SOURCE: Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008, Section 12.6; https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/RightToDeclStatus.pdf
EDITORIAL: The conflict mentioned in this article also resulted in the following new post in our forums:
Why Do You Argue so Vociferously Against Positions Other than Your Own?, SEDM Forums
A frequent source of debate on this site is the discrimination and inequality imposed by creating and enforcing civil franchises, how this inequality constitutes discrimination, and how it also causes a loss of constitutional rights. In the constitution, all protected “persons”, who are all HUMAN BEINGS are treated AND TAXED equally. So how does one become UNEQUAL and how can this inequality be PREVENTED? That is the subject of this article.
In speaking of the loss of constitutional rights at the hands of government, the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
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.” Under these powers the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their exercise it has been customary in England from time immemorial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., and in so doing to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services rendered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day, statutes are to be found in many of the States upon some or all these subjects; and we think it has never yet been successfully contended that such legislation came within any of the constitutional prohibitions against interference with private property. With the Fifth Amendment in force, Congress, in 1820, conferred power upon the city of Washington “to regulate . . . the rates of wharfage at private wharves, . . . the sweeping of chimneys, and to fix the rates of fees therefor, . . . and the weight and quality of bread,” 3 Stat. 587, sect. 7; and, in 1848, “to make all necessary regulations respecting hackney carriages and the rates of fare of the same, and the rates of hauling by cartmen, wagoners, carmen, and draymen, and the rates of commission of auctioneers,” 9 id. 224, sect. 2.
From this it is apparent that, down to the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was not supposed that statutes regulating the use, or even the price of the use, of private property necessarily deprived an owner of his property without due process of law. Under some circumstances they may, but not under all. The amendment does not change the law in this particular: it simply prevents the States from doing that which will operate as such a deprivation.
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931]
The term “compact” as used above means CONTRACT. Look it up if you don’t believe us. So can a government FORCE you to contract with them? NO! They are created to protect your right to contract or not contract with anyone and everyone, including THEM. If you can’t refuse to contract with the government, then you don’t own yourself because they can put anything in the contract or “social compact” they want! And what form does this “social compact take”? The civil statutory codes, that’s what. Rebut the following if you disagree or be found to agree:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
The above Munn case, however, raises many more questions than it answers, because they are hiding a large part of the truth from the reader, as we will explain later:
- If the Declaration of Independence says that all just powers of government derive from the consent of the governed, then what exactly constitutes CONSENT in this context?
- What if one chooses to not consent to ANYTHING the government offers? Would they THEN retain all their constitutional rights and lose none of them to civil statutory regulation?
- Is it possible to not give up ANY constitutional rights without being punished, ostracized, or targeted for economic sanctions such as those that result from not getting a “RES-IDENT” ID card or a driver license?
- Exactly WHAT constitutes “membership” that causes a loss of CONSTITUTIONAL or PRIVATE rights? Is it:
4.2 “residence”? In the tax code this is the temporary dwelling place of an ALIEN who is NOT a national or a citizen
4.3 “domicile”? You can’t register to vote without a domicile within the district, and since you can only have one domicile, you can only vote in ONE place at a time. Voters are certainly POLITICAL members of the community by virtue of their ability to vote, but does that imply that they are LEGAL or CIVIL “persons” under the civil code? Form #05.002 proves that they are.
4.4 A VOLUNTARY franchise status such as “spouse” (under the family code), “person”, “taxpayer” (under the tax code), driver (under the vehicle code), or “citizen”, or “resident” under the civil code?
The only ones in the above list item 4 that ARE consensual are the last three: residence, domicile, and franchise statuses. And we prove in Form #05.002 that 4.2 and 4.3 are a civil statutory protection franchises, so they are a subset of item 4.4 above indirectly. Nationality is NOT consensual, because an act of birth is not an explicit act of consent. “Residence” is consensual in the case of aliens because you don’t have to BE in a foreign country if you don’t want to. Presence on the territory of a foreign country on the part of an alien is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.
The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption ‘from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found’ were stated as follows: ‘When private individuals of one nation [states of the Unions are “nations” under the law of nations] spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter, can never be construed to grant such exemption.’ 7 Cranch, 144.
In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction, rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war; and that the implied license, under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants, for purposes of business or pleasure, can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See, also, Carlisle v. U. S. (1872) 16 Wall. 147, 155 ; Radich v. Hutchins (1877) 95 U. S. 210 ; Wildenhus’ Case (1887) 120 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. 385 ; Chae Chan Ping v. U. S. (1889) 130 U. S. 581, 603, 604, 9 Sup. Ct. 623.
[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
“Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.”
[The Law of Nations, Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 213, p. 87]
So the ONLY thing left that they can be talking about above that might cause a VOLUNTARY surrender of rights are franchises, which are then defined as temporary GRANTS of government property, keeping in mind that RIGHTS are also property. On this website, we use the term “franchise” and “privilege” interchangeably. We have never seen a court ruling that distinguishes the two, and privilege is used in the definition, so they are synonymous for all practical purposes. Below is the definition:
FRANCHISE. A special privilege conferred by government on individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right. Elliott v. City of Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358, 360. In England it is defined to be a royal privilege in the hands of a subject.
A “franchise,” as used by Blackstone in defining quo warranto, (3 Com. 262 [4th Am. Ed.] 322), had reference to a royal privilege or branch of the king’s prerogative subsisting in the hands of the subject, and must arise from the king’s grant, or be held by prescription, but today we understand a franchise to be some special privilege conferred by government on an individual, natural or artificial, which is not enjoyed by its citizens in general. State v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 639, 86 A.L.R. 240.
In this country a franchise is a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. To be a corporation is a franchise. The various powers conferred on corporations are franchises. The execution of a policy of insurance by an insurance company [e.g. Social Insurance/Socialist Security], and the issuing a bank note by an incorporated bank [such as a Federal Reserve NOTE], are franchises. People v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. (N.Y.) 387, 8 Am.Dec. 243. But it does not embrace the property acquired by the exercise of the franchise. Bridgeport v. New York & N.H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255, 4 Am.Rep. 63. Nor involve interest in land acquired by grantee. Whitbeck v. Funk, 140 Or. 70, 12 P.2d. 1019, 1020. In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage. etc. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H. 484; State v. Black Diamond Co., 97 Ohio.St. 24, 119 N.E. 195, 199, L.R.A.1918E, 352.
Elective Franchise. The right of suffrage: the right or privilege of voting in public elections.
Exclusive Franchise. See Exclusive Privilege or Franchise.
General and Special. The charter of a corporation is its “general” franchise, while a “special” franchise consists in any rights granted by the public to use property for a public use but-with private profit. Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212, 87 N.E. 443, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 420.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 786-787]
Note the phrase “which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right”, meaning that it does NOT apply EQUALLY to everyone in society, but only a SUBSET of people in the society. How then does one join this SUBSET that are participants in the franchise, one might ask? The answer is that you must have government property or even statutory privileges in “your hands” to prove that you are a “subject” of the franchise. But WHAT SPECIFIC property exactly are they referring to?
The word “privilege” in the above definition is a code word for grants of government property. A “grant” is a temporary loan of property with usually civil legal strings or conditions or obligations attached. The property can be demanded to be returned at any time by the grantor, which would then constitute a revocation of the franchise. Here is an example of the use of these two words as synonyms by the same court quoted in the lead post:
“We have repeatedly held that the Federal Government may impose appropriate conditions on the use of federal property or privileges and may require that state instrumentalities comply with conditions that are reasonably related to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs. See, e. g., Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 294 -296 (1958); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 142 -144 (1947); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16 (1940); cf. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 853 (1976); Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542 (1975). A requirement that States, like all other users, pay a portion of the costs of the benefits they enjoy from federal programs is surely permissible since it is closely related to the [435 U.S. 444, 462] federal interest in recovering costs from those who benefit and since it effects no greater interference with state sovereignty than do the restrictions which this Court has approved.”
[Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444 (1978); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16842193024599209893]
Later in the Munn Case, the same court obtusely admits that this is exactly what they are doing:
“The compensation which the owners of property, not having any special rights or privileges from the government in connection with it, may demand for its use, or for their own services in union with it, forms no element of consideration in prescribing regulations for that purpose.
[. . .]
“It is only where some right or privilege [which are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY] is conferred by the government or municipality upon the owner, which he can use in connection with his property, or by means of which the use of his property is rendered more valuable to him, or he thereby enjoys an advantage over others, that the compensation to be received by him becomes a legitimate matter of regulation. Submission to the regulation of compensation in such cases is an implied condition of the grant, and the State, in exercising its power of prescribing the compensation, only determines the conditions upon which its concession shall be enjoyed. When the privilege ends, the power of regulation ceases.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876);SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931 ]
“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);SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931 ]
So, the source of the government’s ability to enact civil legislation that regulates otherwise private, constitutionally protected property is the receipt and grant of government property of one kind or another with civil legal strings attached. That property can take the following forms listed:
(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved—
(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.
The context for the lead quote then is that membership implies receipt of at least one of the above types of government property, which includes government offices, public property, loans, grants, benefits and contracts, all of which are property. So we must then ask ourself:
- What SPECIFIC type of “membership” are they talking about in the lead post?
- How is it measured and identified and proven with evidence in court?
- Why didn’t they IDENTIFY IN THE RULING HOW to identify when and how membership was pursued by the target of the enforcement action or regulation? Are they trying to hide it?
- The definition of “franchise” above uses the phrase “in the hands of the subject”, as if to imply that it is property in the custody or “benefit” of the recipient. But HOW exactly can we prove with evidence that it is “IN YOUR HANDS”, because that in fact is exactly and only HOW you become a “subject” as they call it.
The answer is that they are talking about civil statuses under franchises to which privileges (public rights), or obligations are attached. In other words, to find the NAME of the “membership” they are talking about, you look in the definition section of the civil statutes which regulate and find definitions for various types of civil “persons” to whom the obligations attach, such as “driver” (under the vehicle code), “spouse” (under the family code), “citizen” or “resident” or “taxpayer” under the tax code, “person” (under civil statutes). Each of these civil statuses is what the U.S. Supreme court calls a “class”, and only members of that class are targeted to both RECEIVE the privilege (public right) AND to have the liability described. Here is how they describe it in the landmark case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust, in which the FIRST income tax of the modern era was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
“The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of four thousand dollars and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation. Hamilton says in one of his papers, (the Continentalist,) “the genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the State demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.” 1 Hamilton’s Works, ed. 1885, 270. The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society [e.g. wars, political conflict, violence, anarchy]. It was hoped and believed that the great amendments to the Constitution which followed the late civil war had rendered such legislation impossible for all future time. But the objectionable legislation reappears in the act under consideration. It is the same in essential character as that of the English income statute of 1691, which taxed Protestants at a certain rate, Catholics, as a class, at double the rate of Protestants, and Jews at another and separate rate. Under wise and constitutional legislation every citizen should contribute his proportion, however small the sum, to the support of the government, and it is no kindness to urge any of our citizens to escape from that obligation. If he contributes the smallest mite of his earnings to that purpose he will have a greater regard for the government and more self-respect 597*597 for himself feeling that though he is poor in fact, he is not a pauper of his government. And it is to be hoped that, whatever woes and embarrassments may betide our people, they may never lose their manliness and self-respect. Those qualities preserved, they will ultimately triumph over all reverses of fortune.”
[. . .]
“Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundation of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness.”
“If the court sanctions the power of discriminating taxation, and nullifies the uniformity mandate of the Constitution,” as said by one who has been all his life a student of our institutions, “it will mark the hour when the sure decadence of our present government will commence.” If the purely arbitrary limitation of $4000 in the present law can be sustained, none having less than that amount of income being assessed or taxed for the support of the government, the limitation of future Congresses may be fixed at a much larger sum, at five or ten or twenty thousand dollars, parties possessing an income of that amount alone being bound to bear the burdens of government; or the limitation may be designated at such an amount as a board of “walking delegates” may deem necessary. There is no safety in allowing the limitation to be adjusted except in strict compliance with the mandates of the Constitution which require its taxation, if imposed by direct taxes, to be apportioned among the States according to their representation, and if imposed by indirect taxes, to be uniform in operation and, so far as practicable, in proportion to their property, equal upon all citizens. Unless the rule of the Constitution governs, a majority may fix the limitation at such rate as will not include any of their own number.”
[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court 1895); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7292056596996651119]
Note the use of the word “discriminates”. This is a sign that they are talking about a VOLUNTARY franchise to which you must be a member to be the target of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL tax, which they call “class legislation”. The DISTINCTION they are talking about is the CIVIL STATUS of the group targeted for the tax, instead of treating everyone equally. That status, in the case of the Internal Revenue Code is STATUTORY “citizen”, STATUTORY “resident”, “nonresident alien” (Form #05.020), “person” (Form #08.023), and “taxpayer”. Each of these civil statuses have a different subset of privileges (public rights) and corresponding obligations under the I.R.C. Since those privileges and obligations are not equal for every one of these statuses, then based on Pollock above, the tax code is “class legislation”. Another name for that is FRANCHISES. Franchises are also sometimes called “special law”:
“special law. One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally. A private law. A law is “special” when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field of action or operation. A “special law” relates to either particular persons, places, or things or to persons, places, or things which, though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but not such legislation, be applied. Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Utah, 564 P.2d. 751, 754. A special law applies only to an individual or a number of individuals out of a single class similarly situated and affected, or to a special locality. Board of County Com’rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d. 361, 362. See also Private bill; Private law. Compare General law; Public law.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398]
VOLUNTARY franchises are the main method of creating INEQUALITY, implementing “special law”, and violating what the above case calls “uniformity”. When INEQUALITY is present, UNIFORMITY cannot be present because the tax discriminates against certain classes while not taxing others or taxing them at a reduced rate. Below is an example of this phenomenon:
“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [instrumentalities, officers, employees, and elected officials of the national Government] and not to non-taxpayers [non-resident non-persons domiciled in states of the Union without the exclusive jurisdiction of the national Government]. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them [non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S. , 470 F.2d, 585 (1972)]
Those who argue against the idea that “taxpayer” is a privilege have no defense for the above except perhaps to say that the “nontaxpayer” above was not the SPECIFICALLY liable party, but that there was indeed an ACTUAL “taxpayer” in the above case. But WHAT about people who DO NOT WANT to BE “taxpayers” and are victims of identity theft by the filers of false information returns? Why can’t THEY claim that there IS no “taxpayer” in their case, and that the fiction of “taxpayer” is a product of a crime, and that they instead, like the above case retain all their constitutional rights and remedies? That crime is described in:
Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046
They have no answer for that other than to say “frivolous” and have no rebuttal for any of the other evidence in this article. HOGWASH! It’s frivolous to say an argument is bad without rebutting the evidence it is based on, which is in this article. Here is another example:
“A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of ‘taxpayer’ is bestowed upon them and their property is seized…”
[Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 504 (2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, March 6, 1961)]
In the above case:
1. Botta v. Scanlon was a claim for a refund based on the Fifth Amendment.
Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 504 (2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, March 6, 1961)
2. The basis of the claim was honored
3. So there is a constitutional Remedy.
4. Botta was a Nontaxpayer.
5. The only difference between the Botta Case and most other cases is the “taxpayer” status.
6. Those who INVOKE “taxpayer” status CANNOT accompany their claim with a constitutional claim
7. So it’s ONE or the other: CONSTITUTION, or STATUTES, but never BOTH.
8. Botta was ONLY a CONSTITUTIONAL claim, not a statutory claim.
Constitutional claims ARE permitted for those who have their property seized and who are NOT “taxpayers” but are still protected by the Fifth Amendment. So “taxpayer” does come with obligations, and the obligations are that you LOSE constitutional protections. The U.S. Supreme Court even WARNS people that citing ANY statute waives constitutional rights, so you can’t claim a statutory status without forfeiting constitutional rights and replacing them with civil statutory privileges:
The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:
[. . .]
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.
FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108.
[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]
What if you don’t volunteer to be a “taxpayer”? You retain Fifth Amendment protections.
“Taxpayer” status isn’t related DIRECTLY to your liability based on our reading of 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1, but it does produce an obligation to surrender constitutional or Fifth Amendment Remedy, based on Botta. A LOSS of a specific remedy such as a constitutional remedy is, no doubt, an obligation you can’t avoid if you claim the status. Can obligations without corresponding consideration be valid without consent? NO.
So you’re a volunteer. Congress CANNOT by any legislation, compel a surrender of ALL constitutional protections. You must volunteer for the status that does so. Any other way is involuntary servitude.
That case even equated “liability” with “taxpayer” status. The only difference in Botta is that by “liability”, they don’t mean TAX liability, but liability to surrender constitutional protections. Its not poorly worded. Its encrypted truth
Subsequent to the Botta Case, on Nov. 2, 1966, Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. §7426 giving remedy to “persons other than taxpayers”. Did these people suddenly LOSE their Fifth Amendment protections after this enactment? NO. Beyond that point, they had an administrative remedy to DISGUISE their Fifth Amendment remedy in administrative language. They still didn’t need “taxpayer” to get a remedy. But they had to agree to become a statutory “person” with a civil status who is now an “individual” who is subject. So these wrongful targets of enforcement activity were compelled to exchange CONSTITUTIONAL rights for STATUTORY privileges and became subject, even if they previously were not. See legislative notes under the statute:
26 U.S. Code § 7426 – Civil actions by persons other than taxpayers
BUT, nontaxpayers can still invoke constitutional remedies if they don’t want the statute or the status or its liabilities. 26 U.S.C. §7426 is not exclusive and CAN’T be exclusive because it doesn’t deal with GOVERNMENT property. It protects PRIVATE property under the Fifth Amendment just like in Botta.
Keep in mind that “taxpayer” is a STATUTORY “civil status” or franchise status is PROPERTY, and that it was legislatively created by Congress. Whatever Congress creates it literally OWNS and controls, including anyone and everyone claiming the status. That’s the hypothesis proven in the following article:
Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
The U.S. Supreme Court has also admitted that the legislative creator of a thing is the owner and only legitimate controller:
Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell’s and Raddatz’ recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right [a “privilege” or “public right” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress’ power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress’ power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.
In the case of “taxpayer” per the above, Congress has dictated that ONLY “taxpayers” can go to Tax Court, and that they have the burden of proof as the “transferee” of government property under 26 U.S.C. §6903, to prove NON-LIABILITY. In other words, they have the unfortunate burden to prove a NEGATIVE, which is absurd and a literal impossibility in most cases. In other words, they are GOVERNMENT WHORES until they prove that they are NOT. Imagine the irony of the following quote proving this, which says “the taxpayer” has the burden, who simply by invoking the status, is a government whore:
“..the taxpayer can not be left in the unpardonable position of having to prove a negative”
[Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 218, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1444, 4 L.Ed.2d. 1669 (1960) ; Flores v. U.S., 551 F.2d. 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 1977); Portillo v Comm’r, 932 F.2d. 938, Affirming, reversing and remanding 58 TCM 1386, Dec 46, 373 (M), TC Memo, 1990-68 [91-2 USTC P50, 304]; Weimerschirch [79-1 USTC P9359], 596 F.2d. at 361]
To this irony we respond with the following:
“Maddam, you have all the equipment necessary to be a whore, but that does not make you one by presumption. Until such time as you demonstrate the traits of a whore or claim to be one, I’ll presume that you are a lady who will be treated with respect.”
“Maddam, we’ve already established you are a whore. We’re just negotiating the PRICE now. Taxpayers are whores.”
Could it be that our detractor who ejected us from his forum didn’t want his clients or friends, who he advocates calling themselves “taxpayers” on government forms, being referred to as WHORES? Probably so. He knew that the only remedy he could offer was a CIVIL STATUTORY remedy which required that his clients surrender ALL their constitutional rights to get an administrative remedy to recover money unlawfully withheld or reported or levied upon them AFTER they made the mistake of claiming to be “taxpayers” on government forms absent duress. Our detractor also incorrectly interpreted our allegation of being a whore as a “taxpayer” or civil “person”, but GOD is the one who gave it that name, not us. See:
Are You “Playing the Harlot” with The Government?, SEDM Blog
This detractor also told us that “taxpayer” really only means someone who PAID the “tax”, not someone who actually surrenders any remedies, and cited court cases to prove it that even the IRS says cannot form the basis for a reasonable belief. To that, we respond by saying that if you HAVE to use a government form that identifies the submitter then simply attach or add a definition to the form defining the word “taxpayer” as follows:
2.1 A fictional creation of Congress.
2.2 Described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) and 26 U.S.C. §1313.
2.3 A civil statutory status that is domiciled in the “United States**” (federal zone, not a state of the Union) as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.
2.4 Not a human being.
2.5 Animated by a human being under criminal compulsion to accept the civil obligations attached to the status in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, human trafficking laws, identity theft criminal statutes, and criminal laws prohibiting peonage.
2.6 Suffers the disabilities of someone who has surrendered ALL of their constitutional rights and exchanged them for statutory public privileges. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936), Brandeis Rules, Rule 6.
See “nontaxpayer” later. It is BAD ENOUGH that I am a victim of human trafficking as a target of illegal tax enforcement and criminal identity theft, but to force me to submit a tax form that identifies me as a “taxpayer” who consents to the peonage to procure the PRIVILEGE of getting a criminal mafia to “leave me alone” (which is the legal definition of “justice”, by the way) is unconscionable.”
[Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201, Section 4: Definitions of Key Words of Art; https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf]
You know what they said to this suggestion?
“I am not going to risk not getting my refund through the statutory administrative remedy provided, because there IS no CONSTITUTIONAL remedy and sovereign immunity requires Uncle’s consent to get one.”
How ridiculous is that? You can only lose a constitutional or Fifth Amendment right of PRIVATE property by VOLUNTARILY surrendering it to pursue a statutory remedy. What he is saying is that everyone has to surrender all their constitutional rights to go to court. Remember, however, that IN THE CASE OF CONSTITUTIONAL violations, there is an IMPLIED WAIVER of STATUTORY sovereign immunity! We saw this earlier with the Botta case. Congress cannot by legislation undermine or defeat a constitutional remedy. Only you can surrender it as PRIVATE PROPERTY.
“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. “
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]
The next question we must then ask ourselves is WHAT specific type of property listed in 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) earlier does the CIVIL STATUS of “taxpayer”, for instance, fall under. No sane or rational jury would ever call taxation a contract or a “benefit”, so it can’t be that. The only thing LEFT in the list is “agency management and personnel” or “public property”.
Why does it HAVE to be “public property”, you might ask? We explain in the following article that whenever the government wants to reach extraterritorial parties, the ONLY method they have is either CONTRACT or PROPERTY. Since CONTRACTS are a TYPE of property, then it all devolves to PROPERTY:
|Proof that When a Government Wants to Reach a Nonresident Extraterritorially, the ONLY way They Have to Do It is through Property, SEDM Blog|
What type of property under 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) is it? THE STATUS ITSELF! If you claim the status to pursue the BENEFIT of the PUBLIC RIGHTS it entails as a “transferee”, then you implicitly accept the corresponding obligations of the status. Welcome to the federal plantation, cows!
But wait a MINUTE! The U.S. Code says that when they establish a PRIVILEGED public office as “taxpayer” outside the District of Columbia, they must EXPRESSLY authorize it in the specific geographical place it is executed or else it is de facto and unlawful.
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.
And guess what, they have NEVER done this in the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state. We prove that in the following document:
|Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
Let’s then apply these concepts to the income tax to answer some of the questions posed by this article:
- QUESTION: If the Declaration of Independence says that all just powers of government derive from the consent of the governed, then what exactly constitutes CONSENT in this context?
ANSWER: Using a Social Security Number, which is what the FTC calls a “franchise mark” in connection with requesting a government “benefit” or service is what constitutes constructive consent. Also, invoking a specific status to which UNEQUAL “benefits” or public rights attach, such as “citizen”, “resident”, or “U.S. person”. All these statuses impose a tax on WORLDWIDE earnings (watch out!) and are subject to DEDUCTIONS under 26 U.S.C. §162. Deductions are a commercial privilege that comes with a COST. just ask COOK in the famous case of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924), in which Cook, who was a nonresident alien living in Mexico, erroneously filed a 1040 tax return and therefore had to pay income tax on his earnings from Mexico. IDIOT! See the article Tax Return History-Citizenship for the sordid details of that SCAM.
- QUESTION: What if one chooses to not consent to ANYTHING the government offers. Would they THEN retain all their constitutional rights and lose none of them to civil statutory regulation?
- QUESTION: Is it possible to not give up ANY constitutional rights without being punished, ostracized, or targeted for economic sanctions such as those that result from not getting a “RES-IDENT” ID card or a driver license?
ANSWER: If you can travel and conduct commerce without ID connecting you to “resident” or “domiciliary” or “citizen” or “driver” status, and obtain the ID WITHOUT a Social Security Number, then you have retained all your constitutionally protected rights because you are not a “member” as they describe in the Munn Case. But of course, they will NEVER show you the exit door to the federal plantation, which is why they didn’t discuss this in the Munn Case. What good is a government farm without cows to milk?
- QUESTION: Exactly WHAT constitutes “membership” that causes a loss of CONSTITUTIONAL or PRIVATE rights?:
4.1 It is NOT “nationality” or being an American National or State National because an act of birth is not an act of consent.
4.2 It is “resident” status of an alien, because being here as an alien is a privilege but you don’t HAVE to come here. If you come here there is an IMPLIED OBLIGATION to submit to regulations by the foreign government you are visiting.
4.3 It is “domicile” in the case of the civil statutory franchise codes, because they cannot be enforced without it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.
4.4 It is voluntarily invoking any civil status in the tax code that comes with either obligations or a REDUCTION in constitutional remedies, both of which are losses of property. Such statuses include “citizen”, “resident”, “person”, or “taxpayer”. They DO NOT include “nonresident alien” because you can be a “nonresident alien” WITHOUT being an alien who is privileged or the “individual” described in 26 U.S.C. §1441(e) or 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) (SEDM Form #04.225). We call this status a “non-person”. Even “Taxpayer” is a form of membership, because it implies a LOSS of constitutional remedies and substituting STATUTORY remedies in their place.
In retort to our claims about “taxpayers” being a privilege, some members have suggested that the LIABILITY for income tax attaches to “citizens” and “residents” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1, and thus, there is no disability associated with being a statutory “taxpayer” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14). This, however, cannot be true because:
- The only way to surrender constitutional rights is with consent in some form.
- The remedies under 26 U.S.C. §7433 pertain ONLY to STATUTORY “taxpayers”
- The remedies under 26 U.S.C. §7433 are “exclusive”, meaning EXCLUSIVE of CONSTITUTIONAL remedies.
- The ability to “exclude” constitutional remedies betrays that federal government property is involved, because the essence of OWNERSHIP of such property is, in fact “the right to exclude” as held by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“We have repeatedly held that, as to property reserved by its owner for private use, “the right to exclude [others is] `one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.’ ” Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 433 (1982), quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979). “
[Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)]
“In this case, we hold that the “right to exclude,” so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right, falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation.”
[Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)]
 See, e. g., United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 206 Ct.Cl. 649, 669-670, 513 F.2d. 1383, 1394 (1975); United States v. Lutz, 295 F.2d. 736, 740 (CA5 1961). As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis, “[a]n essential element of individual property is the legal right to exclude others from enjoying it.” International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (dissenting opinion).
So EVEN “taxpayer” status is a privilege, as we point out in:
- Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “taxpayer”
- Who are “Taxpayers”, and Who Needs a “Taxpayer Identification Number”?, Form #05.013
- Proof that “taxpayer” is in fact a STATUTORY PUBLIC PRIVILEGE, and not a CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE RIGHT, SEDM Blog
- Your Rights as a “nontaxpayer”, IRS Publication 1a
Below was part of the debate we had with one of our members suggesting that one should avoid “taxpayer” status. Their identity shall remain anonymous at this point for privacy purposes. The debate was held on a Telegram chat channel that we used to participate in, but were EJECTED from because of the issues raised in this article that the moderator positively refused to discuss but had no evidentiary basis to rebut any of the content of this article or objective reason for doing so:
5. I recognize that your channel is an important marketing platform for your services, since I don’t believe that you advertise. As such, you don’t want it poisoned with anything that would adversely affect your image. Thus, you can’t have debates on the platform and it is thus a propaganda vehicle more than an educational tool, at least for people like me, if not for all your members. You should at least have the decency to honestly admit that to your members, or else it’s another scam just like the IRS dribble we both vociferously oppose.
6. I also recognize that the channel is “your property” and that you have a right to “make all needful rules” to moderate it just like 4:3:2, including excluding specific “members”, or “persons”, whatever you want to call them. Far be it from me to interfere with the use of that property or anyone ELSE’S property.
7. Since there is no “benefit” or beneficial right conveyed to me by the use of your channel as property, then I choose to no longer be a “person” within your channel or community or your jurisdiction (within that channel) and I am proud and relieved of it by virtue of terminating my membership. This is the same right you claim to exercise by choosing NRA over US Person, ironically. So I must have that right or else you don’t
8. The same arguments that apply to your Telegram channel apply to the government’s civil membership and franchise community called “citizens”, “residents”, “taxpayers”, and “persons”. If you think they don’t, then you are misleading people and promoting statism. It seems hypocritical to claim the following:
8.1 That they need your consent in some form to tax you. You allege that this consent is manifested by choosing a form of membership/status OR by demanding or accepting government property/privileges.
8.2 That as far as membership choice, you have a right to associate in the way you see fit under the First Amendment and your right to contract or NOT contract, including the right to associate politically as an NRA instead of a U.S. Person.
8.3 However, by telling me or anyone else that I MUST pick ONE of the membership statuses offered and cannot simply quit entirely from ALL civil statuses, there is a contradiction so obvious that anyone can see it. There are more choices than NRA or US Person and you know it. If there aren’t we are ALL slaves in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Nationality is not consensual membership. Asking for government property, whether as a benefit or a domicile is consent. You only want to recognize the benefit or status component that goes with the benefit but there is more to it than that.
8.4 The contradiction of saying that I can’t choose “none of the above” for a status would be the equivalent of saying: You have an OBLIGATION to participate in MY Telegram community and to obey MY rules, even though you don’t want to be a member and don’t see anything in there as a “benefit” or have any reason whatsoever to participate. AND YOU MUST pay your membership dues for the PRIVILEGE of doing so, or else we will levy your bank account and lien your property.
9. It’s quite ironic that you say I shouldn’t make it about status, but that is exactly what YOU have made it all about: Choosing the right status. The main difference between you and me is that you think no one can force you to be a “U.S. person”, and that they have to give you the choice of NRA to escape obligations to avoid slavery, but you refuse to acknowledge the right to not choose ANY status and be “stateless”. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes they have no STATUTORY jurisdiction over those who are stateless, and yet you don’t seem to care.
10. I’m not suggesting that any of the above membership issues should form a basis for challenging a tax liability, because the civil statutes in the IRC trade or business franchise agreement proving you aren’t subject are sufficient proof without adopting ANY civil status beyond NRA. You maliciously put words in my mouth in your Telegram channel and I will not allow you to target me with such malicious, public abuse. You abused your platform to do to me exactly what you didn’t want me to do to you and which I was NOT doing, which is slander you. That was never my intention and you ought to know that by now.
You can’t talk butterfly talk with caterpillar people.
The opponent in the above debate could not rebut anything in this article, and until he at least rebuts it all, we must conclude that we are correct on the subject of “taxpayer” at least. In their defense, we must say that the two of us agree on 99.99% of everything and have only a small dispute over the “taxpayer” issue. They even helped us assemble some of the content of this article. We even agree that the income tax is a privilege tax, as described for the most part in:
Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax upon Federal Property, Form #04.404
Note that we ARE NOT suggesting, by this article, that claiming “non-taxpayer” status is a way to dispute a tax liability. It ISN’T and will be called “frivolous”. But we ARE saying that if you want to retain AS MANY of your CONSTITUTIONAL rights as you can and NOT surrender them in exchange for civil statutory remedies, then you must approximate as close as possible the civil status we define in our Disclaimer as a “non-resident non-person” but not CALL it that in your pleadings or correspondence. Instead, invoke the statutory terms used in the definition itself and ONLY those, so that you speak the language of your audience and don’t confuse them. That status is described as follows for the benefit of the reader at this point:
Section 4, Meaning of Words
4.25. “Non-Person” or “non-resident non-person”
- Tax status:
1.1. Is NOT a STATUTORY “nonresident alien individual” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §1441(e) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii), both of which are alien residents of Puerto Rico AND NO ONE ELSE.
1.2. Because they are “nonresident aliens” but not “nonresident alien individuals”, then they are not a statutory “person”. You must be an statutory “individual” to be a statutory “person” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a) if you are a man or woman.
More on this at: Tax Status Presentation, Form #12.043.
- Not domiciled on federal territory and not representing a corporate or governmental office that is so domiciled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. See Form #05.002 for details.
- Not engaged in a public office within any government. This includes the civil office of “person”, “individual”, “citizen”, or “resident”. See Form #05.037 and Form #05.042 for court-admissible proof that statutory “persons”, “individuals”, “citizens”, and “residents” are public offices.
- Not “purposefully or consensually availing themself” of commerce with any government. Therefore, they do not waive sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97.
- Obligations and Rights in relation to Governments:
5.1. Waives any and all privileges and immunities of any civil status and all rights or “entitlements” to receive “benefits” or “civil services” from any government. It is a maxim of law that REAL de jure governments (Form #05.043) MUST give you the right to not receive or be eligible to receive “benefits” of any kind. See Form #05.040 for a description of the SCAM of abusing “benefits” to destroy sovereignty. The reason is because they MUST guarantee your right to be self-governing and self-supporting:
Invito beneficium non datur.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.
Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est.
A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.
Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
5.2. Because they are not in receipt of or eligible to receive property or benefits from the government, they owe no CIVIL STATUTORY obligations to that government or any STATUTORY “citizen” or STATUTORY “resident”, as “obligations” are described in California Civil Code Section 1428. This means they are not party to any contracts or compacts and have injured NO ONE as injury is defined NOT by statute, but by the common law. See Form #12.040 for further details on the definition of “obligations”.
5.3. Because they owe no statutory civil obligations, the definition of “justice” REQUIRES that they MUST be left alone by the government. See Form #05.050 for a description of “justice“.
- For the purposes of citizenship on government forms:
6.1. Does NOT identify as a STATUTORY “citizen” (8 U.S.C. §1401 and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)), “resident” (alien under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)), “U.S. citizen” (not defined in any statute), “U.S. resident” (not defined in any statute), or “U.S. person” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)).
6.2. Identifies themself as a “national” per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and per common law by virtue of birth or naturalization within the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States***”.
- Earnings originate from outside:
7.1. The STATUTORY “United States**” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) (federal zone) and
7.2. The U.S. government federal corporation as a privileged legal fiction.
Thus, their earnings are not includible in “gross income” under 26 U.S.C. §871 and are a “foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31). See 26 U.S.C. §872 and 26 C.F.R. §1.872-2(f) and 26 C.F.R. §1.871-7(a)(4) and 26 U.S.C. §861(a)(3)(C)(i) for proof.
- Does not and cannot earn STATUTORY “wages” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) for services performed outside the STATUTORY “United States**” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) (federal zone) and the CORPORATION “United States” as a legal fiction. Not subject to “wage” withholding of any kind for such services per:
8.1. 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)(6)-1(b) in the case of income tax.
8.2. 26 C.F.R. §31.3121(b)-3(c)(1) in the case of Social Security.
- Expressly exempt from income tax reporting under:
9.1. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(b)(5)(i).
9.2. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(e)(1)(ii)(A)(1).
9.3. 26 C.F.R. §1.6041-4(a)(1).
- Exempt from backup withholding because earnings are not reportable by 26 U.S.C. §3406(g) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3406(g)-1(e). Only “reportable payments” are subject to such withholding.
- Because they are exempt from income tax reporting and therefore withholding, they have no “taxable income”.
11.1. Only reportable income is taxable.
11.2. There is NO WAY provided within the Internal Revenue Code to make earnings not connected to a statutory “trade or business”/public office (Form #05.001) under 26 U.S.C. §6041 reportable.
11.3. The only way to make earnings of a nonresident alien not engaged in the “trade or business” franchise taxable under 26 U.S.C. §871(a) is therefore only when the PAYOR is lawfully engaged in a “trade or business” but the PAYEE is not. This situation would have to involve the U.S. government ONLY and not private parties in the states of the Union. The information returns would have to be a Form 1042s. It is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §912 for a private party to occupy a public office or to impersonate a public office, and Congress cannot establish public offices within the exclusive jurisdiction of the states of the Union to tax them, according to the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 68 S.Ct. 331 (1866).
- Continue to be a “national of the United States*” (Form #05.006) and not lose their CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship while filing form 1040NR. See 26 U.S.C. §873(b)(3). They do NOT need to “expatriate” their nationality to file as a “nonresident alien” and will not satisfy the conditions in 26 U.S.C. §877 (expatriation to avoid tax). Expatriation is loss of NATIONALITY, and NOT loss of STATUTORY “citizen’ status under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
- If they submit a Form W-8 to control withholding and revoke Form W-4, then they:
13.1. Can submit SSA Form 7008 to correct their SSA earnings to zero them out. See SEDM Form #06.042.
13.2. Can use IRS Form 843 to request a full refund or abatement of all FICA and Medicare taxes withheld if the employer or business associate continues to file W-2 forms or withhold against your wishes. See SEDM Form #06.043.
- Are eligible to replace the SSN with a TEMPORARY International Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) that expires AUTOMATICALLY every year and is therefore NOT permanent and changes. If you previously applied for an SSN and were ineligible to participate, you can terminate the SSN and replace it with the ITIN. If you can’t prove you were ineligible for Social Security, then they will not allow you to replace the SSN with an ITIN. See:
14.1. Form W-7 for the application.
14.2. Understanding Your IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, Publication 1915
14.3. Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001 for proof that no one within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union is eligible for Social Security.
- Must file the paper version of IRS Form 1040NR, because there are no electronic online providers that automate the preparation of the form or allow you to attach the forms necessary to submit a complete and accurate return that correctly reflects your status. This is in part because the IRS doesn’t want to make it easy or convenient to leave their slave plantation.
- Is a SUBSET of “nonresident aliens” who are not required to have or to use Social Security Numbers (SSNs) or Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) in connection with tax withholding or reporting. They are expressly exempted from this requirement by:
16.1.. 31 C.F.R. §1020.410(b)(3)(x).
16.2.. 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b)(2).
16.3.. W-8BEN Inst. p. 1,2,4,5 (Cat 25576H).
16.4.. Instructions for the Requesters of Forms W-8BEN, W-8BEN-E, W-8ECI, W-8EXP, and W-8IMY, p. 1,2,6 (Cat 26698G).
16.5.. Pub 515 Inst. p. 7 (Cat. No 16029L).
More on SSNs and TINs at:
About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012
About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #04.104
[SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.24: “non-resident non-person”; SOURCE: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.25._Non-Person ]
For an example of how such a party would respond to a collection notice, read the following:
Using the Laws of Property to Respond to a Federal or State Tax Collection Notice, Form #14.015
For information about how such a person described in this article would file a tax return, see:
How to File Returns, Form #09.074 (Member Subscription form)
If you want to read the Shepards Report on all the cases that cite Munn v. Illinois, see the following. This is a hugely important case:
For those readers interested in exploring their constitutional rights, the private property that they constitute, and how that private property can be LAWFULLY converted to PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property, see:
- Proof: God Says Spiritual Men and Women are NOT “Persons” or “Human Beings” as Legally Defined-SEDM Blog
- Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
- Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038
- Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
- Private Right or Public Right? Course, Form #12.044
- Enumeration of Inalienable Rights, Form #10.002
- Legal Remedies that Protect Private Rights Course, Form #12.019 (Member Subscription form)
NOW do you know what the Lord means when he makes the following statement in the book of Revelation?
4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her [the Babylon Whore De Facto Government, Form #05.043] , my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. 5 For her sins [lawlessness, Form #05.048] have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double [THIEVES pay DOUBLE what they STOLE, Exodus 22:7] according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. 7 In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously [a Socialist Security Check paid for with money STOLEN from young folk who will never collect a dime, Form #11.407], in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow [for Christians are married to their Husband, God, Isaiah 54:5], and will not see sorrow.’ 8 Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her.
[Rev. 18:4-8, Bible, NIKJV]
God is talking about citizenship, residence, domicile, and ALL government franchises and how we CANNOT participate and must EXIT them IMMEDIATELY. NOW do you ALSO know why we put the following warning on the opening page of our website, which indirectly is derived from the above scripture?
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 Website Opening Page; https://sedm.org]
Below is the BIBLICAL version of the above paragraph, which is also repeated in Deut. 28:43-51:
6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. 9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”
10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. 11 And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest [a]young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”
[1 Sam 8:6-20, Bible, NKJV]
The above biblical cite is again repeated in Deut. 28:43-51, and its the scariest curse in all the bible reserved for those who borrow government property by the methods described in this article using franchises:
Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]
“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.
“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.
“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]
And HERE is how this THIEVERY and enslavement by the Beast Babylon Whore is described by ITSELF!
“The legislation in question is nothing less than a bold assertion of absolute power by the State to control at its discretion the property and business of the citizen, and fix the compensation he shall receive. The will of the legislature is made the condition upon which the owner shall receive the fruits of his property and the just reward of his labor, industry, and enterprise. “That government,” says Story, “can scarcely be deemed to be free where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.” Wilkeson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 657.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]
This is VERY serious business, folks!
Lastly, if you the reader find anything inaccurate in this article, please immediately bring it to our attention through our Contact Us page so that we may fix it. We published this article not to somehow be “right” or better than anyone else, but to subject our research on this subject to thorough peer review so that it can be continually improved. We don’t censor or “cancel” people on this website, as the opponent described above tried to do to us or as the left makes a PROFESSION out of doing.
For an article along the same lines as this one, see:
- Proof that “taxpayer” is in fact a STATUTORY PUBLIC PRIVILEGE, and not a CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE RIGHT-SEDM Blog
- Who are “Taxpayers”, and Who Needs a “Taxpayer Identification Number”?, Form #05.013, Section 2