REBUTTAL: Confusion created by Citizen* and Citizen**+D nomenclature

EDITORIAL:

This debate is very helpful to our readers for discerning the bright red line separating PUBLIC and PRIVATE in the context of citizenship terminology and their relationship to franchises. We HIGHLY recommend reading it. This fits nicely and coherently into the following presentation on the same subject:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

STATEMENT:

Your convention of separating POLITICAL citizen* and CIVIL citizen**+D is confusing. See:

SEDM Disclaimer Section 4.33: “Citizen” and “Citizen*+D” and “Citizenship”, SEDM
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.33._Citizen_and_CitizenD_and_Citizenship

People are liable. People are paying taxes. People are going to jail and dying in prison.

The issue is the people are electing themselves into the role of agency over USPI. I have always maintained that trying to call it something beyond that (office and officer) is confusing as hell and doesn’t seem to comport with my or anyone else’s experience in life.

Where is this office? Yes, a public office is embraced by the term “trade or business.” But “trade or business” extends to other things in the same general USPI class through the operation of the term “includes.”

It’s the “citizen” that makes the election. It’s the “resident alien” who chose to be here and be under Uncle’s thumb. See, this reality solves what you insist is a conundrum. You have to draw it out for it to make sense.

The impetus for this discussion is the following AI discovery:

Microsoft Copilot: Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924) Implications, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-cook-v-tait/

OUR REBUTTAL:

The conundrum is that if the CIVIL citizen is the OFFICE and the POLITICAL citizen is the OFFICER, and the two are not the same “person”, then one cannot be a subset of the other and each is an agent of a different principal. One principal is PRIVATE and the other is PUBLIC. I do believe that our students MUST understand this distinction, and glossing over or avoiding it makes them ripe for exploitation.

You’re missing something that is KEY, and the reason why we use that nomenclature.

1. A citizen* (POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL citizen) gets their PRIVATE status from the Constitution, which describes but not defines PRIVATE rights.

2. A citizen**+D (CIVIL citizen) gets their PUBLIC status entirely and only from civil status and NOT the Constitution.

3. You can’t be both PUBLIC and PRIVATE at the same time in any given context. It’s ONLY one OR the other.

4. The constitutional avoidance doctrine of the supreme court says you can’t cite the constitution if you pursue a civil status. Thus, by pursuing the CIVIL citizen**+D status, you automatically LOSE all PRIVATE rights under the constitution and replace them with PUBLIC PRIVILEGES. Thus, you CEASE to be a CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE “person” or “citizen” or ANYTHING for that matter in the context of the franchise contract.

Catalog of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrines, Litigation Tool #10.020
https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/SCDoctrines.pdf

Beyond the point of the election, it is no longer the PRIVATE human who is exercising POLITICAL privileges, but an OFFICER voting in the interests of the state or their office rather than their own PERSONAL interests. Thus the voter has a criminal financial conflict of interest if the issue they are voting on involves “benefits” of the office they just elected themself into. All the methods of demonstrating the qualifications as a voter REQUIRE a surrender of private rights in exchange for the PRIVILEGES of the office of “‘voter” within the “elective franchise”. Everything you connect the SSN/TIN franchise mark to beyond the point of the election becomes PRIVATE property donated to a public use to procure the “benefits” of a franchise. So the PRIVATE human and and political “citizen*” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) literally and legally CEASES to exist for everything connected to the franchise. He abandoned his “private and foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) to the government the minute he made the election or connected the SSN/TIN franchise mark to an otherwise PRIVATE activity. 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b) says the SSN/TIN is ONLY required for those engaged in the “trade or business” franchise, meaning the OFFICE of “taxpayer” and “citizen” they elected themselves into. You THREW the private you into the trash can the minute you made that election so the only type of “citizen” left is the PUBLIC straw man under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b). AND, you replaced PERSONAL responsibility for yourself with COLLECTIVE responsibility You are now a full time collectivist, because the CIVIL Citizen**+D is on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week representing Uncle’s interest instead of the PRIVATE human. If Uncle has His way, he will make SURE you can NEVER abandon that office! Free money and free labor!

5. Thus, you can only be ONE or the OTHER but never BOTH. You can’t be constitutional PRIVATE “person” and a statutory PUBLIC “person” at the same time. Therefore you can’t be a Fourteenth Amendment citizen* AND a CIVIL citizen**+D at the SAME time in any given context. It’s always ONE or the OTHER but never BOTH at the same time. PUBLIC is NEVER a SUPERSET of PRIVATE.

6. PRIVATE and PUBLIC must remain SEPARATE and DISTINCT at all times. You must always know WHAT side you are on at any given time or context or you and our readers are confused. This is explained here:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

7. In other words, franchises change the “source of law” from PRIVATE to PUBLIC in the context of the franchise contract only. If that franchise connects you to other contracts, it also does so for those contracts as well, such as Social Security in that case.

8. NO MAN can serve God (PRIVATE) and Mammon (PUBLIC). You have split personality disorder if you claim to be a CONSTITUTIONAL (private) person and a CIVIL (PUBLIC) person at the same time. That’s biblical. Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:13. From a spiritual perspective, you are EQUIVOCATING who you have allegiance to ABOVE you: God or Caesar. It CANNOT be both.

9. These concepts are further explained in:

Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

10. You can see these concepts in play in the courtroom writ large with tax protesters and you are acting like one NOW. Claim a civil status of “U.S. person” and then argue your rights in court like Irwin Schiff. What did the judge do in his case? He wasn’t allowed to claim any constitutional right in court because all said rights are IRRELEVANT to the tax subject. He was sanctioned for doing so and thrown in jail for filing 1040 tax returns for he and his clients and then beating his chest about his “constitutional rights”! He had “split personality disorder” like you do now! See:

Who’s Who in the Freedom Community, Form #08.009
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhosWho.pdf

11. You think we are confusing our readers by taking this approach but we argue based on the above that you are the one who is confused for the reasons indicated, and that this confusion is a product of myopia and a naive view of the BIG picture. Our entire approach up to this time is a result of an obsession with always maintaining perfect and clear separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE property and never mixing the two. You are trying to confuse and cloud that separation and mislead your readers into thinking that they can be BOTH a CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE person and a CIVIL PUBLIC person at the SAME time, just like Irwin Schiff did, who DIED in jail for his similar myopia. Get real!

12. The Constitution calls itself “the law of the land”. Franchises UPROOT you from that land into a virtual world created by Caesar in which you are a captive and conquered subject with no clue how you got there.

“For the upright will dwell in [ON] the land,
And the blameless will remain in it;
²² But the wicked will be cut off from the earth,
And the unfaithful will be uprooted from it.
[Prov. 2:21-22, Bible, NKJV]

And HOW are they “uprooted”? By asking to use the King’s PUBLIC Property and thereby volunteering to WORK for the King. A franchise, after all, is defined as “a privilege [PUBLIC PROPERTY] in the HANDS of a subject”. You BECOME the subject by putting Caesar’s property or creation IN YOUR HANDS.

“Is it a franchise? A franchise is said to be a right reserved to the people by the constitution, as the elective franchise. Again, it is said to be a privilege conferred by grant from government, and vested in one or more individuals, as a public office. Corporations, or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known to our laws. In England they are very numerous, and are defined to be royal privileges in the hands of a subject. An information will lie in many cases growing out of these grants, especially where corporations are concerned, as by the statute of 9 Anne, ch. 20, and in which the public have an interest. In 1 Strange R. ( The King v. Sir William Louther,) it was held that an information of this kind did not lie in the case of private rights, where no franchise of the crown has been invaded.

If this is so–if in England a privilege existing in a subject, which the king alone could grant, constitutes it a franchise–in this country, under our institutions, a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which could not be exercised without a legislative grant [CIVIL LAW, aka CIVIL citizen**+D], would also be a franchise.”
[People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859)]

13. Notice in the above that “bodies politic” are FRANCHISES. This is why you should avoid being EITHER a POLITICAL citizen* or a CIVIL citizen**+D. ANY effort to accept ANY privilege as PUBLIC property results in the CURSE found in Deut. 28:43-51 as documented in the following:

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Family Guardian, Section 2
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

The PRIVILEGES of having a political status furthermore cannot even lawfully be exercised WITHOUT a CIVIL domicile and therefore a CIVIL Citizen**+D election anyway. You can’t even exercise the “elective franchise” or the ability to serve on a jury WITHOUT a CIVIL domicile in the forum. The registrar of voters will REJECT your application and the judge doing jury selection will EJECT you from the courtroom involuntarily. Thus, you are ONLY left with the OBLIGATIONS of POLITICAL citizenship, which is the OBLIGATION to appear at the induction station immediately after you receive your next draft notice and subsequently being a CASUALTY of the STATE whether you want to be one or not. By claiming a political status, you have thus PLEDGED yourself as a HUMAN SACRIFICE to your new pagan “god” called “government” or “the State”. It is a BIBLICAL SIN to become surety for ANYONE or ANYTHING. Prov. 6:1-16.

So YES, there ARE obligations to being EVEN a Political Citizen*, my friend. Those who don’t want any obligations therefore should never even claim the status of POLITICAL citizen* in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). Those obligations, BTW, are even part of the naturalization oath!

Do you dispute this? Default answer: NO.

Welcome to the Matrix, Neo. Quit drinking the Kool-Aide.

14. On this subject, the Bible says:

“A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished.”
[Prov. 22:3, Bible, NKJV]

“Hiding yourself” means remaining PRIVATE in this case in ALL scenarios and every single context in your dealings with any government in order to avoid the curse in Deut. 28:43-51. When you are dealing with a serial rapist that is Uncle Sam, the ONLY safe sex is NO SEX at all! Black’s Law Dictionary defines “commerce” as intercourse, and accepting the King’s property CONSTITUTES such intercourse. Those who ENGAGE in this intercourse are called “Babylon the Great Harlot” in the book of Revelation. 2 Cor. 6:17. See:

Are You “Playing the harlot” with the Government?, SEDM
https://sedm.org/are-you-playing-the-harlot/

15. If you have a better or more cohesive and coherent way to explain these concepts that is consistent with all our other research, we are all ears. But it must consider the totality of all our other research on this subject. Otherwise, what we teach simply cannot be true. The truth cannot conflict with itself or it isn’t truth. The Law of Non-Contradiction DEMANDS doing this. See:

Wikipedia: Law of Non-Contradiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. God created and owns the PRIVATE. Caesar created and owns the PUBLIC. Separation between church as state BEGINS at this point.

Likewise, you can’t be a SOVEREIGN and a SUBJECT at the same time. You can’t be a Priest and Prince of God (Rev. 5:9-10) and yet a child and dependent of Caesar at the same time. You also can’t be PUBLIC and PRIVATE at the same time in any given context. Caesar can only legislate for things he owns that are PUBLIC. You have to BECOME his PUBLIC property as a STRAW MAN PUBLIC OFFICER to be SUBJECT to his PUBLIC laws. No man can serve two masters! Matt. 6:24, Luke 16:13. This concept is described in:

Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023, Sections 7 and 17; 
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf

To suggest that you CAN be both PUBLIC and PRIVATE and serve two masters at the same time is what the Bible calls being “double minded”. On that subject, God says:

“I hate the double-minded, But I love Your law.”
[Psalm 119:113, Bible, NKJV]

“Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”
[James 4:8, Bible, NKJV]

“For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”
[James 1:7-8, Bible, NKJV]

Giving a false sense of dignity to double-minded government whores who want their cake and eat it too is not something that this website can allow to happen. Everything we do must be completely beyond reproach in order that we may honor the God we were created to serve. We cannot be hypocrites who elevate any man or government above or equal to God like the Pharisees do by promoting or encouraging ANY kind of franchise. The following document proves that this is EXACTLY what the Pharisees were doing, in fact:

Who Were the Pharisees and Sadducees?, Form #05.047
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhoWerePharisees.pdf

This site advocates that in order to keep PRIVATE and PUBLIC properly separated and therefore protected, the only interconnection between them that can be allowed is voting and jury service and that there can be no CIVIL law or franchises of any kind other than the “body politic” participation. The method of implementing this perfect separation is explained in:

Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/SGFArtOfConfed.pdf

THEIR RESPONSE:

The issue folks need to be aware of is political status and civil status.

Though citizenship plays a role in each, in and of itself, citizenship ALONE is of no import.

Public status attaches to civil status—not political status. Thus, one must focus on HOW that happens.

The public status is the “United States person.”

The private status you want is the “nonresident alien” if and only IF there is no connection to a “trade or business.”

To attempt to classify the issue beyond that is to steer readers to a mine field.

I understand what you are attempting to convey, but there is literally nothing in case law, regs, or statutes that align with your method of presentation.

The citizen in the Constitution is identical to the “citizen” of 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). To claim otherwise is error. There is no privilege or obligation associated with the “citizen” of 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).

U.S. person? Different story. Nonresident alien? It depends on the nature of the activity.

I think if you engaged people more one-on-one like I do….banks, lenders, businesses, you would understand why presenting the right issues are critical for not getting shut down by “gate keepers.” And let’s be real—dogma won’t do it. Logic and supporting legal arguments that can be quickly and CLEARLY articulated do.

OUR RESPONSE:

To reduce understanding and obedience to God’s law documented in the Holy Bible is to willfully slap God in the face.

1. We hadn’t thought about this subject as deeply before as we did above, but you forced me to examine what until now had been latent and unspoken but instinctual motives to remain private and to always separate public and private.
2. You are correct that this subject is a mine field that can even ben deeply disturbing when you see it clearly for what it is. It is also both deeply legal and deeply theological at the same time and perhaps above the heads of the average Joe Sixpack.
3. People from all walks of life come to us because they want such issues treated at both the deeply theological and deeply legal perspective at the same time. NO ONE else does or even has done things at this level in 25 years of searching for information on this subject.
4. We do appreciate your goal of simplifying the subject for the Joe Sixpack, but not EVERY one of our readers will literally BE such a Joe Sixpack and we must address the subject so that lawyers and judges will also understand because they are or likely may be the target for what is on the website as well.
5. We think you are beginning to see why we struggled so deeply with the definition of “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c): Because it tries to LITERALLY mix PRIVATE and PUBLIC political citizens and thus confuse or equivocate them. EVERYTHING that happens on federal territory is literally a privilege. The opposite is true in constitutional states because of the organic law. Downes v. Bidwell clearly pointed this out.
6. Obviously, this is one of the few remaining but deep areas we have not yet hashed out to harmonize our approaches. We welcome the chance to do that, my friend. We’re fortunate to have a friend who would even entertain such a thing. People who think deeply on BOTH a theological and a LEGAL level are very rare indeed!

THEIR RESPONSE:

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) & (b) have all the identical attributes of 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c), EXCEPT for the fact that the “citizen” of 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) has entered into public domain through election. All his political attributes of citizenship and nationality are in place. However, under his “United States person” election, he has now entered into a quasi-contractual civil arrangement with the U.S. government to become a resident agent. Under this arrangement, the U.S. government has a USPI in all income generation (other than personal payments) the U.S. person generates under the resident agent status. He may or may not have a public office.

For the 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) “citizen” that does NOT enter into the quasi-contractual resident agent US person status, he remains a “nonresident alien.” However, this NRA can still incur a liability through the receipt of Effectively Connected income. Even in so doing, all his attributes of political status and citizenship are still intact. It’s just that through the activity of becoming Effectively Connected, there is created a USPI. Said “nonresident alien” may or may not have a public office though in receipt of “trade or business” income.

The political attributes and the civil attributes are mutually exclusive.

The important thing to establish is this:

Does 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) IN ISOLATION….ever change meaning?

The clear answer is NO. Just like a loaded handgun on the coffee table will never kill anyone IN ISOLATION. I think we can agree on that. Again… IN ISOLATION.

Now, if that “citizen” makes a subsequent domestic “U.S. person” election, you have to agree that:

1. This has no effect on his nationality.
2. It has no effect on his citizenship.

Can we agree on that? A simple yes or no.

OUR RESPONSE:

1. Yes.
2. No. This is because “citizenship” in 28 U.S.C. 1332 is equated with DOMICILE and not NATIONALITY AND, because once you admit to having a status under any act of Congress, you come under 28 U.S.C. 1332 and are acting as a fiction they created and own.

You see how INSIDIOUS this subject is? It compels you to MIX PRIVATE and PUBLIC.

The $69K question is: Can an NRA EVER be the “person” in 26 U.S.C. 6671(b) or 7343 even with EC income?

I don’t think so.

The constitution requires that you must receive reasonable notice before you can become the target of enforcement. I can’t find that reasonable notice so its a violation of due process to enforce against an NRA.

THEIR RESPONSE:

1. Yes
2. Nationality and citizenship are akin to PB & J. I feel like you still are missing this.

28 U.S.C. 1332 deals with diversity of “citizenship”—not US citizenship. So the point is irrelevant.

The U.S. citizenship a newly naturalized person has is no different than mine under 14A. The conveyance of citizenship is different—YES! But the citizenship is not.

OUR RESPONSE:

1. BEFORE it is conveyed, it is a privilege because those seeking it are aliens.
2. AFTER conveyed it is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE and it can’t be taken away without consent. Thus, naturalization is a process of converting membership from a PUBLIC PRIVILEGE to a PRIVATE RIGHT.
3. The context of our discussion is CIVIL STATUTORY (Title 26) and not CONSTITUTIONAL (private). You are trying to mix PUBLIC and PRIVATE together by only referring to constitutional PRIVATE citizenship as POLITICAL and yet putting it in a PUBLIC context. You can’t do that. There is no way to properly apply choice of law rules that are constrained by the separation between public and private as indicated in our Choice of Law doc.

THEIR RESPONSE:

The issue is US citizenship (relating to the national body politic) and civil status…said “citizen” who then makes an election.

Do you agree that a “citizen” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) can be a “nonresident alien”?

Yes or No?

OUR RESPONSE:

I agree that anyone STUPID enough to claim a privilege created and recognized by statute can reduce the damage by minimizing their elections. But they still remain a whore.

“Madaam: We’ve already determined you’re a whore. We’re just negotiating price. Stop arguing whether you’re a whore and get down to business, will you?

As that Copilot debate showed, I’m not even required to claim POLITICAL citizenship if I just want to be LEFT alone and entirely private.

Microsoft Copilot: Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924) Implications, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-cook-v-tait/

THEIR RESPONSE:

Man, I ask Y/N questions to move our discussion along. I don’t know why you are reluctant to cooperate.

Look at the following diagram. What circle is the ISOLATED 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) “citizen” in?

Nationality, Citizenship, and Tax Status-How they Differ, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/nationality-citizenship-and-tax-status-how-they-differ/

OUR RESPONSE:

POLITICAL “citizen”, which is someone pursuing a CIVIL privilege as a candidate. That candidate seeks to ELECT themself into the public office of “U.S. person”. In other words, a WHORE.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Great. A whore.

Where is the do-called “whore” on the diagram?

OUR REPONSE:

The whole DIAGRAM is for whores. There is NO private people in the diagram. Congress can’t civilly legislate for PRIVATE people because they aren’t surety for state property, such as the “U.S. person” or “taxpayer” fiction

THEIR RESPONSE:

Ok. Nationality is for whores. Do you possess an American passport?

OUR RESPONSE:

WRONG!

1. Whores are ONLY franchisees.

2. A “franchise” is legally defined as something that ADDS to nationality, dude:

Privilege. A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens [meaning POLITICAL citizens* who are “nationals of the United StatesP” or “U.S.* nationals”]. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1197]

3. There can therefore be NO DISABILITY to “nationality”. HOWEVER, anything connected to consent, comity, or elections ALWAYS comes with franchise disabilities.

4. CHOOSING ANY CIVIL or POLITICAL status in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 is an ELECTION. Both POLITICAL and CIVIL citizenship are franchises. That’s what the People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859) case says above, dude.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Well, you said the whole page is for whores. The diagram displays political status, and both a private and a public status. See:

Nationality, Citizenship, and Tax Status -How they Differ, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/nationality-citizenship-and-tax-status-how-they-differ/

If you have nationality, then you have both citizenship and nationality, making you a whore by your own assertion. Right?

Nowhere in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 is political status proffered.

OUR RESPONSE:

1. The problem is your non-definition or context of “citizenship”. Do you mean CONSTITUTIONAL or STATUTORY? Anything that can be confused with STATUTORY I insist on avoiding.
2. Those who don’t want anything but being exclusively private and LEFT ALONE as justice itself demands aren’t ANYWHERE on the diagram. This is because CONGRESS cannot legislative for them. There is no PUBLIC property involved with them.

THEIR RESPONSE:

“citizen” means the same thing in Fourteenth Amendment as it does in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).

OUR RESPONSE:

1. Among those who consent in pursuit of CIVIL privileges, it means the same thing. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL limit on what STUPID whores can consent to. These people are described in Deut. 28:43-51 and 1 Sam. 8.

“The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender.”
[Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]

“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) ]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

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]

Israel Demands a King

8 Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. ² The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. ³ But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.

⁴ Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, ⁵ and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

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.”

²¹ And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. ²² So the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”

[1 Sam. 8, Bible, NKJV]

Note that ASKING for the King’s property (franchises) in this case is how you ASK for a king Above you as indicated above, because he has jurisdiction over the property and anyone in CUSTODY of the property ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD! More on the above at:

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Government, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

2. Among those who CONSENT TO NOTHING it doesn’t. They have to be left alone as the organic law requires.

The Declaration of Independence says ALL JUST POWERS DERIVE FROM CONSENT. I consent to NOTHING and therefore, EVERYTHING government does from a civil perspective is inherently UNJUST.

I fall in the latter category. Deut 28:43-51 FORBIDS me from any other choice. You seem to want to fall in the former category. A whore. A person from “God’s country” (Texas) should understand that.

THEIR RESPONSE:

No. Just objectively presenting all sides of the issue so people can understand.

What you are presenting is DOGMA. Nobody is interested in that. And nobody will be successful with that apart from living like John the Baptist (nothing wrong with that—but you aren’t doing that either).

Pride and dogma simply results in a wasted effort. We have a chance to reveal real solutions so all the whores can understand the issues. I can’t get you to answer simple Y/N questions.

Respectfully, this is all isolated masturbation. People are encountering 100s of 1000s of pages of conflicting and confusing rabbit holes with links to more conflicting and confusing rabbit holes.

Again—create a one page site that says “Don’t consent to anything.”

Done. Fully private non-whore, non-person, non-individual.

OUR RESPONSE:

1. Are the First Amendment and Art. 1, Section 10 (no compelled contracts) merely “dogma”?
   Default answer: NO
2. Are the First Amendment and Art. 1, Section 10 REAL law applicable ONLY to those in government and NOT “dogma”?
   Default answer: YES
3. Do EITHER of these constitutional protections apply to those who seek ANY CIVIL privilege or the fictions that implement it and thus waive sovereignty?
   Default answer: NO

Yes or no?

That’s the ONLY thing this is really about.

THEIR RESPONSE:

1. No
2. Yes
3. No

Then why not publish a site explaining that and leave it there? Just one page.

Who in this country is really going to deny citizenship and nationality and deprive themselves of work and pay? Who?

NOBODY!

OUR RESPONSE:

Because you still don’t understand the nature of the 1040NR filing provided on SEDM as Form #09.077.

1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf

Possibly because you never thoroughly dissected it.

1. It starts off by stating that none of the words are to be interpreted in their STATUTORY sense and that the only definitions are those I provide.
2. It identifies the filer as a CONSTITUTIONAL/PRIVATE person and not a CIVIL/PUBLIC person.
3. It doesn’t say what I am NOT, but what I AM.
4. It identifies any of my property sent to them involuntarily by STUPID third party whores as a BAILMENT/property on loan to them under my franchise contract which supersedes their franchise agreement.
5. It identifies any status OTHER than my definitions such as those on withholding paperwork as the product of duress.
6. It identifies the submitter as a product of criminal identity theft if any CIVIL STATUTORY STATUS is imputed to the filer.
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

This approach is entirely compatible with THIS:

The Simplest Way Out of the Matrix, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/the-simplest-way-out-of-the-matrix/

It is also compatible with Jesus’ own words: Be quick to agree with your adversary. You use their words and their forms but provide your own definitions. You look like a duck and quack like a duck, but you’re really an angel in disguise who has no place to lay his head (domicile), like Jesus, I might add.

1. Are you now going to impugn those who seek to stay in perfect alignment with God’s will in all their dealings with the Beast?
2. Isn’t that REALLY our only obligation as Christians?
3. Or are you now going to advocate CENSORING information about how to do this for the sake of “simplifying the website”?
4. Are you going to say that following the Bible is unrealistic and impractical and thus REPEAL the enforcement of its laws in your own case?

If you aren’t willing to take a bullet for Christ, can you really claim to be following Him by doing the OPPOSITE of what He did?

NO MAN can serve two masters: God and Caesar.

The FIRST amendment and Article, 1, Section 10 are NOT “dogma”. They are LAW. That’s all I’m claiming, but being devious how I invoke them by approaching it just like Jesus did.

There is NO SEPARATION between CHURCH and STATE if you don’t take this approach. YOUR BODY is a “Temple”, meaning God’s property. You can’t give that property away because its not yours. You’re just a temporary trustee. That’s what an “inalienable right” in the Declaration of Independence REALLY means. God’s trust indenture, the Bible, FORBIDS you to contract with the Beast or to give away property that belongs ultimately to HIM and NOT YOU:

Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf

Congress can’t write definitions, whether POLITICAL or CIVIL, that affect PRIVATE property they DO NOT ABSOLUTELY own. See:

Effect of Definitions Upon OWNERSHIP and CONTROL of Property, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/effect-of-definitions-upon-ownership-of-property/

Does GOD own you or does CAESAR own you? Or do you own YOURSELF under the trusteeship to God? To seek ANY civil or political statutory status is in effect to PRETEND that Caesar owns you INSTEAD of God. PURE FOOLISHNESS. Caesar can only OWN what he CREATES, and he didn’t create you. God did!

This is NOT “beating a dead horse”. These subjects are PROFOUNDLY important to a REAL “Christian” and also LEGALLY significant and enforceable as PRIVATE, non-statutory rights that are absolutely owned. If these issues are not worth dying on a hill to fight for, what the hell IS?

THEIR RESPONSE:

I hope you know litigation is coming our way—one way or another.

OUR RESPONSE:

You have just confirmed EXACTLY why Christ said the following:

Christ Brings Division

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set[j] a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

[Matt. 10: 34-39, Bible, NKJV
EDITORIAL: Written by a FORMER “tax collector” who was the VERY FIRST person Jesus called to repentance]

It’s time to “take up my cross and follow me” as he directed. That cross, in this case, is LITIGATION, as you have correctly pointed out.

Thank you for a WONDERFUL debate. The Crickets won. What you DON’T say speaks so loudly that I can’t hear a word you say. Remember, silence means AGREEMENT per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6). Therefore, you are conclusively presumed to AGREE with everything I have said so far.

Our students will be very entertained and engaged by this deep debate.

THEIR RESPONSE:

The Feds can use this debate to style legal indictments against at least one of us.

OUR RESPONSE:

On the flip side, AI bots can learn from this and share it with others. I’ve already seen LOTS of that going on with Copilot in response to my own questions. That’s a GOOD thing.

Recall that your debates with Meta AI. In one of them you said the bot sounded like US!

The merit of the UPSIDE of this far outweighs the down side.

You are WAY risk averse. Sometimes that averseness is a blessing. But in this case, its self-limiting

” But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 [g]gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.”

[Gal. 5:22-26, Bible, NKJV]

Note the phrase “NO LAW”. If you are in the perfect will of God, there is no REAL law that can come against you. Only de facto law enacted by a de facto government:

https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf

Note also that any persecution for this stance, BECAUSE it is fully within the will of God, can bring NOTHING but blessings:

If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a [g]busybody in other people’s matters. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this [h]matter.

[1 Peter 4:14-16, Bible, NKJV]

Either you BELIEVE the above promise from God and REFLECT that belief in possibly risky behavior, or you DON’T and invite charges of hypocrisy like the Pharisees. You can’t have it both ways. Love towards God is an ACTION, not a feeling or mere words.

“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate.”
[Prov. 8:13, Bible, NKJV]

The minute that love towards God becomes a mere feeling rather than an action, then Jesus transitions from a Sovereign Lord to a mere Liability Insurance Salesman from the wrath of hell who you only come to visit weekly in his CAGE called “church”. He then becomes YOUR creation and YOUR property instead of your sovereign KING. You have, in effect, DEFINED his influence OUT of your life and YOU become “the Creator” and “god” to be worshipped. Those who want the PRIVILEGES (benefits) of Christianity WITHOUT the OBLIGATIONS that also come with it seek to STEAL from God, just like Irwin Schiff tried to to with Uncle Sam by filing a 1040 form, collecting Social Security, and yet beating his chest about his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. That, my friend, is the very definition of a psychopath or at least a thief.

THEIR RESPONSE:

What do you mean by “risk averse”?

OUR ANSWER:

Every time you encounter a proposition or argument, you have said that you BEGIN by taking the devil’s advocate side from the perspective of your enemy. ALL of the risk COMES from that enemy.

If you can pick it apart using THEIR arguments, statements, or laws, then it can’t be true and you won’t pursue it. The net effect of that approach, which I LIKE, BTW, is that you attack the main areas of risk and then try to eliminate them by finding incoherence in the argument you are testing..

Every good lawyer always does that. They are trained in law school to attack ANY argument from EITHER side of it, BTW.

That approach isn’t always appropriate, if your opponent is corrupt or unaccountable, like all governments are:

https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf

When your opponent is a corrupt government, it then boils down to how much courage you have and what God you worship. By WORSHIP I mean actually OBEY rather than merely LIKE as a FEELING. If it isn’t the true and living and ONLY God of the Bible, there is no alternative but to BEND OVER for the corrupt government. Real men will stand and fight. Mere cowards will cover their cowardice and make it a Third Rail Issue, and quietly tip toe out of the room like the IRS habitually does with legal sophistry and omission and then gaslight or discredit the perpetrators but avoid the real issues of the argument. THAT, my friend is dirty pool and dishonest:

https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf

You tip toed out of the room in this case by your silence, which equates with agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6).

As far as litigation being inevitable, you have already admitted that litigation against financial institutions is INEVITABLE because they are denying unenumerated nonresident alien accounts. So EITHER way, litigation is inevitable ANYWAY with EITHER your approach OR our approach. Welcome to the real world Don Quixote.

With all due respect for a wonderful friend and a good example to follow in many areas, sir, if there ever was ANY area of disappointment that I have with your approach towards this issue, it is exactly this. You are not alone, because ___ has the same issue and it was a source of friction with him as well.

If I’m wrong in taking this position, I’d like to see all the evidence and welcome correction. But compartmentalizing or “ISOLATING” the issue as you have attempted to do is really nothing but running from the field of battle to face an angry God.

If I’m right, it’s time to roll up your sleeves and stop running from the real battlefield defined not by you but by God himself, on this matter. And if there ever was a reason for Christian apologetics, it probably starts precisely here just like the First Amendment starts here.

WHO are you going to apologize for in this scenario: God or Caesar? Which one you choose establishes the REAL god or God you serve. No man can serve two masters. And whoever it is you claim has the RIGHT to impose CIVIL obligations upon you or write definitions that CONTROL or STEAL your property is, without question, your true master based not on what you say, but on what you actually DO with your knowledge.

TELL me there are NO OBLIGATIONS or INFIRMITIES of being the POLITICAL citizen described below

Naturalization Oath
https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america

What are you smoking?

THEIR RESPONSE

With respect to the tax there are none. But of course there are obligations to being a POLITICAL but not CIVIL citizen. I proved that through your possession of a passport.

OUR RESPONSE:

The above link reads like a SLAVE CONRACT!

If I waive the protection and benefit, I avoid the obligations. And if I can’t do so, we don’t need a bill of rights, dude!

THEIR RESPONSE:

Has the U.S. government issued you a passport?

OUR RESPONSE:

What about the above? Is the officer and the office the same legal entity? If not, the political citizen and the civil citizen are not the same “person”.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Has the U.S. government issued you a passport?

Yes or no?

OUR RESPONSE:

Yes.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Does that make you a whore then?

OUR RESPONSE:

The application said I don’t want their protection and waived all benefits and protections. I’m not in receipt of privileges and if I can’t waive the privileges, then we are ALL slaves and there is no need for a bill of rights beyond that point

THEIR RESPONSE:

So you are neither a citizen nor a national of the USA?

The passport asserts your nationality on the biographical page does it not?

OUR RESPONSE:

22 CFR 51.1 “U.S. national”, meaning someone with allegiance by birth but who never took an oath. But, as you know, allegiance and protection are reciprocals of each other. I waived the protection so allegiance has no legal effect.

Further, even if I am ELIGIBLE for the POLITICAL status of “citizen”, I’m not obligated to INVOKE it and thereby ASK for the privileges associated with it. Invoking “U.S. national” instead of “U.S. citizen” status is my way of doing that. They wouldn’t have defined the terms the way they did if they didn’t want to offer you that option. And they HAD to do that, because they MUST allow you to AVOID or NOT CONSENT to franchises, which ADD to your “U.S. national” PRIVATE status.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Then why do you have it?

OUR RESPONSE:

So that I can support myself and conduct INTRASTATE commercial transactions ONLY. That is a basic human right without which mere existence is impossible.

You trying to kill me?

THEIR RESPONSE:

Why support yourself with a passport? It seems like a contradiction.

Btw. You cited 22 CFR 51.1 incorrectly.

By your own definition, you have compromised your values by possessing a passport. You are a citizen and a national.

Just demonstrating the inconsistency and frankly, hypocrisy in your legal presentations. It’s not helpful for folks.

OUR RESPONSE:

We DID NOT cite it incorrectly. You’re gaslighting us.

A citizen is someone who has voluntarily submitted themself to be a subject by Black’s dictionary. I don’t volunteer, so I use U.S. national as a method to avoid admitting that I’m a volunteer. Nothing wrong with that.

And its an accurate statement. And it comes with no franchises, because franchises ADD to nationality

THEIR RESPONSE:

It’s inconsistent and not true. You would not want me on your jury. You are being dishonest.

OUR RESPONSE:

About what? Does a CONSTITUTIONAL but not CIVIL citizen who consents to nothing fit within the 51.2 definition? YES

THEIR RESPONSE:

There is no difference in a so-called constitutional citizen and a so-called civil citizen. They are the same.

Now, there are citizens who acquire franchises. That is a different matter entirely.

You said you were a U.S. national. Look at the definition in 22 C.F.R. 51.1

OUR RESPONSE:

Now you’re lying and you would not want me on your jury.

You didn’t answer my question. Is the OFFICE and the OFFICER the same legal person?

One is PRIVATE, the other is PUBLIC. They represent TWO completely different entities. The PRIVATE represents God, the PUBLIC represents Caesar.

THEIR RESPONSE:

No. But that’s not the issue. We are not talking franchises. We are talking about:

Political association (domicile is irrelevant); and

Allegiance (domicile irrelevant)

There is zero legal infirmity with being a citizen or a national.

OUR RESPONSE:

So what? is an act of birth an act of consent to associate?

NO!

From a legal perspective, its TREATED as such but its not an act of will.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Doesn’t matter. You said you are a U.S. national. Therefore, by definition you are U.S. citizen. See 22 CFR 51.1.

You have a passport and fact pattern proving both.

OUR RESPONSE:

If I say I’m a U.S. national, it means I DO NOT consent to be called a MEMBER of the PRIVILEGED SUBSET of U.S. nationals called U.S. citizens. It’s my RIGHT to REJECT a privilege, benefit, or privileged STATUS or else I don’t own myself!

I also said that because I had to claim SOMETHING to get a passport that delivers no PROTECTION or CONSIDERATION.

Does that mean I have to CLAIM the benefits or privileges AT ALL TIMES or even AFTER I leave the passport office?

NO!

THEIR RESPONSE:

Did you falsely claim something to get the passport?

OUR RESPONSE:

Not at all. I refused protection in the passport application, which is the REAL consideration they are offering. And its not material anyway, because it delivers NO PROTECTION or BENEFIT.

Perjury is not material unless there is an adverse PROPERTY consequence. No standing to sue without such consequence, and the MAIN consideration was REFUSED. The economic value of the mere physical passport was paid for during the application process. I argue that because I paid for THAT and they STILL claim its THEIR property, they are a THIEF.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Is the passport your property?

OUR RESPONSE:

Its not, but it can’t be used to destroy rights per the unconstitutional conditions doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL authority to use government property to DESTROY rights without at least EXPLICIT consent.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Are you sure about that?

Sounds to me like you possess property of the U.S. government.

OUR RESPONSE:

Show me the constitutional authority to CREATE new civil offices by merely handing people property or a stinking piece of paper absent a lawful oath or appointment in Title 5.

It ain’t THERE!

THEIR RESPONSE:

Then why have you written 1,000,000+ pages saying that an officer is a custodian of government property?

You see, I’m demonstrating the lunacy and inconsistency your extreme dogma creates.

Turn in your passport and I’ll be convinced you mean what you say.

OUR RESPONSE:

You mean commit commercial suicide?

You can’t practically survive without ID in today’s world. QUITE unreasonable.

THEIR RESPONSE:

You’re correct in how the tax works. But when you try to be this dogmatic across the board, you create hypocrisy.

Why do you need a commercial presence?

OUR RESPONSE:

I need the ability to trade to support myself, just like any biological organism does to survive, including non-humans.

But I can WAIVE the CIVIL protections of the transaction and seek only COMMON LAW protections for the transaction without using a creation of the state such as the CIVIL law to do so.

THEIR RESPONSE:

I’ve demonstrated the error in your extreme position that not a single person will support or pursue—not one.

Get real. Stop being dogmatic. And let’s create REAL solutions for people instead of this SC BS!

Your passport is government property and you have it in your possession.

It doesn’t mean you’re a U.S. person and it doesn’t mean they can tax you on your citizenship or nationality. Come on man!

OUR RESPONSE:

You haven’t demonstrated any error.

1. U.S. nationals include POLITICAL citizens who are TEMPORARILY political while they are in the passport office.
2. I can waive CIVIL and POLITICAL protections or I’m a slave.
3. No office is created by the the possession of a piece of paper that delivers no benefits, privileges or protections because they were all waived during the application process.
4. The first amendment permits me to POLITICALLY and CIVILLY disassociate AFTER I leave the passport office or NOT invoke any privileges incident to the passport.
5. There is NO AUTHORITY to create civil obligations or any obligations without consideration when all said consideration is waived and there is not official oath or appointment.
6. The terms are defined on the application form by me to constitute a license to use my property and identify me as the only Merchant in the relationship and the government as the buyer.

You’re being unreasonable and you’re gaslighting me.

THEIR RESPONSE:

Yeah. I’m being unreasonable. 🙂

I love ya man!!

OUR RESPONSE:

I’m feeling the luv, man! 🙂

THEIR RESPONSE:

Just remember—it’s a privilege to possess government property. And you possess it in a passport regardless of what you claim.

Why don’t you create your own passport—a private one?

OUR RESPONSE:

Its also a privilege to use or benefit from my SERVICES or property. And that benefit FAR EXCEEDS possessing a piece of paper that delivers no realistic consideration because all said consideration is WAIVED. So I am the merchant and government is the buyer purely based on net economic benefit.

Under the rules of equity and unjust enrichment, with the passport application as the only exhibit, the government would never prevail in proving that they provided more consideration than I do or that I am unjustly enriched by having or using it. And, if they use the information submitted on the application for a commercial purpose, there is no way that could AVOID being subject to our anti-franchise franchise or admitting that WE are the Merchant instead of THEM or that they are NOT our whore:

Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf

The passport application attachment that does this is found at:

USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007
https://sedm.org/product/usa-passport-application-attachment-form-06-007/

Touche

THEIR RESPONSE:

Are you a competent authority? See: 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(30)

8 U.S. Code § 1101 – Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—

(30) The term “passport” means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer’s origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country.

You can make your own passport if you are.