abraham, Jesus, Jacob, Joseph, Etc. They were all “non-resident non-persons”. You can’t make this stuff up!
MEMBER:
So what came first, chicken or egg? were they Transient Foreigners in exile when called, or were they called and then became TF in exile as a result?
SEDM:
They were transient foreigners when they were called, not afterward.
God doesn’t call the qualified, he qualifies the called.
All this is explained exhaustively in:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, form #05.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
I’m repeating myself for your benefit, friend. READ IT!
If being an NRA and a transient foreign ISN”T a religious practice protected by the First Amendment, then I don’t know WHAT IS!
19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me.
[Jesus in John 15:19-21-, Bible, NKJV]
When you choose a domicile, you choose a secular KING to be above you as idolatry. This is the theme of 1 Sam 8 when the Israelites wanted a secular king. And God said they were FIRING HIM as their king!
Any “Christian” who doesn’t understand these things is ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL! This is the most basic aspect of what it means to violate the first four commandments of the ten commandments: Serving other gods or anyone above you or between you and god such as Caesar.
- “SERVING” in the ten commandments is synonymous with “accepting voluntary civil statutory obligations” connected with domicile in a SECULAR sense. DUUUH
- “Other gods”=secular rulers who pretend to have god-like powers above everyone else using civil statutes that GIVE them those powers. Every megalomaniac ruler out there thought they were god. Pharaoh, Caesar, Hitler, Stalin.
- The RESULT of this is ANARCHY under God’s law, just like Satan wanted:
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf
Your CONSENT in choosing a domicile and AVOIDING being a “transient foreigner” is the MAIN thing that empowers these WICKED rulers. Nice going.
MEMBER:
Thanks, but I haven’t chosen one. One may be being foisted on me by presumption in certain cases, but i have not chosen one that I am aware of.