TABLE OF CONTENTS
- The Reason for learning the laws of property
- Property Rights are the FOUNDATION of all other Rights
- Important legal concepts underlying property law
- Ownership v. Control
- Income Taxation in Relation to Property
- Government propaganda and sophistry that HIDES this important information
- Property Resources
- Rights as Property
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over Property
- Theology and Property
- Acquiring or proving absolute ownership
- How PRIVATE property ownership has been undermined since the founding of our country
- Foundation of Administrative State is Control over Government/Public Property
- Example application: Motion to Dismiss Federal Criminal Case based on Predicate Civil Status
IMPORTANT NOTE: We don’t do land patents or property tax challenges for people at this time. Tools for making your own trust are available in Form #09.079**.
For an expanded downloadable PDF version of this article, see: Laws of Property, Form #14.018
The basic principle behind the laws of property are that:
- The purpose of creating government is to protect private property and private rights. Declaration of Independence.
- Government therefore needs consent of the owner to take your private property, which on this site we call a conversion from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
- The Constitution prevents this taking or conversion and requires the government to pay for the taking or conversion if you don’t consent to it.
- The civil statutes aid and abet and protect conversion from PRIVATE to PUBLIC, often without real compensation. That conversion is usually done through “tacit procuration”, meaning by your ACTIONS and without your explicit knowledge in many cases:
4.1. Domicile of nationals or physical presence/residence of aliens is the method of converting your CIVIL STATUS from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
4.2 Franchise marks (SSN, TIN, ITIN) and privileges (deductions, credits, and exemptions against the property under the civil statutes) are the method of converting your PROEPRTY from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
- Therefore, all connections of civil statutes to you or your property should be avoided. Civil statutes are rules for VOLUNTARY members of a civil protection franchise. They acquire the FORCE of law by your CONSENT to acquire and maintain a civil domicile ONLY and thereby become a CIVIL member of a specific society called a STATUTORY “citizen” or “resident”. They are, in effect, a form of “patronage” that should be avoided for those who want to retain ALL their constitutional and natural rights.
In the context of taxation, the conversion of PROPERTY in item 4.2 above from PRIVATE to PUBLIC is sometimes described as:
“Items that could not be otherwise taxed are TREATED as subject to tax when the recipient assents.”
Assent above is also described as “implied consent” through action.
The reason for learning and applying the laws of property in every dispute with the government BEFORE statutes are applied or enforced is mainly to:
- To fight socialism. Socialism is legally defined as government ownership or control over all property. See:
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
- Make it IMPOSSIBLE for the government to merely PRESUME that they have the right to control, regulate, or tax property they do not own without meeting the burden of proof of HOW they became the owner and where the consideration was that BOUGHT them ownership. In other words, that they are NOT a THIEF that the Bible identifies them as. Rev. 18:4-8 and Exodus 22:7.
- Avoid the complexity the civil statutes involve, with the realization that they can only regulate the government and people in possession or benefit of government property.
- Avoid the sophistry that the statutes implement. See:
An Introduction to Sophistry, Form #12.042
- Simplify the dispute down to moral issues that a jury can understand, rather than the complexity of statutes that most jurists DON’T understand.
- Reduce the dispute down to:
6.1 WHO the owner of the property is.
6.2 Exactly HOW ownership or control of the property were transferred. In other words, how the property was converted from MINE (private) to YOURS (public). See:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
6.3 Where government gets their authority to regulate or “write rules” for the property that they DON’T own and therefore can’t regulate or control without committing a common law trespass or even criminal THEFT.
Civil statues, after all, are just a regulation of GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC property ONLY. They cannot impair control over PRIVATE property without violating the constitution. See:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and not Private Persons, Form #05.037
It is no accident that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to justice for all protects property rights. Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free. Every right claim, after all, is a claim to some thing — either a defensive claim to keep what one is holding or an offensive claim to something someone else is holding. John Locke, the philosophical father of the American Revolution and the inspiration for Thomas Jefferson when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, stated the issue simply: “Lives, Liberties, and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property.” And James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, echoed those thoughts when he wrote, “as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”
Much moral and legal confusion would be avoided if we understood that all of our rights — all of the things to which we are “entitled” — can be reduced to property. That would enable us to separate genuine rights — things to which we hold title — from specious “rights” — things to which other people hold title, which we may want for ourselves. It was the genius of the old common law, grounded in reason and custom, that it grasped that point. And the common law judges understood a pair of corollaries as well: property, broadly conceived, separates one individual from another; and individuals are independent or free to the extent that they have sole or exclusive dominion over what they hold. Indeed, Americans go to work every day to acquire property just so they can be independent.
The Constitution protects property rights through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses and, more directly, through the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” There are two basic ways government can take property:
(1) outright, by condemning the property and taking title; and
(2) through regulations that take uses, leaving the title with the owner — so‐called regulatory takings.
In the first case, the title is all too often taken not for a public but for a private use; and rarely is the compensation received by the owner just. In the second case, the owner is often not compensated at all for his losses; and when he is, the compensation is again inadequate.
Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has chipped away at the problem of uncompensated regulatory takings, requiring compensation in some cases; but its decisions were largely ad hoc, leaving most owners to bear the losses themselves. Thus, owners today can get compensation when the title is actually taken, as just noted; when the property is physically invaded by government order, either permanently or temporarily; when regulation for other than health or safety reasons takes all or nearly all of the value of the property; and when government attaches conditions to permits that are unreasonable, disproportionate, or unrelated to the purpose behind the permit requirement. But despite those modest advances, toward the end of its October 2004 term, the Court decided three property rights cases in which the owners had legitimate complaints, and in all three, the owners lost. One of those cases was Kelo v. City of New London, in which the city condemned Ms. Kelo’s property only to transfer it to another private party that the city believed could make better use of it. In so doing, the Court simply brushed aside the “public use” restraint on the power of government to take private property. The upshot, however, was a public outcry across the nation and the introduction of reforms in over 40 states. But those reforms varied substantially, and nearly all leave unaddressed the far more common problem of regulatory takings.
At bottom, then, the Court has yet to develop a principled and comprehensive theory of property rights, much less a comprehensive solution to the problem of government takings. For that, Congress (or the Court) is going to have to turn to first principles, much as the old common law judges did. We need to begin, then, not with the public law of the Constitution as presently interpreted, but with the private law of property.
At the heart of the approach to property on this site is the notion that the essence of the property right is the right to exclude government from using or benefitting from the use, and that if that right is taken away, then the government becomes the REAL owner and you are merely an “equitable owner”. So long as regulatory takings are limited to HARMFUL uses, then they are permissible. When such takings transfer “beneficial uses” or uses that produce revenue, then they are not permissible. Every other source of regulatory authority must originate from the consent of the original private owner. In most cases, that consent is given through a government application of some kind or another. And in nearly all cases, that consent is procured illegally and through duress through “weaponization of the government” as defined in:
In the context of the subject of property, REMEMBER the following important legal concepts:
- Rights are property.
- Anything that CONVEYS rights is property.
- Contracts convey rights and are therefore property.
- All franchises are contracts, and therefore property.
- Civil statuses (Form #13.008) convey and enforce PUBLIC rights and are therefore PUBLIC property.
- The Constitution conveys mainly PRIVATE rights, which are PRIVATE property in the case of the Bill of Rights.
- Those who OFFER property to you are a Merchant (Seller) under U.C.C. §2-104(1).
- The person RECEIVING the property is the Buyer under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a).
- The MERCHANT always prescribes ALL the terms of the offer and can withhold the property if those terms are not met. The withholding of the property is an exercise of the “right to exclude” aspect of ownership.
- You should always strive to be the Merchant in every business transaction to give yourself the upper hand. Deut. 15:6, Deut. 28:12, Deut. 23:19, Deut. 23:20.
- You should NEVER allow the GOVERNMENT to act as a Merchant in relation to you. Exodus 23:32-33, Judges 2:1-4. Here is what happens when you do.
“People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment. All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED. The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact. Nothing in life is truly “free”. Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power. If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free. If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C. If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over. There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property. Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights. Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility. For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22. For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them. Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.”[SEDM Opening Page, http://sedm.org]
- The CREATOR of a civil statutory privilege/public right/franchise is ALWAYS the owner and the Merchant granting or selling PUBLIC property. See:
12.1 United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328 (1919)
12.2 Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax
- A statutory civil right (which is PUBLIC PROPERTY) exercised against a fiction of law (straw man, Form #05.042) such as a “person” is a right exercised against the GRANTOR/CREATOR of the OFFICE, and not the human(s) FILLING the office. This is an outgrowth of the law of agency. Thus, a civil statute used as a remedy in court against someone else is a remedy against the GOVERNMENT GRANTOR/CREATOR of the right, and not the OFFICER filling the office to which the PUBLIC right attaches. The CREATOR is the OWNER, and the OWNER of the right is the person legally RESPONSIBLE for its effect on others.
- If you use a civil statutory fictional office for private gain, the creator of the office is the owner of all income and property attached to the office through the use of the franchise mark, the Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number. They must reward you with a portion of the PUBLIC property attached to the office to induce you to volunteer for the office to begin with. Thus, a “trade or business” partnership is established to remit the “kickback”. This is called a “return”.
- Rules of Evidence relating to property interest are described in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(14) and 803(15).
- Income taxation is always upon PROFIT or GAIN, and never the underlying property. For instance, taxes on LABOR are upon PROFIT from labor, not the underlying labor itself, which is property. That means NEVER can the ENTIRE amount earned from selling one’s labor for compensation of EQUAL value be classified as “income” from a constitutional perspective UNLESS you consent to it. That consent must come in a place not protected by the constitution such as on federal territory or abroad, because otherwise government is making a profitable business out of alienating rights that the Declaration of Independence says are UNALIENABLE, which is a criminal financial conflict of interest. Doing the OPPOSITE of what governments are created to do makes them not only NOT a government, but an ANTI-government. See:
Proof that earnings from labor are not “gross income” under 26 U.S.C. §61**
Authorities supporting each of the items in the above list can also be found in the following article:
Throughout this site, we often equate ownership and control of specific property as being synonymous. There are exceptions to this, however, as we will now explain.
The most important aspects of control are :
- The right to EXCLUDE any and all others from using or benefitting from something and
- The right to attach conditions to the use of the property. This is typically done with a lease or rental agreement.
If you don’t have the above two things, you are a mere trustee and steward but not the real or absolute owner. Those two things essentially define “absolute ownership”.
If you rent a car, they can then USE the property and pay the use fee, but ultimately, the REAL and ABSOLUTE owner EXCLUDES you from using it under the conditions of the grant or lease by calling it back when the time limit is exhausted or when the lease terms are violated. The fact that they can WRITE the lease to begin with and make you sign it before using the property is proof that they are the absolute owner.
In theological terms, we state on this site that God is both the CREATOR and therefore the ABSOLUTE OWNER of ALL property. That makes us His trustees whenever we use ANYTHING on this Earth or anywhere in the Universe. The terms of the trust indenture governing our use of God’s property appear in the Bible as God’s laws. Whenever we:
- Use the property to DO something He FORBIDS or
- NOT DO something He COMMANDS. . .
. . .then we violate the terms of the grant of His property in the Holy Bible as trustees and will suffer the eternal consequences under His divine law. So long as we don’t abuse the property to do either of the above, we “in effect” exercise “absolute ownership”, not unlike the term “effectively connected” is used in the Internal Revenue Code. All this abstraction….”effective” and “effectively” are the keys it seems. The powers that be deal in mental constructs that people understand and can turn into reality.
The main job of God’s law is to forbid uses of the property that injure others by defining MAINLY what we CANNOT do with the property. Because God’s law rarely tells us what TO DO with His property and almost exclusively defines what NOT to do, then it maximizes our liberty.
- The income tax is NOT EVER a tax on YOUR property, which is PRIVATE property. This was decided in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 634, 637, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895).
“The Supreme Court held in the early case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 634, 637, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895), that a tax on capital or principal is a direct tax which must be apportioned among the states in proportion to the population as shown by the census, because of the requirements of the above provisions of Article I. A direct tax on corpus or principal without such apportionment is unconstitutional, and this cannot be avoided by merely calling it a tax on income. See Richardson v. United States, 294 F.2d 593, 596 (6th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 802, 82 S.Ct. 640, 7 L.Ed.2d 549 (1962); Commissioner v. Obear-Nester Glass Co., 217 F.2d 56, 58 (7th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 982, 75 S.Ct. 570, 99 L.Ed. 764 (1955), rehearing denied, 349 U.S. 948, 75 S.Ct. 870, 99 L.Ed. 1274.”
[Harkness v. United States, 469 F.2d 310, 324 (Fed. Cir. 1972)]
- One own’s labor is property.
“Once earned, those unpaid wages became property to which the employees were entitled.”
[Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 168 (Cal. 2000)]
One converts one’s own labor (property) into another form of property (money). This is not a “transfer” of property. So a federal tax on such conversion of property from one form or another is inescapably a tax on the OWNERSHIP of the property, thus an unconstitutional direct tax unapportioned on the PROPERTY. More at:
Proof that Involuntary Income Taxes on Your Labor are Slavery, Form #05.055**
- An employee’s remuneration for labor is principal in that it is the sum of the employer’s obligation, and the BASIS for any interest the employer may become obligated to pay if (for instance) the employer pays late or for some reason ends up owing back pay to the employee.
“Principal” has been defined as “[t]he capital sum of a debt or obligation, as distinguished from interest or other additions to it.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1192 (6th ed. 1990). In other words, it is the “sum of money owed as a debt, upon which interest is calculated.” The American Heritage Dictionary 985 (2d college ed. 1985). It refers to the aggregate amount of an obligation. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1073 (5th ed. 1979) (“principal” refers to the total amount of debt due, e.g., the face value of a mortgage or promissory note).”
[Miller v. Marshall Cty. and Cty. Bd. of Super, 641 N.W.2d 742, 748 (Iowa 2002)]
- The income tax is instead an excise tax on “profit” derived from privileged activities. In that sense “Income” has been defined to be SEPARATE and APART, and DIFFERENT from the capital corpus, or principal. See the above case.
- Privileges subject to excise taxation must be legislatively granted and therefore owned by the government. As such, they are PUBLIC property. IN that sense, the income tax BEHAVES as a “use” or “rental” fee on PUBLIC property not unlike using a rental car.
- Income taxation has two main components:
6.1 Withholding. Done by third parties.
6.2 Assessment. Done mainly by you, but can be adjusted by the IRS after submitting a return.
- Withholding is not an imposition of tax. Although money withheld is transferred into the federal treasury, the employee receives a corresponding CREDIT for that amount. The CREDIT is also a form of property, and can be applied to the eventual tax liability (even a liability of $0). Of course the employee would prefer to get the money back in exchange for the credit, but he must go through the IRS in order to redeem the CREDIT the IRS has awarded him and convert that credit back into the preferred form of property.
7.1 Only the individual who is the taxpayer can do this, he cannot sell or transfer his CREDIT to another person.
7.2 The worker at all times retains his property, albeit in different forms.
7.3 The party in temporary custody of the withholding credit before it is applied to a specific tax is a BAILIFF and TRUSTEE on behalf of the worker.
7.4 The IRS classifies all income tax withholding as Tax Class 5, which means GIFTS.
- To get back money withheld, one can:
8.1 Pursue a refund of the credit from the IRS.
8.2 Seek reimbursement from the employer who withheld the amount as “tax”. At no point was the labor converted into public property. The labor was converted to money, and some of the money was converted into a CREDIT which remains the private property of the employee held in trust by the IRS.
- When it comes to ASSESSEMENT:
9.1 That is where the CREDIT is either converted (in whole or in part) back to money to the employee or it is applied toward whatever tax liability the taxpayer has.
9.2 Whatever is converted from private property to public property is determined by the taxpayer with his self-assessment, then assessed by the IRS. Whatever amount the taxpayer pays is converted to public funds by his voluntary actions.
9.3 No one is forced to have “United States person” status under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) and no one is forced to receive federally-connected income. If one does, it comes with terms and conditions that includes some or all income being subject to federal tax.
- Even AFTER the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, taxes on one’s own labor have always been DIRECT TAXES that are unconstitutional and also a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude.
“That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that “direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate.” Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 618, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 218–219, 40 S.Ct. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521 (1920).”
[Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 571 (2012)]
This is the SCOTUS in 2012, admitting that SCOTUS determined in 1895 that a tax on PERSONAL PROPERTY is a DIRECT TAX, and that in spite of the 16th Amendment, the SCOTUS CONTINUED to consider taxes on PERSONAL PROPERTY to be DIRECT TAXES. THIS IS GOLD. Your remuneration for labor is unquestionably PERSONAL PROPERTY. But they call it income, in order to pretend it isn’t your personal property!!
Remember that because this information is so important and useful, the government and legal profession have gone OUT of their way to hide or conceal it as follows:
- This information is HUGELY important because it is the origin of their right to even DEFINE anything in the code.
1.1 Only the owner of property can write the definitions.
1.2 The “owner” of the property is described as a “Merchant” in U.C.C. terms under commercial law.
1.3 A major source of dispute in court for those using our materials is legal definitions. Approaching this subject from a property perspective adds a whole new dimension to this subject useful in court.
1.4 More at:
Ownership as the Origin of the Right to Define, SEDM
- There are almost NO books we can find about the laws of property because if these laws were consistently applied to your interactions with the government in court, the jury and the public would clearly and unambiguously see exactly the problem with the present government.
- For most people, the laws of property operate at an intuitive level only but very few Americans even have the vocabulary to describe the mechanisms by which it operates. Thus, they are sitting ducks in front of a jury if they had to discuss it in their own defense. And yet, even a two year old understands the concept intuitively enough to yell “IT’S MINE!” when a child takes their toy.
- Property and jurisdiction:
4.1 Unlike almost every other type of jurisdiction the government exercises, jurisdiction over PUBLIC property is NOT territorial. It happens wherever the property or person handling the property is found.
4.2 Jurisdiction of the national government over its property extends EXTRATERRITORIALLY into the states under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged this in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
4.3 It is MUCH SIMPLER to challenge jurisdiction in court when you understand the PUBLIC property interest the government is enforcing. Corrupt governments don’t want to make it easy for you to do this by invoking laws of property and identifying the property that is the subject of the dispute.
- The FIRST invocation of words to describe property appears in the Declaration of Independence, and it refers to THIS property as “RIGHTS”. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “rights” as property.
- The Constitution only mentions jurisdiction over PUBLIC property ONCE, in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 as “Territory and other property”, as if to make you believe that they are only talking about LAND, when in fact they are referring to ANY type of property, including LAND, CHATTEL PROPERTY, RIGHTS, etc. as described above.
- The Constitution doesn’t mention the most important aspect of Congress’ jurisdiction over property, which is control over PRIVILEGES granted by statute as PUBLIC RIGHTS.
7.1 If you go seeking a legislatively granted privilege, they have jurisdiction over you and can set any condition or cost they want to vindicating that PUBLIC RIGHT in court.
7.2 You have to dig deep into caselaw to find this information.
- When courts talk about the subject of PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property, they do so VERY eruditely using LATIN that no one will understand so that the public will gloss over the subject. For example, they use the phrase “publici juris” to talk about it.
- Governments NEVER use the word “property” to describe anything they provide to you, whether it is a “benefit” payment, service, etc.
9.1 They do this IN SPITE of the fact that the legal definition of “property” in Black’s Law Dictionary when strictly construed includes every service or benefit they provide.
9.2 If they did honestly refer to the services and benefits they provide, they would have to refer to this property as PUBLIC property granted to you with legal strings (franchises) attached. Then you would IMMEDIATELY know how to ESCAPE the matrix, which they can never permit. You must remain a “useful idiot” by putting an embargo on all clear information about the subject of PUBLIC property and how it is used to control you.
- When courts discuss the income tax:
10.1 They have repeatedly held that it is NOT a tax on “property”, but they are referring to YOUR PRIVATE property and not THEIR PUBLIC property.
10.2 In a strict sense, the income tax IS a tax on property, but the property that is taxed is the “beneficial use” or consumption of PUBLIC privileges or services implemented usually with public offices and government “benefits”. The OBJECT of the privilege is the OFFICER voluntarily serving in the fictional office (you) in order to procure the privilege to receive it.
10.3 When you put the transaction in these terms, now all of a sudden they have the burden of proving that they provided real, measurable consideration and public property that you wanted and asked for in order to justify enforcing the payment of the tax. This is a predicament that governments want to avoid like the plague, because they don’t want to be accountable or responsible for anything as the anarchists they are as described in:
Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
10.4 An understanding of the laws of property thus DRAMATICALLY simplifies challenging unlawful tax collection because it reduces and simplifies everything as explained in:
Overview of the Income Taxation Process, SEDM
- If you ask questions surrounding this subject to ChatGPT or other AI chatbots as we have, they dance around it as well, saying that “in a classical sense” used by the courts, government “benefits” and services are NOT property, even though when you point out the definition of property in Black’s Law Dictionary, they eventually AGREE that PUBLIC RIGHTS are property.
The following resources on our site are helpful in learning the very important laws of property and how they apply to EVERY aspect of daily life:
- Laws of Property, Form #14.018 -a considerably expanded version of this article
- Laws of Property Articles-SEDM
- ChatGPT AI Answers to Questions About Property
- Ownership as the Origin of the Right to Define-SEDM Blog
- Legal Remedies that Protect Private Rights Course, Form #12.019** (Member Subscriptions)
- What is an Income Tax “Exclusion”?
- Excluded Earnings and People, Form #14.019
- Sources of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Section 4.3: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over Property-SEDM Blog
- Philosophy of Liberty -Explains the relationship between LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. “Pursuit of happiness” is equated with ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
- Who Owns Me? (OFFSITE LINK)-Michael Sandell, Harvard course on “justice”
- The Absolute Nature of Property, Butler Shaffer (OFFSITE LINK) -this video was so important that Youtube CENSORED it. Must watch.
- Boundaries of Order: Private Property as a Social System, Butler Shaffer
- The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights, James W. Ealy
13.1 Google Books
- Family Guardian (OFFSITE LINK)
14.1 Property and Privacy Protection Topic, Section 8: Private Property Protection (OFFSITE LINK)
14.2 Understanding American Property Rights (OFFSITE LINK)
- SEDM Private v. Public Property/Rights and Protection Playlist (OFFSITE LINK)-Youtube
- SEDM Disclaimer Section 4.27: Socialism Defined – Most people are confused about what this means. This is deliberate. It means a system of government where there is no private property
- SEDM Disclaimer Section 4.28: “Grant” or “Loan” Defined – the main and only method used to convert your PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property and it requires your consent.
- Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007 -why:
18.1 The Bible is a trust indenture.
18.2 We are God’s trustees.
18.3 The entire earth and all of Creation is God’s property.
18.4 Caesar can’t charge a property tax, because he would be renting out STOLEN property.
18.5 Any attempt to convert PRIVATE to PUBLIC is stealing from God and interfering with your duties as trustee.
- Subject Index, Section 62: Property Protection
- Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 -main job of government is to keep PRIVATE and PUBLIC property separated at all times and NEVER mixing them.
- Hot Issues: Common Law Litigation** -the ONLY way to force the court to enforce ONLY private property and PRIVATE rights and NEVER civil franchises, privileges, or civil statutes.
- Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010-how judges corruptly FORCE you to give up ALL your constitutional rights by switching the choice of law from the PRIVATE common law to PUBLIC civil statutes and how to prevent it.
- Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 -the ONLY lawful method to legislatively convert PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property, and it requires CONSENT. Can’t be offered within a constitutional state because it works a purpose OPPOSITE to the establishment of government.
- Self Government Federation Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002 -a plan to create PERFECT separation between PRIVATE and PUBLIC in which the ONLY part of government the civilly touches the average American is voting and jury service. Everything else is separation. Is based on additions to existing organic documents rather than destroying everything and rebuilding it from scratch.
- Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016-how government works when there is NO PRIVATE property
- Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023-how a corrupted government recruits you into a public office by getting you to declare a statutory civil status. Beyond that point, whatever property you connect to the office becomes PUBLIC property.
- About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012 -how the government uses “franchise marks” and forcing you to use them in order to compel you to donate PRIVATE property to a PUBLIC use, PUBLIC purpose, and PUBLIC office.
- Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001 -how the corrupt government DECEIVES third parties into essentially DONATING your PRIVATE earnings to a PUBLIC use, PUBLIC purpose, and PUBLIC office without your express consent, and therefore STEALS your money to the benefit of the government.
- Why the Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051 (Member Subscriptions)- why every civil enactment of Congress really only protects the government, and not you as a man or woman.
- Critique of the Book “They Own It All (Including You)” by Ronald Macdonald and Robert Rowen-SEDM Blog
- There’s No Such Thing as “Government Funding”-SEDM Blog
- Using the Laws of Property to Respond to a Federal or State Tax Collection Notice, Form #14.015-SEDM
- Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404**(Member Subscriptions)
- Breakdown: How Many Rights Have Americans Really Lost? (OFFSITE LINK) -We Are Change
- Who Will Eventually Own Everything, Including You? (OFFSITE LINK) -Mercola
- Wikipedia: Property Law in the United States (OFFSITE LINK)
- Property Rights and the Constitution (OFFSITE LINK) -Cato Institute
- An Economic Analysis of Civil versus Common Law Property (OFFSITE LINK) -Henry E. Smith
- What the Chat.openai.com Chatbot Says the Difference Between a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” and a Common Law “State national” Is in the Context of Taxation, Exhibit #01.024 -The Chatgpt chatbot outscored 90% of applicants on the bar exam. Section 8 deals with “property” and private property.
- Restatement of Property
40.1 Restatement of Property (1936–40; mostly superseded by Restatement of Property, Second and Third volumes)
40.2 Restatement of Property, Second, Landlord and Tenant (1977)
40.3 Restatement of Property, Third, Mortgages (1997)
40.4 Restatement of Property, Third, Servitudes (2000)
40.5 Restatement of Property, Third, Wills and Other Donative Transfers (1999, 2003, and 2011)
- Authorities on Rights as Property, SEDM Blog
- Enumeration of Inalienable Rights, Form #10.002 -all rights are PROPERTY.
- How You Lose Constitutional or Natural Rights, Form #10.015-Constitutional and natural rights are PRIVATE property. Losing them means turning them into PUBLIC property.
- Private Right or Public Right? Course, Form #12.044-how to decide whether a right being exercised is PRIVATE or PUBLIC.
- Family Guardian (OFFSITE LINK)
5.1 Sovereignty and Freedom Topic, Section 6: Private and Natural Rights and Natural Law
- Proof that “Publici Juris”/Public Rights Include the ENTIRE Civil Code
More cites on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction by Clicking Here.
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “property”
“. . .the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment, it was held that the duty existed to fix what was a direct tax in the constitutional sense so as to accomplish this purpose contemplated by the Constitution. ( 157 U.S. 581.)”
[Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R, 240 U.S. 1, 16 (1916)]
[EDITORIAL: What they mean is PRIVATE property. Government can and does tax PUBLIC property all the time. Civil statuses of “citizen”, “resident”, and “person” are their creation and public property. See:
Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
That is the main and only way they can institute an excise tax to begin with. See the next case cite for proof.]
“We conclude that an excise tax (in contradistinction to a direct tax) is a tax imposed on the acquisition, ownership, or use of particular kinds of categories of [PUBLIC] property that falls short of being a general tax on the whole of an individual’s personal property.”
[Union Elec. Co. v. U.S., 363 F.3d. 1292, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2004)]
“A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment [the Sixteenth Amendment] shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”
[Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)]
“In the case of the federal government where the individual is either a United States citizen or an alien residing in the taxing jurisdiction, the tax under section 1 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the person; where the individual is an alien [LEGISLATIVELY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY “foreign”, INCLUDING states of the Union] not residing in the taxing jurisdiction [the “geographical United States”, meaning the District of Columbia per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d)], the tax under section 871 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the [PUBLIC] property or income of the nonresident individual [GEOGRAPHICALLY and PHYSICALLY] located or earned in the taxing jurisdiction”
[Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d 301, 307 (3d Cir. 1974)]
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full [meaning EXCLUSIVE and ABSOLUTE] control of, subject to these limitations:
 First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”];
 second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use [VOLUNTARILY associating it with an SSN/TIN, which is a “franchise mark” is the METHOD of donating it to a public use per Form #05.012, compelled use of SSN is THEFT of property]; and
 third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation [required by the Fifth Amendment].”
[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]
“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]
[EDITORIAL: All privileges and franchises are based on GRANTS/LOANS of PUBLIC property with CIVIL LEGAL STRINGS attached. Those strings are the statutory civil law, and that law ONLY applies to those with a CONSENSUAL domicile within the jurisdiction of the granting power, as described in Form #05.030]
“Thus the State, through its tribunals, may compel persons domiciled within its limits to execute, in pursuance of their contracts respecting property elsewhere situated, instruments in such form and with such solemnities as to transfer the title, so far as such formalities can be complied with; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no manner interferes with the supreme control over the property by the State within which it is situated. Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. 444; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25; Corbett v. Nutt, 10 Wall. 464.”
So the State, through its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits owned by non-residents to the payment of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are domiciled. Every State owes protection to its own citizens; and, when non-residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens. It is in virtue of the State’s jurisdiction over the property of the non-resident situated within its limits that its tribunals can inquire into that non-resident’s obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of the property. If the non-resident 724*724 have no property in the State, there is nothing upon which the tribunals can adjudicate.“
- The CREATOR of a thing is always the owner
Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
- God created man. Gen. 1:27, Gen. 6:7.
- Men are God’s workmanship. Eph. 2:10.
- God created the entire universe. Isaiah 42:5.
- The ENTIRE UNIVERSE is God’s property because He CREATED it. Psalm 89:11.
- God can’t be God unless He therefore controls and makes laws for EVERYTHING.
SEDM About Us Page, Section 9: About religious tolerance and this ministry
- Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025, pp. 52-60
- Why Protestant Nations are Rich and Catholic Nations are Poor (OFFSITE LINK)-Nike Insights
- Why Catholic Nations Tolerate Stealing (OFFSITE LINK) -Nike Insights
- Natural Law-Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
- Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John W. Robbins -book
Thesis: The Catholic church rejected communism: that the State owns all property.
Antithesis: That in Capitalism, individuals have a right to own private property.
Synthesis: The Pope has a right as vicar of the church to control all property.
And, the thief has a right to steal your property for the common good. “the possession of all things in common, and universal freedom are matters of natural law” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm .
Hence: the Catholic doctrine brought in serfdom, fascisms, socialisms, democratic socialism, and the “great reset” where you will own nothing and enjoy it.” of natural law https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
A must watch for legal beagles.
2.1 Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude.
- An ALL CAPS name
2.1 You can file a “Service Mark” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to control when and how the government can use it against you to impose civil statutory obligations as “services”. We don’t recommend copyrights. Service marks are better. See:
2.1.1 U.S.P.T.O: Service marks
2.1.2 Owning the Straw Man’s Name, Form #06.049
2.2 You can file a UCC Security Agreement, Form #14.002**(Member Subscriptions) against the name to put a lien on it and put yourself at the head of the line of ownership priority.
2.3 You can file a name change. See Form #06.048.
3.1 Allodial title of land is absolute ownership.
3.2 Documentation on allodial title is found in Member Subscription Library, Item 15.01 entitled “Allodial Titles and Land Patents”
- Your vehicle:
4.1 DMV Certificate of Title is not absolute ownership, because you have to pay a tax to get it.
4.2 Those in possession of the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MCO) are absolute owners.
4.3 Title to car can also be filed with the county recorder to avoid the DMV Certificate of title.
Since the founding of the United States of America, PRIVATE ownership of property has been subverted by the following means:
- By undermining and subverting the ABSOLUTE separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE that is the reason for establishing government to begin with. The Declaration of Independence say that governments are established to protect RIGHTS, which are property, and those rights are PRIVATE property mainly. The main “benefit” of the Constitution as a trust indenture is PRIVATE PROPERTY, and taking this away makes the public trust into a SHAM TRUST. See:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
- By FALSELY STATING that there IS NOT COMMON LAW as mentioned in the Constitution. This forces everyone to use CIVIL STATUTES that only apply to public officers working for the government to get a judicial remedy for their injuries. See:
2.1 Rebutted False Arguments About the Common Law, Form #08.025
2.2 Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
- Weaponizing the government so that every classical government service requires you during the application process to surrender ALL of your constitutional rights by bundling things you DON’T want with things that you DO. See:
SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.30: Weaponization of Government
- By procuring your consent to convert PRIVATE to PUBLIC INVISIBLY and without your knowledge. See:
Hot Issues: Invisible Consent*
- Redefining “ownership” in the legal dictionary to make it a characteristic of a “citizen” instead of a CONSTITUTIONAL “person”. See Black’s Law Dictionary.
- Compelling the use of Social Security Numbers in every interaction. It is ILLEGAL to offer Social Security in a state of the Union, so all such number constitute a FRAUD. See:
6.1 Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
6.2 About SSNs/TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012
- Equivocating in federal statutes to make “United States” the corporation synonymous with “United States” in a constitutional geographical sense. These two things are NOT the same and mutually exclusive. Thus, those who say thy are “U.S. citizen” inadvertently are declaring themselves OFFICERS of the “U.S. Inc” federal corporation, as described in Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014.
- Using government ID as a means to unlawfully and unconstitutionally and unwittingly convert those possessing it into government officers on official business who are subject to civil statutory law that really only regulates the GOVERNMENT. See:
8.1 Hot Issues: Identification*.
8.2 Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
- Unconstitutionally instituting national franchises limited to federal territory within the Constitutional states of the Union and thus INVADING the states of the Union in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. See Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030.
- Not defining “resident“, which really means someone who consents to be treated as an officer of the government rather than retaining their PRIVATE, constitutionally protected status. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
- Forcing people applying for bank or financial accounts to declare STATUTORY “U.S. person” status and provide an SSN. State nationals are NOT PRIVILEGED STATUTORY “U.S. persons” engaged in a statutory “trade or business”/public office defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26). See:
About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.202
- Enforcing the income tax within the borders of Constitutional States, which the Supreme Court held in 1872 in the License Tax Cases was unconstitutional after the end of the Civil War and also in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust. State nationals must COMMIT PERJURY on a government form and misrepresent their physical location to file the 1040 tax return. See:
12.1 How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
12.2 Why Its a Crime for a state National to File a 1040 Income Tax Return, Form #08.021
- The Achilles Heel of the Administrative State** -how to defeat the government’s authority to regulate using the laws of property
- Administrative State: Tactics and Defenses Course, Form #12.041 -voluntary public offices, at a minimum, are the property being granted or loaned with legal strings
- Avoiding Traps In Government Forms Course, Form #12.023-goal of government forms is to get you to volunteer for a public office within the government, and that office is a civil status such as STATUTORY “citizen”, “taxpayer”, “driver”, “person”, etc. This tactic is documented in Disclaimer, Section 4.28.
- Taxation Topic Page, Section 9.3: Administrative Remedies (OFFSITE LINK) -Family Guardian Fellowship
- Taxation Topic Page, Section 14.4: Challenging Jurisdiction Administratively (OFFSITE LINK) -Family Guardian Fellowship
- Administrative Procedure (OFFSITE LINK) -Family Guardian Fellowship
The purpose of this section is to apply the content of this page to crafting a motion to dismiss a Federal criminal case based on a predicate civil status of “person” under Titles 15 and 26 of the U.S. Code, since the Defendant was charges with 1 Count of violating 15 U.S.C. §77a and §77x and 1 count of 26 U.S.C. §7201. The defendant was a “nonresident alien” and stateless, because he/she was domiciled outside “United States” the country and did not claim “U.S. person” or “U.S. citizen” civil status while abroad.
Motion to Dismiss Defendant from this Proceeding
- In the doctrine of standing enunciated in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d. 351 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court described three criteria for standing to sue:
A. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.'”
B. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.”
C. Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”
- Petitioner asserts that government had no standing to join Petitioner to this action because the criteria for standing was not satisfied in the case of me, the Petitioner:
A. Petitioner, was not an officer or decisionmaker who had any control over ________’s Know Your Customer Policies that caused the alleged damages by locking people, who did go through the Know Your Customer (KYC) process, out of their accounts until they completed it. KYC is a policy that the government actually wants companies to do with their customers, even though a Private Membership Association (PMA) such as ________ has no obligation to do so.
B. The money laundering statutes behind the KYC rules are a SCAM that presuppose those subject to them are voluntary public officers within the national government, which I and ________ (a Private Membership Association) are NOT! See:
i. Money Laundering Enforcement SCAM, Form #05.044;
ii. Why It is Illegal for You to Enforce Money Laundering Statute in my Specific Case, Form #06.046; https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/MonLaundEnfIllegal.pdf.
C. No evidence has been presented that demonstrates causal connection between any act or omission of the Petitioner that directly caused any of the alleged damages to the ________ members.
D. Independent actions or inactions by the other “Defendants” in the action relating to the KYC rules were the causes of the supposed injuries. In fact, I was locked out of my own ________ account for several months until I completed the KYC process that ________ chose to implement. I used my Mexican ID and Mexican mailing address, so as to stay compliant with the Bitclub membership agreement, which banned 8 U.S.C. §1401 and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) STATUTORY “US CITIZENS” (fictions of law) from joining. If I, the human, owed any taxes from mining Bitcoin, I’d owe it to the place that I consented to a domicile and asked for protection, not the “United States Inc”. And for the record, there is no such place on earth because God commands me not fornicate with political beasts who devour human flesh, including mine. I would also not owe it to the United States government, since I did not have a domicile in the United States at the time. I was and still am a nonresident alien, and renounced all protection of the corrupt U.S. government.
E. There is nothing the Petitioner could do to ameliorate damages caused because of ________ trying to be compliant with U.S. KYC rules by the other Defendants. Again, I was locked out of my own account. That should show you clearly how little control I had.
F. All the parties in the United States who could conceivably claim an injury had to knowingly and deliberately violate the ________ member agreement, which was clearly laid out on the website and use a VPN to bypass internet filtering rules that ________ had in place. Therefore, their own behavior was the only cause of any alleged damages they may have or might claim. Not the petitioners. Think about it, if someone from America wants to gamble online, but the casino in Amsterdam blocks US IP addresses, the easy work around that the STATUTORY “US CITIZEN” can implement is to use a VPN to change the IP address to one in Europe. This is common knowledge. If he does that, and then goes to the casino website and loses $100, it’s not the casinos fault is it? Of course not. They shouldn’t have gone to the casino as a statutory US CITIZEN (8 U.S.C. §1401 or 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)) in the first place. It’s literally the same in this scenario.
G. Petitioner is “stateless” because he was not domiciled in the “United States” at the time of the offense and therefore has to be dismissed.
“In order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State. See Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648-649 (1878); Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 (1834). The problem in this case is that Bettison, although a United States citizen, has no domicile in any State. He is therefore “stateless” for purposes of § 1332(a)(3). Subsection 1332(a)(2), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of a State sues aliens only, also could not be satisfied because Bettison is a United States citizen.”
[Newman-Green v. Alfonxo Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)]
This case is styled as a quasi-criminal and not criminal case because it has a predicate civil status of “person” for the purposes of 15 U.S.C. §77b(a)(2) in the case of the 18 U.S.C. §371 count and 26 U.S.C. §7343 in the case of the 26 U.S.C. §7201 count. The fact that it has a predicate civil status is the reason, in fact, why it is quasi-criminal instead of purely criminal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 requires a domicile within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government in the statutory geographical “United States” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) to be suable CIVILLY or to have a civil status that is suable for a failure to perform the CIVIL duty of securities registration. This action is the equivalent of a class action like Newman-Green, in which Bettison had to be dismissed from the class because he did not have a domicile within the statutory geographical “United States”. The “thing” (res) that needs that domicile is the OFFICE of “person” and not the OFFICER consensually FILLING said office. The civil office of “person” in this case does have a domicile in the statutory geographical “United States” because it is created and owned by United States Inc., which itself has said domicile as indicated by 4 U.S.C. §72. HOWEVER, there is no consensual connection between the OFFICE and the alleged but not actual OFFICER, who the government falsely alleged is the Petitioner. A vacant civil office under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1) and 15 U.S.C. §77b(a)(2) has no domicile until it is VOLUNTARILY filled, and the Petitioner never consented to fill it and vehemently denies that he can be COMPELLED to fill it without violating the Thirteenth Amendment and international human trafficking laws. The obligations attached to the civil status of “person” that you are trying to FORCE onto me, in fact, represent property and services STOLEN or extorted through duress from the Petitioner by the Prosecution in my case. As the absolute owner of myself and those services and obligations, I therefore as a Merchant (U.C.C. §2-104(1)) have a right to set the terms or cost you have to pay to procure those services as the Buyer, and the terms are describe in Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027; https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf.
If the Prosecution refuses to pay for those services and obligations it alleges on my part, it is guilty of criminal identity theft, 18 U.S.C. §912 and becomes an involuntary trustee of mine (California Civil Code Section 2224) until it RETURNS their value. The bible says such brazen and even court-sanctioned THIEVERY is punishable by AT LEAST TWO TIMES its value, Exodus 22:7 and Rev. 18:6, which means they must pay DOUBLE the cost that I as the original absolute owner set in the above agreement. For the Prosecution to respond that they don’t have to return the value of property they STOLE from me, is for them to admit they are ANARCHISTS, which ironically is what they falsely accuse me of being! More on the mandatory requirement that ALL civil statuses must be voluntary is contained in:
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008;
- There could be no conspiracy by the Petitioner to cause the harm described in the indictment, because he was not the cause or decision maker or principal in anything that ________ did relating to the subject of the indictment or the harm that resulted from the acts or omissions of the other defendants who owned and operated the club.
- Even pleading guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. §371 would not ameliorate harm that I was not the proven cause of. All it would do is help fund a case that clearly is an injustice as far as my involvement is concerned. Thus, by me not withdrawing the plea I submitted under duress, I would be funding and protecting criminal activity by the officers of this court.
- Consequently, this court has NO JURISDICTION to join Petitioner to this case and must dismiss me immediately from this case. That’s the easiest way to end this nonsense.
“The income tax FRAUD originates from the 3rd law Northwest Territory Ordinance where the authority of taxation originated from a proprietary right of property ownership. The First law was the Declaration of Independence, the Second law was the Articles of Confederation, the Third law was the Northwest Ordinance, and the Fourth law was the Constitution, all enacted in that order. No law was made unto people in the first two laws–so that ruled out income tax. The 3rd law (NWO) contained law for people. How so? Answer: They were Upon the land of a proprietary owner which was the United States of America, the confederacy by virtue of the 2nd law… and the land the confederacy owned (awarded) was by virtue of the Treaty of Paris.
So when the 4th law comes along with a statement “supreme law of the land“….what law could they make law for? Answer: The land owned by the confederacy (2nd law Articles of Confederation) stylized as the United States of America. Land similar to the Northwest Ordinance for which they owned. They never did away with the Articles of Confederation….they couldn’t…it created the USA.
Government ORIGINALLY owned the land as territory and they carved it up into states. For example, the State of Ohio (a federal territory, as opposed to Ohio the land) within it and only after did they sell the land or convey it in allodium (absolute ownership using land patents) to the self-governing people who formed the new state when they joined the Union and forfeited their territorial status. At this time, there are no territories left. We only have states of the Union and possessions at this point.
QUESTION: What happened to the proprietary right to make CIVIL law for those upon the land of ownership?
ANSWER: Shhh…it transferred to the new owner and vanished from the old.
The states (mini me property administrators of the feds) have carved up an illusion that they can make law/taxes within a border for that which they do not own. The 1st law declared people independent minus personal consent. Consent (e.g. contract) is one way govt gains control. The 2nd traced all the way back to that 3rd law where they made municipal law for people over territory they owned that had people upon it. Proprietary power over territory of ownership. Government pulled a ruse over people in not telling people that govt lost its proprietary power to make law when they sold it to new owners.”
After all the public/government land was sold, the only property they had left to grant as a privilege were civil statutory statuses to which public rights (which are also property) attach. Government is still in the property rental business, where the income tax is the “rent” on the property, but they are renting that which most people no longer understand as property to their peril. See:
Proof that “Publici Juris”/Public Rights Include the Entire Civil Code, SEDM Blog
For a more detailed history of the above, visit attorney Ed Rivera’s OrganicLaws.org or read the following synopsis of the content of that site prepared by a generous student of this site, who did the research for you all. Ed has a phD in government and served as an attorney for over 30 years:
American Organic Law, Form #11.217
Ha Ha In a muni traffic court case I filed at the clerk window in essence all the above along with how the State of Ohio essentially only has authority over land it owns, right out of its own state laws. When in court the judge just cavalierly stated everything was over ruled and was cagey as to questions. I discovered later he never entered any of the latter filings into the docket! I questioned the clerk and she was really elusive. Finally I sent the prosecutor and the clerk a letter nailing them potentially for a conspiracy under 18USC. The clerk came clean the fastest saying “I filed them but the judge said no to docket entry”. A few days later the docket was adjusted to reflect the filings. I suspect the prosecutor told the judge, “Don’t get me involved.”
[Sovereign Dave, 1/24/23]