DISCLAIMER AND LICENSE AGREEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Introduction Intended/Authorized Audience for this Website Sovereign Immunity Meaning of Words 4.1 Human 4.2 "Should", "Shall", "Must", "We recommend" 4.3 Private 4.4 Government 4.5 Civil Status 4.6 Civil Service 4.7 Common Law 4.8 Law 4.9 Copyright 4.10 Franchise 4.11 Frivolous 4.12 Federal Income Tax 4.13 Tax 4.14 Protection 4.15 Fact 4.16 Statutory 4.17 Statutory Citizen 4.18 Constitutional 4.19 Law Practice 4.20 Sovereign 4.21 Anarchy 4.22 Political 4.23 Non-citizen national 4.24 State National 4.25 "Non-Person" or "Non-Resident Non-Person" 4.26 "Advice" or "legal advice" 4.27 Socialism 4.28 "Grant" or "loan" 4.29 Benefit 4.30 Weaponization of government 4.31 Rules for interpreting words or terms that are not expressly defined Authors of Specific Materials Copyright/Software License Agreement Basis for Belief Government Agreement With Our Materials and Invitation to Rebut Evidence of Government Wrongdoing Approach Towards Violence and Terrorism Approach Towards "Hate Speech" and Hate Crime

1.  INTRODUCTION

The content of this page supersedes and is controlling over:

1. Every other page, file, electronic book, video, or audio available on this website or third party websites it has been posted on, such as Youtube, Google Books, and Google Play.
2. Every communication with, to, or about any fellowship officer or member.
3. Every dispute in any court relating to materials or services available through this website or from any ministry officer. This includes third party websites that the content on this site has been posted on.

We take our job of educating and informing the public very seriously.  Every possible human effort has therefore been made to ensure that the information available through this website is truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law.  However, all information contained on this website originating from OTHER than government sources and which the courts themselves recognize as admissible evidence under the rules of evidence, along with any communications with, to, or about the author(s), website administrator, and owner(s) constitute religious speech and beliefs, and not facts.  As such, nothing on this website originating from our own speech, writing, or testimony is susceptible to being false, misleading, or legally "actionable" in any manner.  Since materials on this site spoken by us and all communications associated with, to, or about it are religious speech and beliefs, none of it is admissible in any court of law pursuant to F.R.E. 610 unless accompanied by an affidavit from a specific person attesting to its truthfulness and accuracy, and such materials are only actionable to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON and no others in such a circumstance.  Nothing here other than the governments OWN speech or publications can truthfully be classified as fact without violating the First Amendment rights of the publishers and author(s).  It is provided for worship, law enforcement, education, enlightenment, and entertainment and for no other purpose.  Any other use is an unauthorized use for which the author(s), website administrator(s), and owner(s) assume no responsibility or liability.  Users assume full, exclusive and complete responsibility for any use beyond reading, education, and entertainment.

There is only one exception to the above paragraph, which is that this Disclaimer is both FACT and IS admissible as evidence in its entirety in any court of law because it must be admissible as evidence in order to protect Ministry Officers and Fellowship Members from unlawful acts of persecution by a corrupted government.

This technique of making statements made by us into opinions that are nonfactual and nonactionable and of publishing them anonymously is exactly the same approach as the government uses towards its own legal or tax publications, advice, and websites. If you don't like this disclaimer, then please direct your dissatisfaction at the government, or more specifically the IRS and the Founding Fathers, because they started this problem and we're just emulating their behavior.  For proof, see:

1. Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007-proves that neither the IRS nor anyone in the government is accountable for anything they say or publish. 
2. Waiver of Immunity: Police, Litigation Tool #01.008 -renders all police testimony FALSE, because police are not liable for telling the truth or speaking FACTUALLY.
3. Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005-proves that the IRS has no legal authority to even exist or to operate within states of the Union, and therefore operates effectively as an anonymous international terrorist organization and that the District of Columbia has become a haven for financial terrorists that illegally protects its criminal PRIVATE business operations by abusing sovereign immunity.
4. The Federalist Papers, which were all published by the founding fathers anonymously.   Their identities were not released until decades after the end of the revolutionary war.

   "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. 4 Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. 5 Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

   The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices. 362 U.S. 60 . Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 56 (1994) (footnote omitted), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. 6 This tradition is perhaps best exemplified  by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation."
   [McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995)]

Any attempt by any court or any executive branch employee or any government to treat us differently than the government, the Founding Fathers, or the IRS in the context of speech which identifies ITSELF as non-factual beliefs and opinions that are not actionable or admissible as evidence is hereby stipulated by all users of this website and the materials posted on it as:

1. FRAUD by the judge and the court.
2. A denial of equal protection and equal treatment. Click here for details.
3. A violation of the First Amendment right of Free Speech.
4. A malicious abuse of legal process to institute SLAVERY in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589(a)(3).
5. A waiver of official, judicial, and sovereign immunity by all those who commercially benefit from such abuse.
6. Consent to pay 10 million dollars in damages to this ministry by EACH individual or government benefitting from doing so and to be liable for all the income tax liabilities of EVERY member or officer of this ministry for the past, present, and future. If they are individual employees of said government, they also agree to not accept reimbursement for such liabilities from any government.

This position within our Disclaimer is legally defensible because the entire BASIS for the First Amendment right of free speech is that:

1. The creator of a thing is always the owner. Click here for proof.
2. When one speaks or communicates, they are the creator of the speech and the owner.
3. An essential aspect of creation is the right to DEFINE the meaning of the thing one creates, including the speech one creates.

   "Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] 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."
   [Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]

4. Legal ownership and legal responsibility/liability always go together. You cannot separate one from the other. Separating the right to define from legal responsibility is therefore an absurdity and agreed to be impermissible under this disclaimer/license agreement.
5. You can't be held legally responsible or liable for a thing unless you are the absolute owner and/or the creator of it. If ownership and the definition of the speech is shared, then the other parties who share ownership are ALSO legally responsible.
6. The right to define the meaning and significance of EVERYTHING that we say in EVERY context that it might be read or interpreted by any third party is the only way that we can be identified as the owner of specific speech. 

Any attempt therefore to change the context, character, or definition of our speech by a third party makes the NEW interpretation of said speech the exclusive liability of those who gave it the NEW and unauthorized interpretation. They become the creator, because they defined its meaning so they also become the only responsible party. Readers are also reminded this Disclaimer protects our speech and materials EVERYWHERE they are posted, INCLUDING third party sites. The First Amendment describes a PRIVATE RIGHT, and all rights are PROPERTY in a legal sense. The essence of property rights is the CONTROL over the property by all who intend to use it, and especially those who intend to BENEFIT in any way from its use.

The purpose of this disclaimer is not to undermine the credibility or accuracy of this ministry or website, but primarily to prevent retaliation from government caused by our commitment to exposing massive and ongoing illegal government activities.  Such persecution and retaliation has been prevalent in the past and is likely to continue without this disclaimer.

“When the wicked arise, men hide themselves;
But when they perish, the righteous increase.”
[Prov. 28:28, Bible, NKJV]

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

“A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself; The simple pass on and are punished.”
[Prov. 27:12, Bible, NKJV]

“The simple believes every word,
But the prudent man considers well his steps.
A wise man fears and departs from evil,
But a fool rages and is self-confident.”
[Prov. 14:15, Bible,NKJV]

We do not sell anything connected with this website or the materials on it, nor do we condone or encourage illegal, injurious, or criminal behavior.  Never have, never will.  Consequently, nothing on this website may be truthfully characterized as false or injurious "commercial speech" or excluded from First Amendment free speech protections.  We do not sell or promote any kind of investment or tax shelter, nor do we sell any kind of plan or arrangement under 26 U.S.C. §6700 (abusive tax shelters), which is guaranteed or likely to produce any kind of result against the IRS.  As a matter of fact, the lawless, avaricious, ignorant, incompetent, and criminal misapplication of the federal tax laws by our government  and the treasonous refusal of the judiciary to punish such despicable abuses virtually guarantees unpredictable and unjust results in the administration of our tax laws when the techniques described on this website are used.  The definition of the term "person" used in 26 U.S.C. §6700 and found in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) doesn't even apply to human beings such as us who don't work for corporations or partnerships within the federal United States (federal zone) as "public officers" and who thereby become "persons" and/or "natural persons".  Furthermore, even though the government has attempted to use this statute to try to prosecute tax honesty advocates, they have done so illegally since there are no implementing regulations for this statute under the income tax "imposed" in section 1 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code and because they have done so against persons not domiciled within their territorial jurisdiction. See the following OFFSITE LINK for details on this SCAM:

IRS Due Process Meeting Handout, Form #03.008
  http://sedm.org/Forms/03-Discovery/IRSDueProcMtgHandout.pdf

Lastly, it is a fact that anyone who consents (Form #05.003) can have anything done to them that a tyrant government wants to do, REGARDLESS of locality. Consenting to ANYTHING a government wants or offers is not only STUPID, but violates God's Delegation of Authority Order From God to Christians, Form #13.007. Therefore, any and all claims on this website or in communication with us about the authority or jurisdiction (Form #05.018) of any government presuppose the following relationship with said government:

1. Not physically present on federal territory.
2. Not domiciled on federal territory. See Form #05.002.
3. Not consenting or assenting to any government franchise, public right, or privilege and thus waive sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97. See Form #05.030.
4. Does not share ownership of any of their property with any government  All property is absolutely owned.  Ownership of all property is not “qualified ownership” and is not shared with any government. See Form #12.025.
5. Not claiming any statutory civil status or any of the “benefits” of such status under any act of any government. See Form #13.008.
6. Terms on all forms submitted to any government have the meaning indicated here and are not interpreted in their statutory or regulatory context.
7. A "Merchant" under U.C.C. §2-104(1) but not a "Buyer" under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a) in relation to said government. This is the ONLY relation that God allows with any government and it is a violation of the Biblical delegation of authority for Christians to consent to any change in this relationship. It therefore would also be a violation of the First Amendment. See:
   Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007
   https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf
8. Invoking the Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027 for all commercial relations with any government. This makes them waive official, judicial, and sovereign immunity for any commercial uses of the name or status of the member that would "benefit" any government.
9. Not allowed BY LAW to consent (Form #05.003) to alienate unalienable organic or private rights to any government per the Declaration of Independence, which was enacted into positive law by the first official act of Congress on Page 1 of the Statutes at Large. See:
   Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf
   

The burden of proof (Form #05.025) imposed upon the government alleging civil or criminal jurisdiction within a constitutional state therefore is to defeat all of the above limitations of its authority within a constitutional state and to prove that people within a state cannot use THE SAME franchise mechanisms against them to defend themselves against tyranny that are the origin of their jurisdiction to begin with.

2.  INTENDED/AUTHORIZED AUDIENCE FOR THIS WEBSITE

All of the materials and information on this website have been prepared for religious, educational and informational purposes only.  Anyone and everyone may download and read our materials through this website consistent with the copyright and by doing so they implicitly consent to be subject to this Disclaimer Agreement.  However, only those who satisfy all the criteria in this section may "use" our "tax information or services". By "use", we mean:

1. Sending our materials to any member of the legal profession or the courts.
2. Using as evidence in a legal proceeding.
3. Attaching to administrative correspondence sent to any government agency, including the I.R.S.

Those who satisfy all the following criteria may therefore "use" our "tax information or services" as defined above:

1. Do not use any materials or information obtained from this website or any of its users to engage in any of the Prohibited Activities identified in section 12 of our About Us page.
2. "nontaxpayers" not subject to the Internal Revenue Code.  Click here for an article on the subject.
3. Statutory "non-resident non-persons".  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for an article on this subject.
4. Constitutional citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Click here for an article on the subject.
5. Believe in God.  Click here for an article on this subject.
6. Declared domicile is the Kingdom of God on earth, or a de jure constitutional but not statutory "State". Click here for an article on the subject.
7. Those who are willing to take full and complete and exclusive responsibility for all their own choices and actions and who won't try to blame us for any of them.
8. Those who have completed up to step 14 in section 2 of the following according to the instructions indicated:

   Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
       http://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf  (OFFSITE LINK)

If you meet any of the following criteria, then you may read but NOT "use" the "tax information or services" available through this website and instead should consult http://www.irs.gov for materials or services you can "use":

1. Used materials or information obtained from this website or any of its users to engage in any one or more of the Prohibited Activities identified in section 12 of our About Us page.
2. Have not read or complied fully with this Disclaimer or our " Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid" pamphlet.
3. Do not believe in God and trust only him above any man or earthly government.
4. Using the materials on this website for financial or economic reasons or not for strictly spiritual reasons.  Greed and the lust of money are the cause for most of the evils documented on this website and we don't want to encourage more of it.  This website is NOT a "patriot for profit" effort, but strictly a Christian religious ministry whose ONLY purposes are spiritual and not financial.
5. Those who are not willing to verify the accuracy of what we are saying here by reading and researching the law for themselves.
6. Declared "domicile" is any place within the federal zone.  Click here for an article on the subject.
7. Engaged in a "trade or business".  Click here for an article on this subject.
8. Those who take deductions under 26 U.S.C. §162, earned income credit under 26 U.S.C. §32, or who apply a graduated rate of tax to their earnings under 26 U.S.C. §1.  All such persons are "taxpayers" engaged in a "trade or business" because they are availing themselves of an excise taxable  "privilege" under the Internal Revenue Code.
9. "taxpayer".  Click here for an article on the subject.
10. Statutory "U.S. citizen" as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401.  Click here for an article on the subject.
11. Statutory "resident" (aliens) as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A).  Click here for an article on this subject.
12. Statutory "U.S. person" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)
13. Federal "employee" as defined in 5 U.S.C. §2105, 26 U.S.C. §3401(c) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c)-1.
14. Have any contracts in place, agency, or fiduciary duty with the federal government.  Such contracts include, but are not limited to the W-4, 1040, or SS-5 federal forms.  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for an article on this subject.
15. Those who intend to use any of the information on this website to violate any enacted civil law that applies to the jurisdiction where they are domiciled.
16. Those who are tax protesters, tax deniers, or tax defiers.
17. Those who are anti-government as government is defined in De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043.
18. Those who intend to use our materials as an excuse or justification to commit violent, injurious, criminal, or unlawful acts of any kind.

Information or services available through this website are not intended, recommended, or authorized for use as:

1. A substitute for your own diligent and committed study of the law.
2. A crutch to help you permanently avoid studying or learning the law.
3. Legal or tax advice or an insurance policy to divert any portion of the responsibility for your choice to use them away from you or onto anyone else but you.
4. A tool to facilitate violations of law or injurious behavior of any kind.
5. A "tax shelter" within the meaning of any revenue law.  A "tax shelter" is a device used to reduce the liability of a statutory "taxpayer", and those who are "taxpayers" may obtain but may not "use" our tax materials or services in interacting with members of the legal profession or government.

This website and the educational materials on it were prepared for the use of the authors only by themselves.  Any use of the terms "you", "your", "individuals", "people", "persons", "we recommend", "you should", "we" or "our readers", "readers", "those", "most Americans", "employers", "employees", and all similar references either on the website or in any verbal communications or correspondence with our readers is directed at the author(s) only and not other readers.  The only exception to this rule is the This disclaimer, which applies to everyone PLUS the author or ministry.   All the authors are doing by posting these materials is sharing with others the results of their research and the play book they developed only for use by themselves.  For instance, the bottom of every page of the Great IRS Hoax book says: "TOP SECRET:  For Treasury/IRS Internal Use ONLY (FOUO)".  Then in the "Disclaimer" at the beginning of the book, they define "Treasury" as the "Family Guardian Department of the Treasury".  Consequently, how those materials impact or influence others is of no concern or consequence to the authors, and no motive may be attributed to any statements by the authors that would appear to be directed at third parties, because such statements are actually directed at themselves only.  How readers use or apply the materials appearing here is entirely their choice and we assume no responsibility for how they act, or fail to act, based on the use of these materials.  This approach is no different from that of the federal government, where the term "employee" in the Internal Revenue Code is made to "appear" like it applies to everyone, but in fact it only applies to federal agents, officers, and instrumentalities of the United States government, all of whom are described in 26 U.S.C. §6331(a).  Any effort on the part of the government to redefine the words we use to mean anything other than what we define them to mean is an admission that we don't have First Amendment Rights, and such an act is an act of Treason punishable by death.  How can a the authors have First Amendment rights if they can't even define the meaning of the words they use?  How can the government claim that we have equal protection of the laws guaranteed under the Constitution (see Article 4, Section 2 and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Declaration of Independence) if they can define the meaning of the words they use in their void for vagueness "codes", but we can't define the meaning of the words we use in our writings and must rely on some government lawyer or judge with a conflict of interest (in violation of 28 U.S.C. §144, 28 U.S.C. §455, and 18 U.S.C. §208) to define or redefine them?  Hypocrisy! Click here for those who would question this paragraph or its reason for existence.

Under the "good Samaritan rule", we cannot be subject to sanction or liability because we are not portraying our own words, but the words of anonymous third parties.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
[47 U.S.C. §230(c )(1)]

Any attempt to associate any member or officer of this ministry with any legal status or civil status (Form #13.008) OTHER than that described in this section, or to impute or enforce the consequences of a civil domicile (Form #05.002) is hereby stipulated by all parties concerned to be a criminal attempt at identity theft as described in the following:

Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046

The ONLY choice of law authorized in resolving disputes among members or between members and non-members shall be this disclaimer, the criminal law, the common law, and equity ALONE and never the civil statutory law (Form #05.037).

3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Click here for a detailed explanation of why this website and the owner(s), author(s) and the webmaster are entirely immune from federal and state jurisdiction relating to the materials posted here or any activities associated with them.

4.  MEANINGS OF WORDS

This section is a defense against the following fraudulent tactics by those in government:

1. Foundations of Freedom Course, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda, Form #12.021
2. Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
3. Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
4.  The Beginning of Wisdom is to Call Things By Their Proper Names (OFFSITE LINK) - Stefan Molyneux
5.  Mirror Image Rule (OFFSITE LINK)

The biblical reason for this section is explained in the following videos:

1. Oreilly Factor, April 8, 2015-John Piper of the Oklahoma Wesleyan University
2. Overcoming the World 2014 Conference: Against the World (OFFSITE LINK)-Ligonier Ministries. Click here for original source, minutes 15-24.
3. Kingdom Bible Studies, Lesson 1: WHO'S WHO?-The Correct Meaning of Names (OFFSITE LINK) -Sheldon Emry Memorial Library
4. Kingdom Bible Studies, Lesson 2: WHO's WHO?-Understanding Word Meanings (OFFSITE LINK) -Sheldon Emry Memorial Library
5. Words are Our Enemies' Weapons, Part 1 (OFFSITE LINK)-Sheldon Emry
6. Words are Our Enemies' Weapons, Part 2 (OFFSITE LINK)-Sheldon Emry
7. The Words We Use (OFFSITE LINK) -Wallbuilders
8. Roman Catholicism and the Battle Over Words (OFFSITE LINK)-Ligonier Ministries
9. The Keys to Freedom (OFFSITE LINK)-Bob Hamp

The legal purpose of these definitions is to prevent GOVERNMENT crime using words:

Word Crimes (OFFSITE LINK)

The definitions in this section are MANDATORY in any interaction between either the government or any of its agents or officers and any agent or member of this ministry. The reasons why this MUST be the case are described in:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.3 through 5.8

---

4.1 Human

The word "human" means a man or woman above the age of majority, which we regard as 18 years of age. Anyone below the age of 18 is considered a "child" rather than a "human".

---

4.2 "Should", "Shall", "Must", or "we recommend"

All use of the words "should", "shall", "must", or "we recommend" on this website or in any of the interactions of this ministry with the public shall mean "may at your choice and discretion".  This is similar to the government's use of the same words. See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Sections 12.4.13, 12.4.17, 12.4.19, and 12.4.26 for further details.

---

4.3 Private

The word "private" when it appears in front of other entity names such as "person", "individual", "business", "employee", "employer", etc. shall imply that the entity is:

1. In possession of absolute, exclusive ownership and control over their own labor, body, and all their property. In Roman Law this was called "dominium".
2. On an EQUAL rather than inferior relationship to government in court. This means that they have no obligations to any government OTHER than possibly the duty to serve on jury and vote upon voluntary acceptance of the obligations of the civil status of “citizen” (and the DOMICILE that creates it). Otherwise, they are entirely free and unregulated unless and until they INJURE the equal rights of another under the common law.
3. A "nonresident" in relation to the state and federal government.
4. Not a PUBLIC entity defined within any state or federal statutory law. This includes but is not limited to statutory "person", "individual", "taxpayer", "driver", "spouse" under any under any civil statute or franchise.
5. Not engaged in a public office or "trade or business" (per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)). Such offices include but are not limited to statutory "person", "individual", "taxpayer", "driver", "spouse" under any civil statute or franchise.

   "PRIVATE PERSON. An individual who is not the incumbent of an office."
   [Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1359]

6. Not consenting to contract with or acquire any public status, public privilege, or public right under any state or federal franchise. For instance, the phrase "private employee" means a common law worker that is NOT the statutory "employee" defined within 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) or 26 C.F.R. §301.3401(c)-1 or any other federal or state law or statute.
7. Not sharing ownership or control of their body or property with anyone, and especially a government. In other words:
   7.1 Ownership is not "qualified" but "absolute".
   7.2 There are no moities between them and the government.
   7.3 The government has no usufructs over any of their property.
8. Not subject to civil enforcement or regulation of any kind, except AFTER an injury to the equal rights of others has occurred. Preventive rather than corrective regulation is an unlawful taking of property according to the Fifth Amendment takings clause.
9. Not "privileged" or party to a franchise of any kind:

   “PRIVILEGE. “A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law. [. . .] That which releases one from the performance of a duty or obligation, or exempts one from a liability which he would otherwise be required to perform, or sustain in common [common law] with all other persons.  State v. Grosnickle, 189 Wis. 17, 206 N.W. 895, 896. A peculiar advantage, exemption, or immunity.  Sacramento Orphanage & Children's Home v. Chambers, 25 Cal.App. 536, 144 P. 317, 319.
   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 1359-1360]

   “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, would also be a franchise.”
   [People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859) ]

10. The equivalent to a common law or Constitutional "person" who retains all of their common law and Constitutional protections and waives none.

    "The words "privileges" and "immunities," like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law.  Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. "
    [The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
    SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]
    See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.

Every attempt by anyone in government to alienate rights that the Declaration of Independence says are UNALIENABLE shall also be treated as "PRIVATE BUSINESS ACTIVITY" that cannot be protected by sovereign, official, or judicial immunity. So called "government" cannot make a profitable business or franchise out of alienating inalienable rights without ceasing to be a classical/de jure government and instead becoming in effect an economic terrorist and de facto government in violation of Article 4, Section 4.

"No servant [or government or biological person] can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [government]." 
[Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV]

---

4.4 Government

The term "government" is defined to include that group of people dedicated to the protection of purely and exclusively PRIVATE RIGHTS and PRIVATE PROPERTY that are absolutely and exclusively owned by a truly free and sovereign human being who is EQUAL to the government in the eyes of the law per the Declaration of Independence. It excludes the protection of PUBLIC rights or PUBLIC privileges (franchises, Form #05.030) and collective rights (Form #12.024) because of the tendency to subordinate PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights due to the CRIMINAL conflict of financial interest on the part of those in the alleged "government" (18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §§144, and 455). See Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 for the distinctions between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1]  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2]   That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3]  and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4]   It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.    Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual [PRIVATE] rights is against public policy. [5]“
[63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]

________________________________________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.

[2] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524.  A public official is held in public trust.  Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist), 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill.Dec. 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.

[3] Chicago Park Dist. v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec. 134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.

[4] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill), 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds  484 U.S. 807,  98 L.Ed. 2d 18,  108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den  486 U.S. 1035,  100 L.Ed. 2d 608,  108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass), 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).

[5] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v. Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325.

[6] Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App), 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).

Anything done CIVILLY for the benefit of those working IN the government at the involuntary, enforced, coerced, or compelled (Form #05.003) expense of PRIVATE free humans is classified as DE FACTO (Form #05.043), non-governmental, PRIVATE business activity beyond the core purpose of government that cannot and should not be protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity. Click here (Form #11.401) for a detailed exposition of ALL of the illegal methods of enforcement (Form #05.032) and duress (Form #02.005). "Duress" as used here INCLUDES:

1. Any type of LEGAL DECEPTION, Form #05.014.
2. Every attempt to insulate government workers from responsibility or accountability for their false or misleading statements (Form #05.014 and Form 12.021 Video 4), forms, or publications (Form #05.007 and Form #12.023).
3. Every attempt to offer or enforce civil franchise statutes against anyone OTHER than public officers ALREADY in the government. Civil franchises cannot and should not be used to CREATE new public offices, but to add duties to EXISTING public officers who are ALREADY lawfully elected or appointed. See Form #05.030.
4. Every attempt to commit identity theft by legally kidnapping CONSTITUTIONAL state domiciled parties onto federal territory or into the "United States" federal corporation as public officers. Form #05.046.
5. Every attempt to offer or enforce any kind of franchise within a CONSTITUTIONAL state. See Form #05.030.
6. Every attempt to entice people to give up an inalienable CONSTITUTIONAL right in exchange for a franchise privilege. See Form #05.030.
7. Every attempt to use the police to enforce civil franchises or civil penalties. Police power can be lawfully used ONLY to enforce the criminal law. Any other use, and especially for revenue collection, is akin to sticking people up at gunpoint. See Form #12.022.
8. Every attempt at CIVIL asset forfeiture to police in the conduct of CRIMINAL enforcement. This merely creates a criminal conflict of interest in police and makes them into CIVIL revenue collectors who seek primarily their own enrichment. See Form #12.022.
9. Every attempt to compel or penalize anyone to declare a specific civil status on a government form that is signed under penalty of perjury. That is criminal witness tampering and the IRS does it all the time.
10. Every attempt to call something voluntary and yet to refuse to offer forms and procedures to unvolunteer. This is criminal FRAUD. Congressmen call income taxes voluntary all the time but the IRS refuses to even recognize or help anyone who is a "nontaxpayer". See Exhibit #05.051.

All of the above instances of duress place personal interest in direct conflict with obedience to REAL law, Form #05.048. They are the main source of government corruption (Form #11.401) in the present de facto system (Form #05.043). The only type of enforcement by a DE JURE government that can or should be compelled and lawful is CRIMINAL or COMMON LAW enforcement where a SPECIFIC private human has been injured, not CIVIL statutory enforcement (a franchise, Form #05.030). Under the State Action Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court, everyone who is the target of CIVIL enforcement is, by definition a public officer or agent in the government and Christians are forbidden by the Bible from becoming such public officers. Form #13.007.

Every type of DE JURE CIVIL governmental service or regulation MUST be voluntary and ALL must be offered the right to NOT participate on every governmental form that administers such a CIVIL program. It shall mandatorily, publicly, and NOTORIOUSLY be enforced and prosecuted as a crime NOT to offer the right to NOT PARTICIPATE in any CIVIL STATUTORY activity of government or to call a service "VOLUNTARY" but actively interfere with and/or persecute those who REFUSE to volunteer or INSIST on unvolunteering. All statements by any government actor or government form or publication relating to the right to volunteer shall be treated as statements under penalty of perjury for which the head of the governmental department shall be held PERSONALLY liable if false. EVERY CIVIL "benefit" or activity offered by any government MUST identify at the beginning of every law creating the program that the program is VOLUNTARY and HOW specifically to UNVOLUNTEER or quit the program. Any violation of these rules makes the activity NON-GOVERNMENTAL in nature AND makes those offering the program into a DE FACTO government (Form #05.043). The Declaration of Independence says that all "just powers" of government derive from the CONSENT of those governed. Any attempt to CIVILLY enforce MUST be preceded by an explicit written attempt to procure consent, to not punish those who DO NOT consent, and to not PRESUME consent by virtue of even submitting a government form that does not IDENTIFY that submission of the form is an IMPLIED act of conset (Fonrm #05.003). This ensures "justice" in a constitutional sense, which is legally defined as "the right to be left alone". For the purposes of this website, those who do not consent to ANYTHING civil are referred to "non-resident non-persons" (Form #05.020). An example of such a human would be a devout Christian who is acting in complete obedience to the word of God in all their interactions with anyone and everyone in government. Any attempt by a PRIVATE human to consent to any CIVIL STATUTORY offering by any government (a franchise, Form #05.030) is a violation of their delegation of authority order from God (Form #13.007) that places them OUTSIDE the protection of God under the Bible.

Under this legal definition of "government" the IDEAL and DE JURE government is one that:

1. The States cannot offer THEIR taxable franchises within federal territory and the FEDERAL government may not establish taxable franchises within the territorial borders of the states. This limitation was acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) and continues to this day but is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ignored more by fiat and practice than by law.
2. Has the administrative burden of proof IN WRITING to prove to a common law jury of your peers that you CONSENTED in writing to the CIVIL service or offering before they may COMMENCE administrative enforcement of any kind against you. Such administrative enforcement includes, but is not limited to administrative liens, administrative levies, administrative summons, or contacting third parties about you. This ensures that you CANNOT become the unlawful victim of a USUALLY FALSE PRESUMPTION (Form #05.017) about your CIVIL STATUS (Form #13.008) that ultimately leads to CRIMINAL IDENTITY THEFT (Form #05.046). The decision maker on whether you have CONSENTED should NOT be anyone in the AGENCY that administers the service or benefit and should NEVER be ADMINISTRATIVE. It should be JUDICIAL.
3. Judges making decisions about the payment of any CIVIL SERVICE fee may NOT participate in ANY of the programs they are deciding on and may NOT be "taxpayers" under the I.R.C. Subtitle A Income tax. This creates a criminal financial conflict of interest that denies due process to all those who are targeted for enforcement. This sort of corruption was abused to unlawfully expand the income tax and the Social Security program OUTSIDE of their lawful territorial extent (Form #05.018). See Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939) and later in Hatter v. U.S, 532 U.S. 557 (2001).
4. EVERY CIVIL service offered by any government MUST be subject to choice and competition, in order to ensure accountability and efficiency in delivering the service. This INCLUDES the minting of substance based currency. The government should NOT have a monopoly on ANY service, including money or even the postal service. All such monopolies are inevitably abused to institute duress and destroy the autonomy and sovereignty and EQUALTY of everyone else.
5. CANNOT "bundle" any service with any other in order to FORCE you to buy MORE services than you want. Bundling removes choice and autonomy and constitutes biblical "usury". For instance, it CANNOT:
   5.1. Use "driver licensing" to FORCE people to sign up for Social Security by forcing them to provide a "franchise license number" called an SSN or TIN in order to procure the PRIVILEGE of "driving", meaning using the commercial roadways FOR HIRE and at a profit.
   5.2. Revoke driver licenses as a method of enforcing ANY OTHER franchise or commercial obligation, including but not limited to child support, taxes, etc.
   5.3. Use funds from ONE program to "prop up" or support another. For instance, they cannot use Social Security as a way to recruit "taxpayers" of other services or the income tax. This ensures that EVERY PROGRAM stands on its own two feet and ensures that those paying for one program do not have to subsidize failing OTHER programs that are not self-supporting. It also ensures that the government MUST follow the SAME free market rules that every other business must follow for any of the CIVIL services it competes with other businesses to deliver.
   5.4 Piggyback STATE income taxes onto FEDERAL income taxes, make the FEDERAL government the tax collector for STATE TAXES, or the STATES into tax collectors for the FEDERAL government.
6. Can lawfully enforce the CRIMINAL laws without your express consent.
7. Can lawfully COMPEL you to pay for BASIC SERVICES of the courts, jails, military, and ROADS and NO OTHERS. EVERYONE pays the same EQUAL amount for these services.
8. Sends you an ITEMIZED annual bill for CIVIL services that you have contracted in writing to procure. That bill should include a signed copy of your consent for EACH individual CIVIL service or "social insurance". Such "social services" include anything that costs the government money to provide BEYOND the BASIC SERVICES, such as health insurance, health care, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
9. If you do not pay the ITEMIZED annual bill for the services you EXPRESSLY consented to, the government should have the right to collect ITS obligations the SAME way as any OTHER PRIVATE human. That means they can administratively lien your real or personal property, but ONLY if YOU can do the same thing to THEM for services or property THEY have procured from you either voluntarily or involuntarily. Otherwise, they must go to court IN EQUITY to collect, and MUST produce evidence of consent to EACH service they seek payment or collection for. In other words, they have to follow the SAME rules as every private human for the collection of CIVIL obligations that are in default. Otherwise, they have superior or supernatural powers and become a pagan deity and you become the compelled WORSHIPPER of that pagan deity. See Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016 for details on all the BAD things that happen by turning government into such a CIVIL RELIGION.

Jesus described the above de jure government as follows. He is implying that Christians cannot consent to any government that rules from above or has superior or supernatural powers in relation to biological humans. In other words, the government Christians adopt or participate in or subsidize CANNOT function as a religion as described in Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016:

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles [unbelievers] lord it over them [govern from ABOVE as pagan idols] , and those who are great exercise authority over them [supernatural powers that are the object of idol worship]. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant [serve the sovereign people from BELOW rather than rule from above]. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
[Matt. 20:25-28, Bible, NKJV]

For documentation on HOW to implement the above IDEAL or DE JURE government by making MINOR changes to existing foundational documents of the present government such as the Constitution, see:

Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002

---

4.5 Civil Status

The term "civil status" describes the process by which human beings become “persons” under civil statutory law. It is what the courts call a “res” which gives them civil control over you under one of three different systems of civil law. Civil status is VERY important, because it is the source of civil statutory jurisdiction of courts over you and their right to “personal jurisdiction” over you. It also describes how your actions affect “choice of law” and your “status” in any court cases you bring. Human beings who are “sovereign” in fact:

1. Have no “civil status” under statutory law.
2. Only have a “civil status” under the constitution and the common law.
3. Are not party to the “social compact”, but “foreigners” among citizens.  The Law of Nations, Book 1, Section 213 calls them “inhabitants”.
4. Are not privileged “aliens”.
5. Participate in NO government franchises or privileges, but instead reserve all their PRIVATE, UNALIENABLE rights (Form #12.038) and thereby remain exclusively private.  See Form #05.030.
6. Were described as “idiots” under early Greek law.  Click here for details.
7. Understand the distinctions between PUBLIC and PRIVATE and maintain absolute separation between the two in all their interactions with any so-called “government”. They ensure that all of their property remains absolutely owned and exclusively private.  Thus, they can control and dictate all uses and everyone who wants to take or control it.  See Form #12.025.
8. Civilly govern themselves without external interference, except possibly of common law and criminal courts.
9. Replace the civil statutory protection franchise with private contracts and franchises of their own for everyone they do business with, thus rendering “civil services” on the part of organized governments irrelevant and unnecessary.  For a definition of “civil services”, see the definition in our Disclaimer, Section 4.  In that sense they have FIRED the government from a civil perspective and retain all of their God given inalienable rights.   All rights reserved, UCC 1-308.
10. Are civilly governed mainly by the “civil laws” found in the Holy Bible if they are Christians, or by the laws of their faith if they have another faith. This is a protected First Amendment right to practice their religion.
    Laws of the Bible, Litigation Tool #09.001

You cannot have a “civil status” under the laws of a place WITHOUT at least one of the following conditions:

1. A physical presence in that place. The status would be under the COMMON law.  Common law is based on physical location of people on land rather than their statutory status.
2. CONSENSUALLY doing business in that place. The status would be under the common law.  See the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 and International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
3. A domicile in that place. This would be a status under the civil statutes of that place. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a).
4. CONSENSUALLY representing an artificial entity (a legal fiction) that has a domicile in that place. This would be a status under the civil statutes of that place. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).
5. Consenting to a civil status under the laws of that place.  Anything done consensually cannot form the basis for an injury in a court of law.  Such consent is usually manifested by filling out a government form identifying yourself with a specific statutory status, such as a W-4, 1040, driver license application, etc.  This is covered in:

   Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

If any of the above rules are violated, you are a victim of criminal identity theft:

Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046

"civil status" is further discussed in:

1. Civil Status (important!)-Article under "Litigation->Civil Status (important!) on the SEDM menus
2. Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
3. Proof that There is a "Straw Man", Form #05.042-SEDM
4. Legal Fictions, Form #09.071-SEDM

---

4.6 Civil Service

The term "civil service" or "civil service fee" relates to any and all activities of "government" OTHER than:

1. Police.
2. Military.
3. Jails.
4. Criminal court.
5. Common law court.

"civil service" and "civil service fee" includes any attempt or act to:

1. Establish or enforce a domicile (Form #05.002)
2. Procure consent (Form #05.003) of any kind to alienate rights that are supposed to be INALIENABLE per the Declaration of Independence.
3. PRESUME consent (Form #05.003) to surrender INALIENABLE PRIVATE RIGHTS by virtue of submitting, accepting, or receiving any application for a government benefit, license, or franchise. See Form #12.023.
4. Convert PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC property, PUBLIC offices, or excise taxable franchises. See Form #12.025. Government's FIRST and most important duty is to at all times maintain TOTAL separation between PRIVATE and PUBLIC and NEVER to allow them to convert one to another. Every attempt to convert one to the other represents a criminal financial conflict of interest that turns the PUBLIC trust into a SHAM trust.
5. Offer or enforce the civil statutory code.
6. Offer or enforce civil franchises (see Form #05.030),

---

4.7 Common Law

The term "common law" means procedures and policies used in constitutional courts in the JUDICIAL branch to provide protection for absolutely owned, constitutionally protected PRIVATE RIGHTS and PRIVATE PROPERTY of a human being who has accepted no franchises or privileges and therefore who is not subject to civil statutes, not domiciled in the forum, and who reserves all rights.  These procedures may not be exercised in "legislative franchise courts" in the LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE Branch which manage and adjudicate disputes over federal property, franchises, privileges, and "benefits". In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, these organic rights are “self-executing” and not government created or owned.   They may therefore NOT be limited, restrained, taxed, or regulated by statute:

"The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers 524*524 between Congress and the Judiciary. The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, "Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States." Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal's threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, "provide[s] safeguards to be enforced by the courts, and not to be exercised by the Legislature"); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it "was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens"). As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary."
[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]

It is the duty of all CONSTITUTIONAL courts in the JUDICIAL branch to provide remedy for the protection of such rights when violated, even if there is no statute authorizing a remedy.  This is a consequence of the oath that all judges IN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS take to “support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, whether state or federal. Franchise judges in the LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE branch don't have to take this oath and often ACTIVELY INTERFERE with any attempt by private litigants to invoke or enforce constitutional rights. That sort of behavior would be TREASON in a CONSTITUTIONAL court. Franchise courts act in essence as binding arbitration boards for people in temporary possession, custody, or control of absolutely owned government property which is dispensed with legal strings attached called "franchises". These courts preside by the CONSENT of those who accept the property or "benefit" that the franchise court is charged with managing, such as "licenses", "permits", or government "benefits". Examples of "legislative franchise courts" include:

1. Traffic court.
2. Family court.
3. Tax Court (see 26 U.S.C. §7441).

For a detailed exposition of exactly how government franchises and franchise courts operate, see:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Rights are property, and protecting and enforcing them is an action to protect PRIVATE property in the case of CONSTITUTIONAL rights recognized but not created by the Bill of Rights.  In providing judicial remedy absent statutes, the courts in effect are DEFINING the common law, because statutes CANNOT define or limit such rights:

"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 very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities [within juries] and officials [and CIVIL STATUTES, Form #05.037] and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts [using the COMMON LAW rather than CIVIL STATUTES, Form #05.037]. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote [of a JURY OR an ELECTOR]; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
[West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnett, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441]

Based on the above, anything licensed, taxed, requiring a "permit", denied (the essence of ownership is the right to exclude and control the use of), or regulated by civil statute or which may be voted on by a jury or an elector or which is created or enforced by statute is NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL or a PRIVATE right and is not the proper subject of the common law. Further, anyone who tries to convince you that there IS no such thing as the common law in the context of CONSTITUTIONAL rights, or that common law proceedings can and do involve STATUTORY remedies is engaging in a conspiracy to DESTROY all of your private rights and private property. This is proven in:

Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

A failure or refusal by a judge in the judicial department to provide CONSTITUTIONAL remedy for absolutely owned PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights is therefore, in fact and in deed:

1. An attempt to accomplish the OPPOSITE purpose for why government was created, which was to protect PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights.
2. An attempt to denigrate, demoralize, oppress, and enslave (Thirteenth Amendment) litigants before them who are litigating against any government for a violation of those rights.
3. An attempt to maliciously abuse legal process to institute peonage and slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589.
4. A selective REPEAL of a portion of the CONSTITUTIONAL common law.
5. A selective REPEAL of the portion of the Bill of Rights that forms the STANDING of the party to sue in court.
6. A violation of the judicial oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
7. Treason punishable by death under 18 U.S.C. §2381.
8. A violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, because by SELECTIVELY REPEALING a portion of the constitution or constitutional common law, they in effect are acting in a “legislative capacity” as a member of the Legislative Executive Branch, not as judges.[1]
9. Destroying ANY and ALL possibility of freedom or liberty itself, according to the man who DESIGNED the three branch system of Republic Government and Separation of Powers:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].
There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”
[. . .]
In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”
[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, 1758, Book XI, Section 6;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]

Further, Congress can only regulate or tax PRIVILEGES or PUBLIC rights that it created by statute, not PRIVATE rights recognized but not created by the Constitution.

Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] 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.
[Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]

For more details on the CIVIL (not CRIMINAL, but CIVIL) power to tax or regulate only public rights (public property) that Congress created by statute and therefore ABSOLUTELY OWNS and CONTROLS as property, see:

Hierarchy of Sovereignty:  The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm

The basic rules of the common law are documented in the following exemplary books published near the turn of the Twentieth Century and many others, and thus are WRITTEN.  These rules have not been REPEALED, but rather fallen out of use because of censorship by covetous Pharisee lawyers trying to convert ALL property to government property so they could STEAL it and harvest it for their personal benefit [2] :

1. Handbook of Common Law Pleading, Benjamin Shipman (48 MB)-
   http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/Hand_book_of_Common_law_Pleading.pdf
2. Handbook of Common Law Pleading, Joseph Koeffler (4.8 MB).
   http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/CL_Pleading.pdf
3. Principles of Common Law Pleading, John McKelvey (3.5 MB)
   http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/Principles_of_Common_law_Pleading.pdf
4. Pleadings and Practice in Actions At Common Law, Martin Burks (90.3 MB)
   http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/Pleading_and_Practice_in_Actions_at_Comm.pdf

In addition to the above generally accepted rules, those owning the PRIVATE property protected by the common law may ADD to these rules with their own set of rules that form the conditions of the temporary use, benefit, or control of the property so granted and protected to the person SUBJECT to those rules.  We call these the Grant Rules.

Grant Rules are CIVIL rules implemented as a contract or agreement between the GRANTOR and the GRANTEE for temporarily using, controlling, or benefitting from that property.  In the case of government, these rules regulating government property cannot be and are not implemented with CRIMINAL statutes.  They are only implemented by CIVIL statutes.  They are enforced against those who consent to those RULES by temporarily accepting or exercising custody, benefit, or control over the property in question.  These rules behave, in essence, as a franchise or an excise.  The OBLIGATIONS against the GRANTOR associated with the use of the granted property are the “consideration” provided by the GRANTOR and the consideration they receive in return are the temporary “RIGHTS” they exercise over the granted property.  All franchises are based on “grants” of property with legal strings or conditions attached and ANYONE can grant or participate in such a franchise or use such a franchise AGAINST a government to defend themselves against GOVERNMENT unlawfully offering or enforcing THEIR franchises:

“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)]

An example of the use of such rules by the government against the private rights and private property is found below:

“We have repeatedly held that the Federal Government may impose appropriate conditions on the use of federal property or privileges [franchises, Form #05.030] and may require that state instrumentalities comply with conditions [obligations, Form #12.040] 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 [Form #05.040] they enjoy from federal programs is surely permissible [meaning CONSTITUTIONAL] 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);
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16842193024599209893]

Under the concept of equal protection and equal treatment, WE TOO have an EQUAL right, recognized above by the U.S. Supreme Court in Munn v. Illinois, to attach conditions to the use or benefit or control of our property by any and all others, INCLUDING governments.  To suggest otherwise is to impute or enforce superior or supernatural powers to a government and institute a civil religion in violation of the First Amendment.  ALL ARE EQUAL in a free society.  You are equal to the government, as President Obama implied in his First Inauguration Speech, as we prove below:

Foundations of Freedom Course, Form #12.021, Video 1:  Introduction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikf7CcT2I8I

If you are not equal to the government and cannot use YOUR absolutely owned PRIVATE property to control THEM, then they can’t use THEIR property to control you through civil franchises or statutes either.  For more on the abuse of franchises by government to oppress people they are supposed to be helping, and how to use them to DEFEND yourself against such abuses, see:

1. Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
2. https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
4. https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Anyone who asserts that the GOVERNMENT is the only one who can absolutely own property or that government SHARES ownership or control of ALL property is indirectly advocating all of the following:

1. A violation of the main reason for creating government, which is the protection of PRIVATE rights and PRIVATE property.
2. The establishment of a state sponsored religion in violation of the First Amendment, because the government can use their control over ALL property to control ANYTHING and ANYONE.  See:
   

   Socialism:  The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

3. A violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, because there is no way to avoid the rules associated with buying or using ANY TYPE OF PROPERTY.
4. The establishment of socialism, which is government ownership or at least control over ALL property:
   

   "Socialism n (1839) 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."

   [Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-510-X, page 1118; SOURCE: https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Evidence/Q05.010.pdf]

For more information about common misconceptions about the common law propagated mainly by MISINFORMED members of the legal profession and the government, see:

Rebutted False Arguments about the Common Law, Form #08.025
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf

---

4.8 Law

The term "law" as used on this site is constrained by the following requirements:

1. It must apply equally to ALL.  It cannot compel INEQUALITY of treatment between any man or class of men.  See Form #05.033.
2. It cannot do collectively what people individually cannot NATURALLY do. In other words, in the words of Frederic Bastiat, it aggregates the individual right of self-defense into a collective body so that it can be delegated. A single human CANNOT delegate a right he does not individually ALSO possess, which indirectly implies that no GROUP of men called “government” can have any more COLLECTIVE rights under the collective entity rule than a single human being.  Click here for a video on the subject.
3. It cannot punish a citizen for an innocent action that was not a crime or not demonstrated to produce measurable harm.  The ability to PROVE such harm with evidence in court is called “standing”.
4. It cannot compel the redistribution of wealth between two private parties.  This is ESPECIALLY true if it is called a “tax”.
5. It cannot interfere with or impair the right of contracts between PRIVATE parties.  That means it cannot compel income tax withholding unless one or more of the parties to the withholding are ALREADY public officers in the government.
6. It cannot interfere with the use or enjoyment or CONTROL over private property, so long as the use injures no one.  Implicit in this requirement is that it cannot FAIL to recognize the right of private property or force the owner to donate it to a PUBLIC USE or PUBLIC PURPOSE.  In the common law, such an interference is called a “trespass”.
7. The rights it conveys must attach to LAND rather than the CIVIL STATUS (e.g. “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc.) of the people ON that land.  One can be ON land within a PHYSICAL state WITHOUT being legally “WITHIN” that state (a corporation) as an officer of the government or corporation (Form #05.042) called a “citizen” or “resident”. See:
   7.1 Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008.
   7.2 Foundations of Freedom, Form #12.021, Video 4 covers how LAND and STATUS are deliberately confused through equivocation in order to KIDNAP people’s identity (Form #05.046) and transport it illegally to federal territory.
   (“It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not the status of the people who live in it.” [Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)])
8. It must provide a remedy AFTER an injury occurs.  It may not PREVENT injuries before they occur.  Anything that operates in a PREVENTIVE rather than CORRECTIVE mode is a franchise.  There is no standing in a REAL court to sue WITHOUT first demonstrating such an injury to the PRIVATE or NATURAL rights of the Plaintiff or VICTIM.
9. It cannot acquire the “force of law” from the consent of those it is enforced against.  In other words, it cannot be an agreement or contract.  All franchises and licensing, by the way, are types of contracts.
10. It does not include compacts or contracts between private people and governments.  Rights that are INALIENABLE cannot be contracted away, even WITH consent.  See Form #05.003.
11. It cannot, at any time, be called “voluntary”.  Congress and even the U.S. Supreme Court call the IRC Subtitle a “income tax” voluntary.  See Exhibits #05.025 and #05.051.
12. It does not include franchises, licenses, or civil statutory codes, all of which derive ALL of their force of law from your consent in choosing a civil domicile (Form #05.002).

The above criteria derives from What Is "law"?, Form #05.048, Section 16. Any violation of the above rules is what the Bible calls “devises evil by law” in Psalm 94:20-23 as indicated above.

Roman statesman Cicero defined law as follows:

“True Law is right reason in agreement with Nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect upon the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to try to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome or at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all times and all nations, and there will be one master and one rule, that is God, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]

“Power and law are not synonymous. In truth, they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God‘s Law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God‘s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man‘s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the [de facto] government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges.”
[Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 B.C.]

“Law” is defined to EXCLUDE any and all civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges in relation to any and all governments and to include ONLY the COMMON law, the CONSTITUTION (if trespassing government actors ONLY are involved), and the CRIMINAL law.  

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.

_____________

FOOTNOTES:

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)]

---

Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be "a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong."

[. . .]

It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, "I will, or will not, do this"; that of a law is, "thou shalt, or shalt not, do it." It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be "a rule."
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]

---

"The words "privileges" and "immunities," like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption.[1] "
[The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.

---

“What, then, is [civil] legislation? It is an assumption [presumption] by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion [because of abuse of sovereign immunity and the act of "CONSENT" by calling yourself a "citizen"] over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service.  It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will [society of men and not law], pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human [CIVIL] legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed [and ESPECIALLY those who never expressly consented in writing].”
[Natural Law, Chapter 1, Section IV, Lysander Spooner;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/SpoonerLysander/NaturalLaw.htm]

The above methods of REMOVING the protections of the common law and the constitution from the INALIENABLE rights [rights that CANNOT lawfully be given away, even WITH consent, Form #12.038] that are protected by them has been described by the U.S. Congress as the ESSENCE of communism itself! This is especially true when you add games with legal words of art to remove even the STATUTORY limitations upon the conduct of the government. See Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 841.
Sec. 841. - Findings and declarations of fact

The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the [de jure] Government of the United States [and replace it with a de facto government ruled by the judiciary]. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion] within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and [FRANCHISE] privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution [Form #10.002].  Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of, Form #05.014, the tax franchise "codes", Form #05.001] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding by the framing of Congressman Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination [in the public FOOL system by homosexuals, liberals, and socialists] with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined [by the IRS and a corrupted judiciary] to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members [ANARCHISTS!, Form #08.020].  The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence [or using income taxes].  Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States.  It is the means whereby individuals are seduced [illegally KIDNAPPED via identity theft!, Form #05.046] into the service of the world Communist movement [using FALSE information returns and other PERJURIOUS government forms, Form #04.001], trained to do its bidding [by FALSE government publications and statements that the government is not accountable for the accuracy of, Form #05.007], and directed and controlled [using FRANCHISES illegally enforced upon NONRESIDENTS, Form #05.030] in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed

The above corruption of our Constitutional Republic by the unconstitutional abuse of franchises, the violation of the rules of statutory construction, and interference with common law remedies was described by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:

"These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.

Although from the foundation of the Government this court has held steadily to the view that the Government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no one of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise powers not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly granted, Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 326, 331, we are now informed that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new territory, 380*380 acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our Government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this Government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the People of the United States. The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces — the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them — is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution."
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissenting]

Civil statutory codes, franchises, or privileges are referred to on this website as “private law”, but not “law”.  The word “public” precedes all uses of “law” when dealing with acts of government and hence, refers only to COMMON law and CRIMINAL law that applies equally to everyone, regardless of their consent.  Involvement in any and all “private law” franchises or privileges offered by any government ALWAYS undermines and threatens sovereignty, autonomy, and equality, turns government into an unconstitutional civil religion, and corrupts even the finest of people.  This is explained in:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

Any use of the word "law" by any government actor directed at us or any member, if not clarified with the words "private" or "public" in front of the word "law" shall constitute:

1. A criminal attempt and conspiracy to recruit us to be a public officer called a "person", "taxpayer", "citizen", "resident", etc.
2. A solicitation of illegal bribes called "taxes" to treat us "AS IF" we are a public officer.
3. A criminal conspiracy to convert PRIVATE rights into PUBLIC rights and to violate the Bill of Rights.

The protection of PRIVATE rights mandated by the Bill of Rights BEGINS with and requires:

1. ALWAYS keeping PRIVATE and PUBLIC rights separated and never mixing them together.
2. Using unambiguous language about the TYPE of "right" that is being protected: PUBLIC or PRIVATE in every use of the word "right". The way to avoid confusing PUBLIC and PRIVATE RIGHTS is to simply refer to PUBLIC rights as "privileges" and NEVER refer to them as "rights".
3. Only converting PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights with the express written consent of the HUMAN owner.
4. Limiting the conversion to geographical places where rights are NOT unalienable. This means the conversion must occur either abroad or on government territory not within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Constitutional state. Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law, would be violated.
5. Keeping the rules for converting PRIVATE to PUBLIC so simple, unambiguous, and clear that a child could understand them and always referring to these rules in every interaction between the government and those they are charged with protecting.
6. Ensuring that in every interaction (and ESPECIALLY ENFORCEMENT ACTION) between the government both administratively and in court, that any right the government claims to civilly enforce against, regulate, tax, or burden otherwise PRIVATE property is proven ON THE RECORD IN WRITING to originate from the rules documented in the previous step. This BURDEN OF PROOF must be met both ADMINISTRATIVELY and IN COURT BEFORE any enforcement action may be lawfully attempted by any government. It must be met by an IMPARTIAL decision maker with NO FINANCIAL interest in the outcome and not employed by the government or else a criminal financial conflict of interest will result. In other words, the government has to prove that it is NOT stealing before it can take property, that it is the lawful owner, and expressly HOW it became the lawful owner.
7. Enforcing the following CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION against government jurisdiction to enforce unless and until the above requirements are met:
   

   “All rights and property are PRESUMED to be EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE and beyond the control of government or the CIVIL statutory franchise codes unless and until the government meets the burden of proving, WITH EVIDENCE, on the record of the proceeding that:

   1. A SPECIFIC formerly PRIVATE owner consented IN WRITING to convert said property to PUBLIC property.
   2. The owner was either abroad, domiciled on, or at least PRESENT on federal territory NOT protected by the Constitution and therefore had the legal capacity to ALIENATE a Constitutional right or relieve a public servant of the fiduciary obligation to respect and protect the right. Those physically present but not necessarily domiciled in a constitutional but not statutory state protected by the constitution cannot lawfully alienate rights to a real, de jure government, even WITH their consent.
   3. If the government refuses to meet the above burden of proof, it shall be CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED to be operating in a PRIVATE, corporate capacity on an EQUAL footing with every other private corporation and which is therefore NOT protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity."

For a detailed exposition on the mandatory separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE as indicated above, please see the following course on our site:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025

For a detailed exposition of the legal meaning of the word "law" and why the above restrictions on its definition are important, see:

What is "law"?, Form #05.048

---

4.9 Copyright

The words "Copyright" or "Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship" used in connection with any of the intellectual property on this site shall mean the following:

1. Owned by an exclusively private, nonstatutory human and not any artificial entity, "person", "citizen", or "resident" under any civil statutory law.
2. Protected only under the common law and the constitution and not subject to the statutory civil law, including any tax law.
3. Not owned by this website or ministry.
4. Owned by an anonymous third party who we have an agreement with to reuse the materials on this site.
5. Not owned or controlled by any government per 17 U.S.C. §105. Governments are not allowed to copyright their works. Any attempt to bring this ministry under the control of any government or make it the property of any government therefore results in no copyright being held in the name of the government.

The purpose of these copyright restrictions is to ensure that no government can use legal process or tax assessment as a method to censor free speech materials found on this website.

---

4.10 Franchise

The word "franchise" means a grant or rental or lease rather than a gift of specific property with legal strings or "obligations" attached.

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 Arn.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.l918E, 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, 81 N. E. 443, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 420.

Personal Franchise. A franchise of corporate existence, or one which authorizes the formation and existence of a corporation, is sometimes called a "personal" franchise. as distinguished from a "property" franchise, which authorizes a corporation so formed to apply its property to some particular enterprise or exercise some special privilege in its employment, as, for example, to construct and operate a railroad. See Sandham v. Nye, 9 Misc.ReP. 541, 30 N.Y.S. 552.

Secondary Franchises. The franchise of corporate existence being sometimes called the "primary" franchise of a corporation, its "secondary" franchises are the special and peculiar rights, privileges, or grants which it may, receive under its charter or from a municipal corporation, such as the right to use the public streets, exact tolls, collect fares, etc. State v. Topeka Water Co., 61 Kan. 547, 60 P. 337; Virginia Canon Toll Road Co. v. People, 22 Colo. 429, 45 P. 398 37 L.R.A. 711. The franchises of a corporation are divisible into (1) corporate or general franchises; and (2) "special or secondary franchises. The former is the franchise to exist as a corporation, while the latter are certain rights and privileges conferred upon existing corporations.  Gulf Refining Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 166 Miss. 759, 108 So. 158, 160.

Special Franchisee. See Secondary Franchises, supra.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, pp. 786-787]

The definition of "privilege" in the definition above means PROPERTY, whether physical or intangible. This loan is often called a "grant" in statutes, as in the case of Social Security in 42 U.S. Code Subchapter I-Grants to the States for Old-Age Assistance. That grant is to federal territories and NOT constitutional states, as demonstrated by the definition of "State" found in 42 U.S.C. §1301(a)(1). Hence, Social Security cannot be offered in constitutional states, but only federal territories, as proven in Form #06.001.

"For here, the state must deposit the proceeds of its taxation in the federal treasury, upon terms which make the deposit suspiciously like a forced loan to be repaid only in accordance with restrictions imposed by federal law. Title IX, §§ 903 (a) (3), 904 (a), (b), (e). All moneys withdrawn from this fund must be used exclusively for the payment of compensation. § 903 (a) (4). And this compensation is to be paid through public employment offices in the state or such other agencies as a federal board may approve. § 903 (a) (1)."
[Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)]

In the case of government franchises, property granted or rented can include one or more of the following:

1. A public right or public privilege granted by a statute that is not found in the Constitution but rather created by the Legislature. This includes remedies provided in franchise courts in the Executive Branch under Ariticle I or Article IV to vindicate such rights. It does not include remedies provided in true Article III courts.

   “The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents.  Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must at a minimum arise “between the government and others.” Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 451, 49 S.Ct., at 413.  In contrast, “the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined,” Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 51, 52 S.Ct., at 292, is a matter of private rights. Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S. 442, 450, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1261, 1266, n. 7, 51 L.Ed.2d. 464 (1977); Crowell v. Benson, supra, 285 U.S., at 50-51, 52 S.Ct., at 292. See also Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 894, 917-918 (1930).FN24 Private-rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power.”

   [. . .]

   Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] 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.

   [Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]

2. Any type of privilege, immunity, or exemption granted by a statute to a specific class of people and not to all people generally that is not found in the Constitution. All such statues are referred to as "special law" or "private law", where the government itself is acting in a private rather than a public capacity on an equal footing with every other private human in equity. The U.S. Supreme court also called such legislation "class legislation" in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and the ONLY "class" they can be talking about are public officers in the U.S. government and not to all people generally. See Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a "Public Officer" For Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008 for proof:

   “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]

3. A statutory "civil status" created and therefore owned by the legislature. This includes statutory "taxpayers", "drivers", "persons", "individuals", etc. All such entities are creations of Congress and public rIghts which carry obligations when consensually and lawfully exercised. See:
   Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
4. A STATUTORY Social Security Card. The regulations at 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) indicates the card is property of the government and must be returned upon request.
5. A U.S. passport. The passport indicates that it is property of the government that must be returned upon request.
6. A "license", which is legally defined as permission by the state to do something that would otherwise be illegal or even criminal.

In legal parlance, such a grant makes the recipient a temporary trustee, and if they violate their trust, the property can be taken back through administrative action or physical seizure and without legal process so long as the conditions of the loan allowed for these methods of enforcement:

“How, then, are purely equitable obligations created? For the most part, either by the acts of third persons or by equity alone. But how can one person impose an obligation upon another? By giving property to the latter on the terms of his assuming an obligation in respect to it. At law there are only two means by which the object of the donor could be at all accomplished, consistently with the entire ownership of the property passing to the donee, namely: first, by imposing a real obligation upon the property; secondly, by subjecting the title of the donee to a condition subsequent. The first of these the law does not permit; the second is entirely inadequate. Equity, however, can secure most of the objects of the doner, and yet avoid the mischiefs of real obligations by imposing upon the donee (and upon all persons to whom the property shall afterwards come without value or with notice) a personal obligation with respect to the property; and accordingly this is what equity does. It is in this way that all trusts are created, and all equitable charges made (i.e., equitable hypothecations or liens created) by testators in their wills. In this way, also, most trusts are created by acts inter vivos, except in those cases in which the trustee incurs a legal as well as an equitable obligation. In short, as property is the subject of every equitable obligation, so the owner of property is the only person whose act or acts can be the means of creating an obligation in respect to that property. Moreover, the owner of property can create an obligation in respect to it in only two ways: first, by incurring the obligation himself, in which case he commonly also incurs a legal obligation; secondly, by imposing the obligation upon some third person; and this he does in the way just explained.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 543]

__________________________________________________

“When Sir Matthew Hale, and the sages of the law in his day, spoke of property as affected by a public interest, and ceasing from that cause to be juris privati solely, that is, ceasing to be held merely in private right, they referred to

[1] property dedicated [DONATED] by the owner to public uses, or

[2] to property the use of which was granted by the government [e.g. Social Security Card], or

[3] in connection with which special privileges were conferred [licenses].

Unless the property was thus dedicated [by one of the above three mechanisms], or some right bestowed by the government was held with the property, either by specific grant or by prescription of so long a time as to imply a grant originally, the property was not affected by any public interest so as to be taken out of the category of property held in private right.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 139-140 (1876)]

The above authorities imply that a mere act of accepting or using the property in question in effect represents "implied consent" to abide by the conditions associated with the loan, as described in the California Civil Code below:

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
DIVISION 3.  OBLIGATIONS
PART 2.  CONTRACTS
CHAPTER 3.  CONSENT
Section 1589

1589.  A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.

The U.S. Supreme Court further acknowledged the above mechanisms of using grants or loans of government property to create equitable obligations against the recipient of the property as follows. Note that they ALSO imply that YOU can use exactly the same mechanism against the government to impose obligations upon them, if they are trying to acquire your physical property, your services, your labor, your time, or impose any kind of obligation (Form #12.040) against you without your express written consent, because all such activities involve efforts to acquire what is usually PRIVATE, absolutely owned property that you can use to control the GOVERNMENT as the lawful owner:

“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) ]

The injustice (Form #05.050), sophistry, and deception (Form #05.014) underlying their welfare state system is that:

1. Governments don't produce anything, but merely transfer wealth between otherwise private people (see Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025).
2. The money they are paying you can never be more than what you paid them, and if it is, then they are abusing their taxing powers!

   To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms.

   Nor is it taxation.  ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’  ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’  Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

   Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’  See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St. 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
   [Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

3. If they try to pay you more than you paid them, they must make you into a public officer to do so to avoid the prohibition of the case above. In doing so, they in most cases must illegally establish a public office and in effect use "benefits" to criminally bribe you to illegally impersonate such an office. See The "Trade or Business" Scam, Form #05.001 for details.
4. Paying you back what was originally your own money and NOTHING more is not a "benefit" or even a loan by them to you. If anything, it is a temporary loan by you to them! And its an unjust loan because they don't have to pay interest!
5. Since you are the real lender, then you are the only real party who can make rules against them and not vice versa. See Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution for where the ability to make those rules comes from.
6. All franchises are contracts that require mutual consideration and mutual obligation to be enforceable. Since government isn't contractually obligated to provide the main consideration, which is "benefits" and isn't obligated to provide ANYTHING that is truly economically valuable beyond that, then the "contract" or "compact" is unenforceable against you and can impose no obligations on you based on mere equitable principals of contract law.

   “We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments… This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.”
   [Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) ]

   "... railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time."
   [United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980)]

For further details on government franchises, see:

1. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.014, Cites by Topic: "franchise"
2. Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
   Slides
   Video
3. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

For information on how to avoid franchises, quit them, or use your own PERSONAL franchises to DEFEND yourself against illegal government franchise administration or enforcement, usually against ineligible parties, see:

1. Avoiding Traps on Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
2. Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 5
3. Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
4. SEDM Forms/Pubs page, Section 1.6: Avoiding Government Franchises
5. The Government "Benefits" Scam, Form #05.040 (Member Subscription form)
6. Why the Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051 (Member Subscription form)

---

4.11 Frivolous

The word "frivolous" as used on other websites in referring to this website shall mean "correct" and "truthful".  Any attempts to call anything on this website incorrect or untruthful must be accompanied by authoritative, court-admissible evidence to support such a conclusion or shall be presumed by the reader to be untrustworthy and untruthful.  All such evidence MUST derive EXCLUSIVELY from the consensual civil domicile of the defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). Parties subject to this agreement stipulate that any violation of this rule is a malicious prosecution and obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589(a)(3). Click here for details on domicile.

---

4.12 Federal Income Tax

The term "federal income tax", in the context of this website, means the revenue scheme described in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code as applied specifically and only to human beings who are not statutory "persons" or "individuals" under federal law and shall NOT refer to businesses.  This website does NOT concern itself with businesses or corporations or artificial entities of any description.

---

4.13 Tax

The term "tax" includes any method to collect revenues to support ONLY the operation of the government. It does NOT include the abuse of taxing power to transfer wealth between ordinary citizens or residents and when it is used for this purpose it is THEFT, not "taxation".

“The power to tax is, therefore, the strongest, the most pervading of all powers of government, reaching directly or indirectly to all classes of the people.  It was said by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v. Md., 4 Wheat. 431, that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  A striking instance of the truth of the proposition is seen in the fact that the existing tax of ten per cent, imposed by the United States on the circulation of all other banks than the National Banks, drove out of existence every *state bank of circulation within a year or two after its passage.  This power can be readily employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there is no implied limitation of the uses for which the power may be exercised.

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation.  ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’  ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’  Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa.St. 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’  See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St. 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

________________________________________________________________________________

"A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another."
[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

"Tax" includes ONLY impositions upon PUBLIC property or franchises (Form #05.030) and not upon absolutely owned PRIVATE property.

1. PRIVATE property must be consensually converted to PUBLIC property before it can be taxed, and the burden of proof rests on the government to prove that it was lawfully converted before it can be subject to tax. See:
   Separation Between Public and Private, Form 12.025
2. The "persons" spoken above are civil statutory PUBLIC "persons" and not PRIVATE humans. See:
   Why All Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

---

4.14 Protection

The word "protection" includes only CRIMINAL, constitutional, and common law protection. It excludes every type of government activity, franchise, or program that requires a predicate civil status (Form #13.008) to enforce, such as "citizen", "resident", "taxpayer", "spouse", Social Security beneficiary, etc. Every attempt to impose, acquire, or enforce a civil status or to enforce duties upon a civil status NOT related to voting or jury service constitutes the following:

1. An INJURY and an INJUSTICE (Form #05.050).
2. Identity Theft (Form #05.046).

---

4.15 Fact

The word "fact" means that which is admissible as evidence in a court of law BECAUSE ENACTED LAW makes it admissible AND because the speaker (other than us) INTENDED for it to be factual. It does NOT imply that we allege that it is factual, actionable, or even truthful. Any attempt by any government to make anything published on this website or anything said by members or officers of the ministry FACTUAL or ACTIONABLE in conflict with this disclaimer is hereby declared and stipulated by all members to be FRAUDULENT, PERJURIOUS, and a willful act of international terrorism and organized extortion.

---

4.16 Statutory

The term “statutory” when used as a prefix to any other term, means that the term it precedes pertains only to federal territory, property, PUBLIC rights, or privileges under the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.  Includes NO private property or people.

---

4.17 Statutory Citizen

The term “statutory citizen” is defined on this website to mean every reference to the word “citizen” in every act of congress OTHER than in Title 8. Title 8 acts as a substitute for the Constitution for the purposes of only citizenship within territories and/or possessions OR abroad. Fourteenth Amendment/CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship is NOWHERE described or referenced in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Statutes in Title 8 are not necessary to define or authorize citizenship for people in states of the Union:

“Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside. See, e.g., Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922) (Holmes, J.) (“If a thing has been practiced for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it[.]”); Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) (“It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use . . . . Yet an unbroken practice . . . is not something to be lightly cast aside.”). And while Congress cannot take away the citizenship of individuals covered by the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment], it can bestow citizenship upon those not within the Constitution’s breadth. See U.S. Const, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (“Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory belonging to the United States[**].”); id. at art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (Congress may “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . ..”). To date, Congress has not seen fit to bestow birthright citizenship upon American Samoa, and in accordance with the law, this Court must and will respect that choice.16″
[Tuaua v. U.S.A, 951 F.Supp.2d. 88 (2013)]

Note the following in the above:

“If the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. ”

All statutory statuses in Title 8 are therefore POLITICAL statuses rather than CIVIL statuses. For the meaning of "civil status", see:

Civil Status (Important!)-SEDM
https://sedm.org/litigation-main/civil-status/

However, the political status imputed in Title 8 ("citizen" and/or "national") is not that mentioned in the Constitution. The constitution does not apply on federal territory with the exception of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 except insofar as Congress legislatively allows it to apply. Once it is made to apply, that constitutional provision which is legislatively applied cannot be legislatively revoked, because Constitutional rights cannot be legislatively revoked and are private property.

“[T]he Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest only when and so far as Congress shall so direct”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 279 (1901)]

All titles of the U.S. Code OTHER than Title 8 and which are CIVIL in nature limit themselves to domiciled parties against whom statutory civil law may lawfully be enforced per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). The origin of civil statutory enforcement authority is domicile on federal territory or representing an entity or office domiciled there (such as "person"). Thus, all such parties must be at least domiciled on federal territory to civilly enforce. And, one can't have a domicile without physical presence there at some point in time. See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

---

4.18 Constitutional

The term “constitutional” when used as a prefix to any other term, means that the term it precedes pertains only to land, property, rights, or privileges under the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union and not within the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the national government.

---

4.19 Law Practice

The terms "law practice" or "practice of law":

1. Exclude any and all statutory references to said term in any state or federal statute.
2. Exclude any use of these terms found in any rule of court.
3. Exclude any litigation in which the party "practicing" is representing either a government instrumentality or acting as an officer for said instrumentality such as a statutory "taxpayer" (under the Internal Revenue Code), "driver" (under the vehicle code), "spouse" (under the family code), or "benefit recipient" (under any entitlement program, including Social Security).
4. Include litigation involving ONLY the protection of EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE property and rights beyond the civil legislative jurisdiction of any de jure government to take away, control, or impair.
5. Include common law or constitutional litigation that does not acquire the "force of law" from the consent of the parties protected by it.

---

4.20 Sovereign

The word "sovereign" when referring to humans or governments means all the following:

1. A human being and NOT a "government".  Only human beings are "sovereign" and only when they are acting in strict obedience to the laws of their religion.   All powers of government are delegated from the PEOPLE and are NOT "divine rights".  Those powers in turn are only operative when government PREVENTS the conversion of PRIVATE rights into PUBLIC rights.  When that goal is avoided or undermined or when law is used to accomplish involuntary conversion, we cease to have a government and instead end up with a private, de facto for profit corporation that has no sovereign immunity and cannot abuse sovereign immunity to protect its criminal thefts from the people.
2. EQUAL in every respect to any and every government or actor in government.   All governments are legal "persons" and under our Constitutional system, ALL "persons" are equal and can only become UNEQUAL in relation to each other WITH their EXPRESS and NOT IMPLIED consent.    Since our Constitutional rights are unalienable per the Declaration of Independence, then we can't become unequal in relation to any government, INCLUDING through our consent.
3. Not superior in any way to any human being within the jurisdiction of the courts of any country.
4. Possessing the EQUAL right to acquire rights over others by the same mechanisms as the government uses.  For instance, if the government encourages the filing of FALSE information returns that essentially "elect" people into public office without their consent, then we have an EQUAL right to elect any and every government or officer within government into our PERSONAL service as our PERSONAL officer without THEIR consent.  See:
   Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001.
5. Subject to the criminal laws of the jurisdiction they are physically situated in, just like everyone else.  This provision excludes "quasi criminal provisions" within civil franchises, such as tax crimes.
6. The origin of all authority delegated to the government per the Declaration of Independence.
7. Reserving all rights and delegating NONE to any and every government or government actor.  U.C.C. 1-308 and its predecessor, U.C.C. 1-207.
8. Not consenting to any and every civil franchise offered by any government.
9. Possessing the same sovereign immunity as any government.  Hence, like the government, any government actor asserting a liability or obligation has the burden of proving on the record of any court proceeding EXPRESS WRITTEN consent to be sued before the obligation becomes enforceable.
10. Claiming no civil or franchise status under any statutory franchise, including but not limited to "citizen", "resident", "driver" (under the vehicle code), "spouse" (under the family code), "taxpayer" (under the tax code).  Any attempt to associate a statutory status and the public rights it represents against a non-consenting party is THEFT and SLAVERY and INJUSTICE.
11. Acting as a fiduciary, agent, and trustee on behalf of God 24 hours a day, seven days a week as an ambassador of a legislatively foreign jurisdiction and as a public officer of "Heaven, Inc.", a private foreign corporation.  God is the ONLY "sovereign" and the source of all sovereignty.  We must be acting as His agent and fiduciary before we can exercise any sovereignty at all.  Any attempt by so-called "government" to interfere with our ability to act as His fiduciaries is a direct interference with our right to contract and the free exercise of religion.  See:
    Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007
12. Capable of being civilly sued ONLY under the common law and equity and not under any statutory civil law.  All statutory civil laws are law for government and public officers, and NOT for private human beings. They are civil franchises that only acquire the "force of law" with the consent of the subject.  See:
    Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
13. Protected from the civil statutory law by the First Amendment requirement for separation of church and state because we Christians are the church and our physical body is the "temple" of the church.  See: 1 Cor. 6:19.
14. Responsible for all the injuries they cause to every other person under equity and common law ONLY, and not under civil statutory law.

---

4.21 Anarchy

The term "anarchy" implies any one or more of the following, and especially as regards so-called "governments". An important goal of this site is to ELIMINATE all such "anarchy":

1. Are superior in any way to the people they govern UNDER THE LAW.
2. Are not directly accountable to the people or the law.  They prohibit the PEOPLE from criminally prosecuting their own crimes, reserving the right to prosecute to their own fellow criminals.  Who polices the police?  THE CRIMINALS.
3. Enact laws that exempt themselves. This is a violation of the Constitutional requirement for equal protection and equal treatment and constitutes an unconstitutional Title of Nobility in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.
4. Only enforce the law against others and NOT themselves, as a way to protect their own criminal activities by persecuting dissidents.  This is called “selective enforcement”.  In the legal field it is also called “professional courtesy”.  Never kill the goose that lays the STOLEN golden eggs.
5. Break the laws with impunity.  This happens most frequently when corrupt people in government engage in “selective enforcement”, whereby they refuse to prosecute or interfere with the prosecution of anyone in government.  The Department of Justice (D.O.J.) or the District Attorney are the most frequent perpetrators of this type of crime.
6. Are able to choose which laws they want to be subject to, and thus refuse to enforce laws against themselves.  The most frequent method for this type of abuse is to assert sovereign, official, or judicial immunity as a defense in order to protect the wrongdoers in government when they are acting outside their delegated authority, or outside what the definitions in the statutes EXPRESSLY allow.
7. Impute to themselves more rights or methods of acquiring rights than the people themselves have.  In other words, who are the object of PAGAN IDOL WORSHIP because they possess “supernatural” powers.  By “supernatural”, we mean that which is superior to the “natural”, which is ordinary human beings.
8. Claim and protect their own sovereign immunity, but refuse to recognize the same EQUAL immunity of the people from whom that power was delegated to begin with.  Hypocrites.
9. Abuse sovereign immunity to exclude either the government or anyone working in the government from being subject to the laws they pass to regulate everyone ELSE’S behavior.  In other words, they can choose WHEN they want to be a statutory “person” who is subject, and when they aren’t.  Anyone who has this kind of choice will ALWAYS corruptly exclude themselves and include everyone else, and thereby enforce and implement an unconstitutional “Title of Nobility” towards themself.  On this subject, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the following:

   "No man in this country [including legislators of the government as a legal person] is so high that he is above the law.  No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.  All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.  It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives," 106 U.S., at 220.  "Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the Citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession?  If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights," 106 U.S., at 220, 221.
   [United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S. Ct. 240 (1882)]

10. Have a monopoly on anything, INCLUDING “protection”, and who turn that monopoly into a mechanism to force EVERYONE illegally to be treated as uncompensated public officers in exchange for the “privilege” of being able to even exist or earn a living to support oneself.
11. Can tax and spend any amount or percentage of the people’s earnings over the OBJECTIONS of the people.
12. Can print, meaning illegally counterfeit, as much money as they want to fund their criminal enterprise, and thus to be completely free from accountability to the people.
13. Deceive and/or lie to the public with impunity by telling you that you can’t trust anything they say, but force YOU to sign everything under penalty of perjury when you want to talk to them. 26 U.S.C. §6065.

In support of the above definition of "anarchy", here is how the U.S. Supreme Court defined it:

“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]

The above requirements are a consequence of the fact that the foundation of the United States Constitution is EQUAL protection and EQUAL treatment.    Any attempt to undermine equal rights and equal protection described above constitutes:

1. The establishment of a state sponsored religion in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21B.  That religion is described in:  Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016.  The object of worship of such a religion is imputing "supernatural powers" to civil rulers and forcing everyone to worship and serve said rulers as "superior beings".
2. The establishment of an unconstitutional Title of Nobility in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.

For court admissible proof that your CIVIL government is the MAIN and most damaging type of anarchist in modern society, both from a legal perspective and a theological perspective, see:

Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf

---

4.22 Political

The term "political" as used throughout our website in reference to us or our activities:

1. Excludes the endorsement of specific candidates for political office.
2. Excludes any motivation that might result in a revocation of 26 U.S.C. §501(c )(4) status.
3. Excludes activities of public officers or agents of the government.
4. Excludes those who are "persons", "individuals", "taxpayers" under any revenue law.
5. Excludes those with a domicile or residence "in this State", meaning the government.
6. Includes efforts to educate the public about the law and the legal limits upon the jurisdiction of those in the government.
7. Includes ONLY EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE people beyond the civil legislative control of the specific government affected by the policy.
8. Involves the protection of purely private property and private rights exclusively owned by human beings and not businesses or artificial entities of any description.
9. Includes activities undertaken ONLY in the fulfillment of purely religious goals as a full time fiduciary of God under the Bible trust indenture.

---

4.23 Non-citizen national

The term "non-citizen national" MEANS a human being born in a constitutional state and domiciled or at least physically present there. These people are described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21). They are STATUTORY "non-resident non-persons" as described in Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020. It DOES NOT mean or include those who are:

1. Domiciled either abroad or on federal territory.
2. Statutory "nationals and citizens of the United States[**] at birth" per 8 U.S.C. §1401. These people are born in federal territories exclusively.
3. Statutory "national but not citizen of the United States[**] at birth" per 8 U.S.C. §1408. These people are born in federal possessions such as Puerto Rico.
4. Statutory "citizens of the United States[**]" per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(A).
5. Statutory "national of the United States**" per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22).

---

4.24 State National

The term "state national" means those who are:

1. Born in a Constitutional but not Statutory "State" as described in the Fourteenth Amendment or the original constitution.
2. Standing on land protected by the Constitution and/or the organic law and therefore possessing natural and Constitutional and PRIVATE rights as documented in:
   Enumeration of Inalienable Rights, Form #10.002
   https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/EnumRights.pdf
3. Not claiming any government statutory privilege, immunity, exemption, "benefit", domicile, or civil statutory protection in the context of a specific interaction and reserving all rights per U.C.C. §1.308.
4. Owing allegiance to THE PEOPLE as individuals and sovereigns occupying the land within the state, and not to the government that serves them under the constitution as the delegation of authority order. "State" in a political sense always refers to PEOPLE occupying land and never to GOVERNMENTS or government corporations. In biblical terms, that allegiance is called "love" and it is commanded by God in Matt. 22:34-40. God NEVER commands Christians to love governments or civil rulers and often tells people to DISOBEY them when they violate the Bible as their delegation of authority order (Form #13.007).
   

Equivalent to a "non-citizen national of the United States OF AMERICA" or a "free inhabitant" under the Articles of Confederation. EXCLUDES any of the following:

1. STATUTORY "person" under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and §7343.
2. Statutory "national and citizen of the United States** at birth" as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401. This is a territorial citizen rather than a state citizen.
3. "citizen of the United States**[federal zone]" under 26 U.S.C. §911, 26 U.S.C. §3121(e), or 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
4. "National but not citizen of the United States** at birth" under 8 U.S.C. §1408. This is a person born in a federal possession RATHER than a state of the Union.
5. "U.S.[**] non-citizen national" under 8 U.S.C. §1452. This is a person born in a federal possession RATHER than a state of the Union.
6. STATUTORY "U.S. person" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30), which is a human being born and domiciled on federal territory not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any Constitutional state.

The term is a SUBSET of the term "American National" as used by the Department of State in 8 U.S.C. §1502 because it:

1. Excludes citizens or nationals within territories or possessions or those born abroad.
2. Includes ONLY those born or naturalized within a constitutional state of the Union.

We make this distinction because we don't want to be in a position of "purposefully availing ourself" of commerce within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government and thereby make ourselves a target of "selective or UNJUST enforcement". This is also consistent with the SEDM opening page, which says:

"Our goal is to inspire, empower, motivate, and educate mainly those born or naturalized in the USA (and NOT “U.S.”) and who are Members in how to love, honor, obey, glorify, and lift up our Sovereign Lord above every man, king, ruler, government, and Earthly law at a personal and very practical level and in every area of our lives.   This is the essence of our religious worship and the essence, according to the Bible, of how we love our God."
[SEDM Opening Page; http://sedm.org]

"state" for a foreign national = the country of which that person is a national. "state" for an American national is the United States of America, or just America. "state" is not defined in 8 USC although "State" is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(36) and they are NOT equivalent. See 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) for another reference to a "state national". Remember the context of 8 U.S.C. §1101 is immigration and nationality. So when we speak of a state in this context, we are talking about international states. In that context, American nationality (or U.S. nationality) is what we are---nationality of California is meaningless in this context. So to say you are a national of California is to say you are a national of the United States[***] OF AMERICA or an American National.

For the purposes of "State", the following definition applies:

State

As a noun, a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other states. The section of territory occupied by one of the United States. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a case, "The State v. A. B." The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at a given time.

[The Free Dictionary, Farlex; SOURCE: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state]

"State national" is NOT a statutory term and is not commonly used by courts of law. Therefore, if you invoke it in government correspondence or in litigation, you should take great care to define it BEFORE invoking it so that you do not invite charges of being "frivolous".

---

4.25 "Non-Person" or "non-resident non-person"

The term "non-person" or "non-resident non-person" (Form #05.020) as used on this site we define to be a human who is all of the following:

1. 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 a 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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;
   SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

   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".
6. 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***".
7. 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.
8. Does not earn STATUTORY "wages" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) because all 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. Therefore, 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.
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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 #06.044.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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

They are "non-persons" BY VIRTUE of not benefitting from any civil statutory privilege and therefore being "PRIVATE". By "privilege", we mean ANY of the things described in 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2):

5 U.S. Code § 553 - Rule making

(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 above items all have in common that they are PROPERTY coming under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution that is loaned or possessed or granted temporarily to a human being with legal strings attached. Thus, Congress has direct legislative jurisdiction not only over the property itself, but over all those who USE, BENEFIT FROM, or HAVE such property physically in their custody or within their temporary control. We remind the reader that Congress enjoys control over their own property NO MATTER WHERE it physically is, including states of the Union, and that it is the MAIN source of their legislative jurisdiction within the exclusive jurisdiction of Constitutional states of the Union!:

United States Constitution
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

---

“The Constitution permits Congress to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. This power applies as well to territory belonging to the United States within the States, as beyond them. It comprehends all the public domain, wherever it may be. The argument is, that the power to make ‘ALL needful rules and regulations‘ ‘is a power of legislation,’ ‘a full legislative power;’ ‘that it includes all subjects of legislation in the territory,‘ and is without any limitations, except the positive prohibitions which affect all the powers of Congress. Congress may then regulate or prohibit slavery upon the public domain within the new States, and such a prohibition would permanently affect the capacity of a slave, whose master might carry him to it. And why not? Because no power has been conferred on Congress. This is a conclusion universally admitted. But the power to ‘make rules and regulations respecting the territory‘ is not restrained by State lines, nor are there any constitutional prohibitions upon its exercise in the domain of the United States within the States; and whatever rules and regulations respecting territory Congress may constitutionally make are supreme, and are not dependent on the situs of ‘the territory.‘”
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 509-510 (1856)]

By property, we mean all the things listed in 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) such as SSNs (property of the government per 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d)), contracts (which are property), physical property, chattel property, "benefits", "offices", civil statuses, privileges, civil statutory remedies, etc. A "public office" is, after all, legally defined as someone in charge of the PROPERTY of the "public":

“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]

Even the public office ITSELF is property of the national government, so those claiming any civil statutory status are claiming a civil office within the government. It is otherwise unconstitutional to regulate private property or private rights. The only way you can surrender your private status is voluntarily adopt an office or civil status or the "benefits", "rights", or privileges attaching to said office or status, as we prove in:

1. Civil Status (Important)-SEDM
2. Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
3. Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

It is custody or "benefit" or control of government/public property that grants government control over those handling or using such property:

“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) ]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

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

---

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]

You cannot MIX or comingle PRIVATE property with PUBLIC property without converting the PRIVATE property ownership from absolute to qualified. You must keep them SEPARATE at all times and it is the MAIN and MOST IMPORTANT role of government to maintain that separation. Governments, after all, are created ONLY to protect private property and the FIRST step in that protection is to protect PRIVATE property from being converted to PUBLIC property. For proof, see:

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

What Congress is doing is abusing its own property to in effect create "de facto public offices" within the government, in violation of 4 U.S.C. §72, as is proven in:

Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf

This is how we describe the reason why people should avoid privileges and thereby avoid possession, custody, use, or "benefit" of government/public property on the opening page of our site:

"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."

[Family Guardian Opening Page; http://famguardian.org]

"Non-resident Non-Person" or "non-person" are synonymous with "transient foreigner", "in transitu", and "stateless" (in relation to the national government). We invented this term. The term does not appear in federal statutes because statutes cannot even define things or people who are not subject to them and therefore foreign and sovereign. The term "non-individual" used on this site is equivalent to and a synonym for "non-person" on this site, even though STATUTORY "individuals" are a SUBSET of "persons" within the Internal Revenue Code. Likewise, the term "private human" is also synonymous with "non-person". Hence, a "non-person":

1. Retains their sovereign immunity. They do not waive it under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 or the longarm statutes of the state they occupy.
2. Is protected by the United States Constitution and not federal statutory civil law.
3. May not have federal statutory civil law cited against them. If they were, a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and a constitutional tort would result if they were physically present on land protected by the United States Constitution within the exterior limits of states of the Union.
4. Is on an equal footing with the United States government in court. Civil statutory "Persons" would be on an UNEQUAL, INFERIOR, and subservient level if they were subject to federal territorial law.

Don't expect vain public servants to willingly admit that there is such a thing as a human "non-person" who satisfies the above criteria because it would undermine their systematic and treasonous plunder and enslavement of people they are supposed to be protecting. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the "right to be left alone" is the purpose of the constitution. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. A so-called "government" that refuses to leave you alone or respect or protect your sovereignty and equality in relation to them is no government at all and has violated the purpose of its creation described in the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, anyone from the national or state government who refuses to enforce this status, or who imputes or enforces any status OTHER than this status under any law system other than the common law is:

1. "purposefully availing themselves" of commerce within OUR jurisdiction.
2. STEALING, where the thing being STOLEN are the public rights associated with the statutory civil "status" they are presuming we have but never expressly consented to have.
3. Engaging in criminal identity theft, because the civil status is associated with a domicile in a place we are not physically in and do not consent to a civil domicile in.
4. Consenting to our Member Agreement.
5. Waiving official, judicial, and sovereign immunity.
6. Acting in a private and personal capacity beyond the statutory jurisdiction of their government employer.
7. Compelling us to contract with the state under the civil statutory "social compact".
8. Interfering with our First Amendment right to freely and civilly DISASSOCIATE with the state.
9. Engaged in a constitutional tort.

If freedom and self-ownership or "ownership" in general means anything at all, it means the right to deny any and all others, including governments, the ability to use or benefit in any way from our body, our exclusively owned private property, and our labor.

“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,[11] falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation.”
[Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)]

___________

FOOTNOTES:

[11] 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).

If you would like a W-8 form that ACCURATELY describes the withholding and reporting status of a "non-resident non-person", see:

W-8SUB, Form #04.231
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf

---

4.26 "Advice" or "legal advice"

The term "advice" or "legal advice" means education about tools, facts, remedies, and options for making your own informed choice. It does not include any method of: 1. Transferring liability or responsibility from the person asking to the person responding; 2. Anything that could be classified as "legal advice" or "law practice" as used in any statute or enacted law; 3. Anything that could be classified as factual or a basis for belief or reliance upon the person asked in connection with commercial speech subject to government protection or regulation.

---

4.27 Socialism

The term "socialism" means any attempt by any government to use civil legislation to abolish private property or to convert private property ownership to public property, public rights, or privileges, whether by consent or by theft. "Ownership" and "control" are synonymous for the purpose of this definition. Such property includes land, labor, physical objects, chattel property, or constitutional rights.

Examples of the implementation of socialism include the following activities by government:

1. Government Franchises and licensing. See:
   Government instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
   
2. Civil statutes when enforced against those not consensually serving WITHIN the government. See:
   Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
3. Domicile, which is a civil statutory protection franchise. See:
   Why Domicile and Becoming a "Taxpayer" Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
4. Income and excise taxation. See:
   The "Trade or Business" Scam, Form #05.001
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
   
5. Extraterritorial civil enforcement under the COLOR, but without the actual AUTHORITY of law. against parties not domiciled within the jurisdiction or venue doing the enforcement. See:
   Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf
   
6. Any attempt to change the civil status (Form #13.008) of parties situated extraterritorially without the exclusive jurisdiction of the lawmaker with or without their express or implied consent (Form #05.003). The result is that they are made to APPEAR as parties domiciled within the civil jurisdiction or venue of the lawmaker. See:
   Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovernmentIdentityTheft.pdf
   
7. Any attempt to offer a "benefit" or franchise without recognizing or enforcing the right to NOT participate or to quit on any and every form administering the program. Thus, the program is TREATED as mandatory by fiat but in fact is voluntary. This violates the common law maxim that you have a right to refuse a "benefit". See:
   Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidingTrapsGovForms.pdf
   

The result of implementing socialism through civil legislation is ultimately to abolish constitutional or common law protections for property, and to replace them with legislatively granted civil privileges that come with obligations and a corresponding surrender of said rights. Below is how we describe this process on the opening page of our website:

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.

[Family Guardian Website Opening Page; http://famguardian.org]

For the purpose of this definition "socialism" does NOT include "social control over the means of productIon" as most contemporary reference sources FALSELY identify it. Early dictionaries defined it consistent with our definition but over the years, the word has fairly recently been redefined to REMOVE the mention of abolition of private property from the definition. This was done so that statists would conveniently stop having to APOLOGIZE for government theft through the legislative process. For examples of this phenomenon, see:

Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: "socialism"

It is important to emphasize here that when you want to stop public opposition to a government activity such as theft or conversion of private property, the easiest way is to redefine terms so that there is no word that accurately refers to the activity that is being opposed. The result is that you have eliminated vocabulary that could describe the thing being opposed, and thus to eliminate the political opposition entirely. This approach, in fact, is the heart of the modern phenomenon of "Identity politics": Control public opinion and public opposition by controlling language.

An important goal of this website is to ELIMINATE all forms of socialism as defined here, and thus to restore the supremacy of individual rights over governmental rights to our political and democratic processes and institutions. For details on the evils of socialism, see:

1. Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
2. Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407
   http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm

---

4.28. "Grant" or "loan"

The term "grant" or "loan", in the context of this website and especially in relation to any type of property or right or to "franchises" generally, means a temporary conveyance or transfer of physical custody or possession of absolutely owned property with legal strings or conditions attached by the grantor in which there are no moities or usufructs over the property held or reserved by the party to whom the property is loaned or temporarily conveyed. 

1. The grantor or lender is the "Merchant" under U.C.C. §2-104(1).
2. The recipient or borrower of the property conveyed is the "Buyer" under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a).
3. The property loaned can include land, physical/chattel property, rights, or privileges.
4. The legal relation or "privity" created between the grantor and the borrower or recipient is referred to as a "franchise".  All franchises are contracts or agreements of one kind or another.  Franchises are defined as "a privilege [meaning "property"] in the HANDS of a subject".  Receipt of the property by the Buyer, in fact is what MAKES them the "subject"
5. The regulation of the property is done through the civil statutory code, which assigns both rights and obligations to the Merchant (grantor) and the Buyer.
6. Upon voluntary acceptance of the property by the Buyer, a civil status is assigned to both the BUYER and the MERCHANT fixing the relations between them under the privity. Such civil statuses might include "citizen", "resident", "person" (under the civil statutory franchise code), "taxpayer" (under the income tax code), "driver" (under the vehicle code), etc.
7. The CIVIL STATUTORY STATUS assigned to the MERCHANT and the BUYER after the property is accepted constitutes a type of "membership". A "citizen", for instance, is a BUYER of government civil statutory protection franchise services, and also a "MEMBER" of a club called "GOVERNMENT" (a corporation) that delivers said services.
8. Both CIVIL STATUTORY RIGHTS (PRIVILEGES) and OBLIGATIONS attach to the civil status assigned to the parties and these RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS are the method of controlling and managing the property until it is "RETURNED" or SURRENDERED by the Buyer to the GRANTOR. The civil statutory OBLIGATIONS assigned to the civil status of the BUYER become corresponding RIGHTS on the part of the MERCHANT/GRANTOR and vice versa.
9. If the property, benefit, or privilege was never voluntarily accepted, then the OBLIGATIONS that attach to it cannot be enforced against the BUYER by the MERCHANT in court. Under the common law, you have a RIGHT to refuse to accept property, "benefits", etc. in every scenario, even after you applied for them.
10. In pursuing and accepting the property of the Merchant, the Buyer surrenders ABSOLUTE ownership of a part of his or her otherwise private property and is therefore subject to regulation of him or her self by the Merchant. If the Merchant is a government, then they or their activities in which the granted property are used become and "infected with a public interest" and are subject to civil statutory regulation.

The above process, in fact, has been admitted by the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court as the "very essence" of CIVIL government:

"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. HN4 "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]  has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas. From this source come the HN5 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."

"This brings us to inquire as to the principles upon which this power of regulation rests, in order that we may determine what is within and what without its operative effect. Looking, then, to the common law, from whence came the right which the Constitution protects, we find that when private property is "affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only." This was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale more than two hundred years ago, in his treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 78, and has been accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control."

[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876)]

---

" It will be found that from the earliest periods of our history the State laws regulated the privilege of the elective franchise within their respective limits, and that these laws were exactly such as local interests, peculiar conditions, or supposed policy dictated, and that it was never asserted that the exclusion of any class of inhabitants from the privilege of voting amounted to an interference with the privileges of the excluded class as citizens. As was well said by Judge Mills, of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky: "The mistake on the subject arises from not attending to a sensible distinction between political and civil rights. The latter constitute the citizen, while the former are not necessary ingredients. A State may deny all her political rights to an individual, and yet he may be a citizen. The rights of office and suffrage are political purely, and are denied by some or all the States to part of their population, who are still citizens. A citizen, then, is one who owes the Government allegiance, service, and money by way of taxation, and to whom the Government, in turn, grants and guarantees liberty of person and of conscience, the right of acquiring and possessing [PUBLIC, not PRIVATE] property [WHY?, because the CONSTITUTION protects PRIVATE property ONLY, and CIVIL STATUTES protect PUBLIC PROPERTY. You have to SURRENDER some portion of the protections of the CONSTITUTION in order to acquire, use, or "benefit" from PUBLIC property], of marriage and the social relations, of suit and defense, and security of person, estate, and reputation. These, with some others which might be enumerated, being guaranteed and secured by Government, constitute a citizen. To aliens we extend these privileges by courtesy; to others we secure them--to male as well as female--to the infant as well as the person of hoary hairs." (1 Litt. R. 342.)"

[Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43 (1872)]

In the context of GOVERNMENT grants of property:

1. This conveyance of property is the foundation of ALL governmental civil statutory privileges and most civil statutory law, as explained in Why Civil Statutory Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037.
2. The constitutional authority for such grants is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which allows Congress to "dispose of and make all needful  rules  and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States".
3. Those receiving the granted property and the associated privileges essentially waive their constitutional rights under the Brandeis Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936).
4. Individual agencies of the government are created to manage the SPECIFIC property and franchises and privileges loaned or granted, and such agencies DO NOT have jurisdiction over PRIVATE parties NOT in receipt or eligible to receive said property.  These agencies are referred to as "the administrative state".  Click here for details on the "Administrative State".
5. Types of property that may be loaned must fit within 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2).
6. In the context of GOVERNMENT property so granted or loaned to the public, the party in temporary custody of the property is legally defined as a "public officer" subject to DIRECT legislative control of Congress WITHOUT the need for implementing regulations pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §553(a),  and 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1).

   "“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.

   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]

7. Jurisdiction over government property extends EXTRATERRITORIALLY and INTERNATIONALLY, and thus grants can occur anywhere in the world and may cross state borders and reach into a Constitutional state of the Union.
8. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY GRANTED that allows government to abuse government property to CREATE new public offices.  This is a usurpation and an invasion of the states in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.
9.  This source of jurisdiction is the MAIN source of jurisdiction in the case of the income tax, which is an excise tax and a franchise tax upon federal offices legislatively created by Congress but usually implemented ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY within states of the Union, as described in Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052.

“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.

But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize [e.g. LICENSE using a Social Security Number] a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.”

[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]

God vehemently forbids Christians from participating in any grants or loans of government property and warns Christians that they will be CURSED if they participate.  This curse is the STRONGEST and SCARIEST curse in all the bible:

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]

The reason God forbids becoming and borrower of government property is that the legal relation created by the transaction, being a franchise or contract or agreement, causes conflicts of interest and allegiance and sin.   

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

_____________________

“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” or domiciliary in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God].  For if you serve their [government] gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]

______________________________________________________________________________________________

"I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.' But you have not obeyed Me.  Why have you done this?

"Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'"

So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.

[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]

God also says that the only thing that Christians are allowed to be in relation to any and all governments is Merchants. 

"For the Lord your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you."
[Deut. 15:6, Bible, NKJV]

"The Lord will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand.  You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow."
[Deut. 28:12, Bible, NKJV]

"You shall not charge interest to your brother--interest on money or food or anything that is lent out at interest." 
[Deut. 23:19, Bible, NKJV ]

"To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all to which you set your hand in the land which you are entering to possess."
[Deut. 23:20, Bible, NKJV]

For more information on the subject of franchises and their perils and pitfalls, see:

1. Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030.
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Family Guardian Fellowship (OFFSITE LINK)
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

For tools and tactics to FIGHT the EXTRATERRITORIAL abuse of franchises and the UNCONSTITUTIONAL grants of government property that implement them, see:

1. Hot Issues: Laws of Property, SEDM
   https://sedm.org/laws-of-property/
2. Authorities on Rights as Property, SEDM Blog
   https://sedm.org/authorities-on-rights-as-property/
3. Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.5 through 5.8
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
4. Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5. Private Right or Public Right? Course, Form #12.044
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
6. Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7. Proof of Claim:  Your Main Defense Against Government Greed and Corruption, Form #09.073
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
8. Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
9. Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
   https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
10. Administrative State:  Tactics and Defenses Course, Form #12.041
    https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

---

4.29. Benefit

The term “Benefit" means advantage; profit; fruit; gain; interest, and real consideration associated with a specific transaction which conveys a right or property interest to a specific status, class, or group lawfully requesting said "benefit" which:

1. Is not dispensed by an administrative agency of any state or federal government, but by a private individual.
2. Does not require the recipient to be an officer, agent, employee, or “personnel” within any government.
3. Is not called a “tax” or collected by the Internal Revenue Service, but is clearly identified as “private business activity beyond the core purposes of government”.
4. Does not confer upon the grantor any form of sovereign, official, or judicial immunity.
5. Is legally enforceable in OTHER than a franchise court or administrative agency.  That is, may be heard in equity within a true, Article III constitutional court and NOT a legislative franchise court.
6. True constitutional courts are provided in which to litigate disputes arising under the benefit and those with said disputes are not required to exhaust administrative remedies with an executive branch agency BEFORE they may litigate.  These constitutional courts are required to produce evidence that they are constitutional courts with OTHER than strictly legislative franchise powers when challenged by the recipients of said benefits.
7. The specific value of the consideration can be quantified at any time.
8. Monies paid in by the recipient to subsidize the program are entirely refundable if the benefits they pay for have not been received or employed either partially or in full.
9. Has all contributions paid in refunded if they die and never collect any benefits.
10. Participation in the program is not also attached to any other government program.  For instance, being a recipient of “social insurance” does not also make the recipient liable for unrelated or other federal  taxes.
11. The term “benefit” must be defined in the franchise agreement that dispenses it, and its definition may not be left to the subjective whims of any judge or jury.
12. If the “benefit” is financial, then it is paid in lawful money rather than Federal Reserve Notes, which are non-interest bearing promissory notes that are not lawful money and are backed by nothing.
13. The franchise must expressly state that participation is voluntary and that no one can be prosecuted or punished for failure to participate.
14. The identifying numbers, if any, that administer the program may not be used for identification and may not be shared with or used by any nongovernmental entity other than the recipient him or her self.
15. May not be heard by any judge, jurist, or prosecutor who is a recipient or beneficiary of the same benefit, because this would cause a conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455, 18 U.S.C. §597, and 18 U.S.C. §201.
16. During any litigation involving the “benefit”, both the grantor and the grantee share equal obligation to prove that equally valuable consideration was provided to the other party.  Note that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute lawful money or therefore consideration.
17. Does NOT include a return of monies UNLAWFULLY withheld against a non-taxpayer. It is not a commercial “benefit” or “purposeful availment” to have property STOLEN by a corrupted government returned to me.

Anything offered by the government that does not meet ALL of the above criteria is herein defined as an INJURY and a TORT.  Compelled participation is stipulated by both parties as being slavery in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §1583, 42 U.S.C. §1994, and the Thirteenth Amendment.

Receipt and/or acceptance of any government form by any government constitutes consent by the recipient of the application to use the above definition of “benefit” in any disputes that might arise over such acceptance.  The government recipient and its agents, employees, and assignees forfeit their right as private individuals acting in any government office to define the term “benefit” and agree to use ONLY the above definition.

Because the Submitter is ineligible for and does not seek any kind of “benefit” by submitting any of the attached forms, the Submitter and Recipient both stipulate that the perjury statement has no “materiality” or legal actionability because it cannot produce any kind of injury to the Recipient.

Parties stipulate that this definition applies to any and all past, present, or future forms they receive by any parties concerned with this disclaimer.

More on the subject of "benefit" can be found at:

1. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: "benefit" -legal authorities on "benefit"
2. Sovereignty and Freedom Points and Authorities, Litigation Tool #10.018, Section 4.10: "Benefits": ALLEGED but not ACTUAL public rights/property that CANNOT form lawful "consideration" in forming a lawful contract or civil statutory obligation
3. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) -Subjects those in receipt of "benefits" to DIRECT LEGISLATIVE CONTROL of congress. Watch out!
4. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 -Government "benefits" are illegally abused to establish unconstitutional franchises in the constitutional states of the Union
5. The Government "Benefits" Scam, Form #05.040 (Member Subscriptions)
6. Why the Government is the Only Real Beneficiary of All Government Franchises, Form #05.051 (Member Subscriptions)
7. Proof: How to Prove in Court that a So-Called Tax is REALLY an Illegal Extortion"** (Member Subscriptions)
8. U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2- Gives Congress the authority to DIRECTLY and legislatively control all those in receipt of "benefits", which are government property on loan to the recipient with legal strings attached.
9. Why the Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404 (Member Subscriptions)-income taxation is administered as a "benefit". The OFFICE of "taxpayer", "person", "individual", "citizen", and "resident" are legislatively created and granted property and all those who use or invoke these statuses are in receipt of a "benefit". If you doubt this, visit ID.ME and try to sign up for an account with the IRS. They are identified as a "benefit",

---

4.30. Weaponization of government

The process by which a classically governmental function is abused as a method to destroy or war against private rights, private property, common law remedies, constitutional remedies, or even personal choice and autonomy. The PERPETRATOR we call the RECRUITER and the VICTIM we call the PEON, VASSAL, and SLAVE. We describe the HAZARDS of participating in, NOT opposing, or benefiting from the "weaponization of government" on the opening page of our site as follows:

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.

[Family Guardian Website Opening Page; http://famugardian.org]

Below are the elements describing exactly what we mean by this term:

1. The result is:
   1.1. An INVOLUNTARY conversion of PRIVATE property, PRIVATE rights, and PRIVATE civil status into PUBLIC property, PUBLIC rights, and PUBLIC civil statutory status respectively.
   1.2 A destruction of the legal separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE. See:
   Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
   1.3 A government that has superior or supernatural powers in relation to the people it was created to SERVE from below rather than RULE from above.
   1.4 The creation of a ALLEGED but not ACTUAL consensual connection between a fictional office (the "franchisee") in the government and an otherwise PRIVATE human OUTSIDE the government.
   1.5 A destruction of equality of treatment and protection between the GOVERNORS and the GOVERNED. See:
   Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf
   1.6 The establishment of a civil or governmental religion in violation of the First Amendment. See:
   Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #054.016
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
   
2. Such activities:
   2.1 Work a purpose OPPOSITE of that of establishing government in the first place, which is EXCLUSIVELY the protection of PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights.
   2.2 Violate the Bill of Rights of the constitution of the government doing so.
   2.3 Violate the oath of office of those working in the government who conspire to engage in such activities.
   2.4 Result in a conversion of the government engaging in them from DE JURE to DE FACTO. See:
   De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.024
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf
3. The method of instituting this weaponization of government usually consists of illegal "bundling" of a WANTED service with an UNWANTED service, privilege or franchise. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE to avoid the UNWANTED service, privilege, or franchise, because:
   3.1 The government has a monopoly on the WANTED aspect of the product or service.
   3.2 Private industry is usually legally prohibited from offering the WANTED service. In some cases, the offering of the service is a criminal offense, in order to ENSURE and protect this criminal mafia racketeering.
4. The techniques described herein fit in the following CRIMINAL categories:
   4.1 Extortion. 18 U.S.C. §872. They are coercing you into a public office and franchise so you become a usually ONGOING sponsor of their criminal activities.
   4.2 Offer to procure appointive public office. 18 U.S.C. §210. Offering you the UNWANTED portion of the service, which is usually a public office, constitutes a criminal offer to procure the public office with the bribe of "benefits" that you technically aren't eligible for.
   4.3 Bribery of public officials and witnesses. 18 U.S.C. §201. The monies paid to the government under the coerced public office or fiction occupied by the victim of this extortion constitute bribes to a public official to treat you AS IF you are a real de jure public officer and to pay you "benefits" that only public officers can collect.
   4.4 Conflict of interest. 18 U.S.C. §208. A criminal financial conflict of interest is created in the people offering the WANTED service to market and compel the UNWANTED service to increase their revenues.
   4.5 Peonage and slavery. 18 U.S.C. §1581 and Thirteenth Amendment. The civil statutory obligations that attach to the compelled office that the VICTIM involuntarily occupies constitute PEONAGE.
   4.6 Impersonating a public officer. 18 U.S.C. §912. Government can only regulate its own officers. Those officers must, in turn, be lawfully elected, appointed, or hired and they NEVER are. Following proper appointment, election, or hiring protocol would, after all, inform you that you are a volunteer, and they can NEVER admit that they need your consent to regulate you.
5. Those in government engaging in such activities protect themselves from criminal consequences by:
   5.1 Abusing "equivocation" of key terms to make PUBLIC and PRIVATE indistinguishable.
   5.2 Playing stupid.
   5.3 Ensuring that people administering the program are NOT legally responsible or accountable for anything they say, write, or publish. See:
   Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf
   5.4 Compartmentalizing service personnel at the bottom by telling them to learn PROCEDURES and NEVER actual LAW. Thus, they can claim plausible deniability and never be prosecuted personally for their criminal activities. .
6. To ensure the continuation and protection of the weaponization of government, the corrupt government agents and employees engaging in it will:
   6.1 Hide forms for quitting the programs.
   6.2 Describe the program as "voluntary" but provide no regulations, forms, or internal procedures to QUIT.
   6.3 Not offer options on the application for the WANTED service any method of UNBUNDLING or REMOVING the UNWANTED service from the transaction.
   6.4 Define no statutory or regulatory terms which recognize ANYONE who has not volunteered for the UNWANTED service so that their PRIVATE rights can be legally recognized and even ADMINISTRATIVELY enforced.
   The above tactics, in a PRIVATE business context, would be referred to as "marketing".
7. To ensure that the government is never victimized by the above tactics by PRIVATE people using it against THEM, the corrupted and covetous government must implement SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY in its own case but DENY it to the sovereign people they serve:
   7.1 Government must claim to have sovereign immunity which requires EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT to surrender that sovereign immunity. By the way, the CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE sovereign immunity and there is therefore NO SUCH THING! See: Najim v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 935 (2019).
   7.2 The Sovereign People from whom that sovereign immunity was delegated DO NOT have sovereign immunity. Thus, sovereign immunity is a "supernatural power" the people as the "natural" cannot and do not possess.
   7.3 All people signing up for the SCAM UNWANTED service do so through usually IMPLIED rather than EXPRESS consent. Thus, they are UNAWARE that they are "electing" themself ILLEGALLY into a public office and joining the government by doing so. This constitutes fraud, because they are NOT ALLOWED to know that is what they are doing, and if they knew that was what they were doing, they would DEMAND the ability to NOT CONSENT to the UNWANTED service connected to the office and receive only the WANTED service or product. See:
   Proof That There Is a "Straw Man", Form #05.042
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf
   
8. Synonyms for this process include: adhesion contract, unconscionable contract, compelled franchise, compelled privilege, SLAVERY, PEONAGE, HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

Examples of government programs which usually implement "weaponization of government" as described above:

1. Passports. Most people use this document mainly for INTERSTATE travel and ID to conduct commerce, neither of which can be or should be "privileged" or regulated. Foreign travel use requests the PRIVILEGE of protection abroad is only secondary and should be optional. The Department of State should offer TWO passports, one for INTRAstate use and one for FOREIGN use, so that you have a "NONPRIVILEGED" version of the document that you can obtain WITHOUT the need to collect an SSN or TIN. Forcing applicants to provide an SSN or TIN to receive ANY kind of passport essentially bundles a DE FACTO public office with otherwise PRIVATE travel. That office is called "STATUTORY citizen" under 8 U.S.C. §1401, 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c), etc. See:
   Getting a USA Passport as a "State National", Form #10.013
   https://sedm.org/product/getting-a-usa-passport-as-a-state-national-form-10-013/
2. State "resident" ID. This id is intended primarily for use in commerce, and most people, if they had a choice, would AVOID the STATUTORY "resident" civil status and public office bundled with it.
3. Driver licensing. This id is intended primarily for use in commerce, and most people, if they had a choice, would AVOID the STATUTORY "driver" civil status and public office bundled with it.
4. Marriage licensing. Licensed marriage is a civil statutory privilege and a three party contract. A licensed marriage is polygamy with the state, and the state is the only one of the three parties who can rewrite the contract at will any time they wan. Thus, the state literally becomes god as the only party with superior or supernatural powers in violation of the First Amendment.
5. Professional licensing. Government uses licenses to institute in effect ECONOMIC EMBARGOES on all those who don't follow their rules. If you don't follow their rules and regulations, they take away the license.  In the absence of a license, you lose business and could literally starve in some cases.  The result is GENOCIDE.
6. Building permits. It's not your property if you need permission from the government to do anything to it that doesn't demonstrably injure others.
7. Property taxes. Through the Torrens Act and the building code, the state claims a shared ownership in the property and acquires absolute ownership. If you don't pay the property tax, they literally STEAL your property and all your equity. The absolute owner is the only party who can deprive other parties of the use of the property so they are the absolute owner.
8. The Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise. We presently have "currency", and not "money". Currency in turn is a debt instrument, and the effective lender is the PRIVATE, for profit, Federal Reserve. Every attempt to regulate the use of this fiat currency through money laundering statutes presupposes that those handling it are engaged in a public office in the national government. See:
   8.1 The Money Scam, Form #05.041
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf
   8.2 The Money Laundering Enforcement Scam, Form #05.044
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyLaunderingScam.pdf
9. Criminal courts, who will insist that you must be "REPRESENTED" essentially by a public officer and officer of the court with a criminal financial conflict of interest, or they won't allow litigation to proceed. See:
   Unlicensed Practice of Law, Form #05.029
   https://sedm.org/product/unlicensed-practice-of-law-form-05-029/

In the private commercial marketplace, such tactics by large corporations include the following:

1. The Google Android operating system:
   1.1 If phone manufacturers what to implement on their phone, must agree to use Google Search as their default search engine.
   1.2 Developers who want to sell their apps in the Google Play store must run all payments through the Google Play payment system and pay a commission to Google. They are NOT allowed to have their OWN private app store or payment platform.
2. The Apple IOS operating system. Vendors who want to offer their apps in the Apple Store must use the Apple payment platform and pay an exorbitant 30% of all revenues their app collects, even if it isn't the sale of their app initially. This is extortion.
3. The Microsoft Windows operating system. For years, Microsoft mandated that the Internet Explorer browser had to be installed as the default browser on all new PC's sold, or the manufacturer could not buy Windows to install on their computer.
4. Amazon marketplace. Third party vendors who sell on Amazon must agree in writing when they sign up to NEVER offer the products they sell on Amazon at a LOWER price than the Amazon price.
5. Banks. Most banks COMPEL you ILLEGALLY into a public office called a STATUTORY "U.S. Person" in order to open a bank account, even though it is ILLEGAL to occupy or elect yourself into such an office. They do this by refusing to accept the W-8 form and mandating the use of the W-9 form to open an account, even though the W-9 doesn't apply to most Americans. See:
   "U.S. Person" Position, Form #05.052
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/USPersonPosition.pdf
   
6. Money Service Businesses (MSBs) such as Western Union. They require you to provide an SSN in order to obtain a reloadable gift card and claim that "the law" mandates this.
   6.1 Their basis for doing so is usually "anti-money laundering" statutes (not "laws", but "statutes") that DO NOT apply to the average American. See:
   The Money Laundering Enforcement Scam, Form #05.044
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyLaunderingScam.pdf
   6.2 No law mandates that a state national and nonresident alien not engaged in the "trade or business" franchise must have or use an SSN or TIN, but the ILLEGALLY refuse to allow prospective cardholders to claim this status or avoid the SSN/TIN requirement. See:
   About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.202
   https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8BEN/AboutIRSFormW-8BEN.htm
7. Private employers accepting job applicants. They say you MUST fill out a W-4 and will not accept a W-8 in order to obtain a job, NOT as an "employee", but simply as a "worker" who is NOT a statutory government "employee". See
   Federal and State Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001
   https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/FedStateWHOptions.pdf

The European Union has previously SANCTIONED large corporations to the tune of billions of dollars of penalties connected with the above tactics, which they label in court as "anti-competitive behavior". Why aren't they applying the SAME tactics to THEMSELVES, as far as the MONEY system? For instance, why aren't PRIVATE companies allowed to have private money systems and not connect those who use them into a public office illegally? Every time someone tries to do this, they get RAIDED illegally under the guise of "know your customer rules" that don't apply to private people. This has happened with eGold, Bitclub, Liberty Dollar, National Barter Association, and MANY others. Litigating against these entities can only have one purpose: Protect a de facto monopoly on money that the Constitution does NOT EXPRESSLY authorize and which is therefore FORBIDDEN. See:

1. The Money Scam, Form #05.041
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf
2. Why It Is Illegal for You to Enforce Money Laundering Statutes In My Specific Case, Form #06.046
   https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/MonLaundEnfIllegal.pdf
3. Money Laundering Enforcement Scam, Form #05.044
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyLaunderingScam.pdf
   

The main purpose of ELIMINATING all "weaponization of government" as described above is to:

1. Pursue "justice", which is legally defined as the "right to be left alone" by everyone, INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY government. See:
   What is "Justice"?, Form #05.050
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhatIsJustice.pdf
2. Restore the constitutional separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE. The Constitution is a TRUST indenture, and the main "benefit" it delivers, in fact, is PRIVATE PROPERTY! See:
   Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
3. Restore government to it's DE JURE functions and eliminate all DE FACTO practices. See:
   De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf
4. Eliminate the "Administrative State" that depends for its entire existence upon the ILLEGAL creation of the public offices that animate and implement the above FRAUD upon the people. See:
   Administrative State: Tactics and Defenses Course, Form #12.041
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AdminState.pdf
5. To eliminate the criminal activities and criminal financial conflicts of interest in both the judiciary and the legal profession created by the above.

---

4.31 Rules for interpreting words or terms that are not expressly defined

Other than the words defined above, all words used on this website and in the materials on it shall:

1. Have only the common meaning ascribed to them.
2. Be associated with the EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE status beyond the reach of civil statutory law.
3. NOT be construed in any way to have the statutory meaning found in any federal or state law.
4. NOT be associated with a "public office", "publici juris", or "public interest", or anything within the CIVIL jurisdiction of any state or federal court.
5. Be subject to enforcement only in the context of the common law where perfect equity and equality is enforced between the government and any and every human being.

The only exception to this rule is that when a word is surrounded in quotation marks and preceded or succeeded by an indication of the legal definition upon which it is based, then and only then will it assume the legal definition. 

The legal or statutory definitions for words used by this ministry in turn:

1. Shall be based FIRST upon statutory definitions provided.
2. Shall conclusively be presumed to EXCLUDE the ordinary or EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE civil context for the meaning of words.  This is because the ability to regulate EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE conduct is REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION as held by the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. Shall rely FIRST on the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Cites By Topic for the statutory definitions.
4. May not ADD anything not EXPRESSLY appearing in any statute in which they are defined, if a statutory definition is provided. Any attempt to do so shall be interpreted as TREASON by the judge or government prosecutor who attempts it.
   

   "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term "means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'"); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read "as a whole," post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction -- "the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial portion," indicate the contrary."
   [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]

The purpose of this requirement is to eliminate ALL presumptions from any legal proceeding about what we might write or say so that such false and unauthorized presumptions cannot be used to discredit or slander us or prejudice our rights or sovereignty.  For instance, here are two examples:

Statement from this website	Meaning
Wages are not taxable	Earnings from labor of a human being that do not fit the description of "wages" defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3 are not taxable without the consent of the subject.
"Wages" are taxable	Wages as defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) and 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3 ARE taxable because they fit the legal description of "wages".

Key to Capitalization Conventions within Laws.  Whenever you are reading a particular law, including the U.S. Constitution, or a statute, the Sovereign referenced in that law, who is usually the author of the law, is referenced in the law with the first letter of its name capitalized.  For instance, in the U.S. Constitution the phrase “We the People”, “State”, and “Citizen” are all capitalized, because these were the sovereign entities who were writing the document residing in the States.  This document formed the federal government and gave it its authority.  Subsequently, the federal government wrote statutes to implement the intent of the Constitution, and it became the Sovereign, but only in the context of those territories and lands ceded to it by the union states.  When that federal government then refers in statutes to federal “States”, for instance in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) or 4 U.S.C. §110(d), then these federal “States” are Sovereigns because they are part of the territory controlled by the Sovereign who wrote the statute, so they are capitalized.  Foreign states referenced in the federal statutes then must be in lower case.  The sovereign 50 union states, for example, must be in lower case in federal statutes because of this convention because they are foreign states.  Capitalization is therefore always relative to who is writing the document, which is usually the Sovereign and is therefore capitalized.  The exact same convention is used in the Bible, where all appellations of God are capitalized because they are sovereigns:  “Jesus" ”, “God”, “Him”, “His”, “Father”.  These words aren’t capitalized because they are proper names, but because the entity described is a sovereign or an agent or part of the sovereign.  The only exception to this capitalization rule is in state revenue laws, where the state legislators use the same capitalization as the Internal Revenue Code for “State” in referring to federal enclaves within their territory because they want to scam money out of you.  In state revenue laws, for instance in the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) sections 17018 and 6017, “State” means a federal State within the boundaries of California and described as part of the Buck Act of 1940 found in 4 U.S.C. §§105-113. 

Terms in Quotation Marks:  Whenever a term appears in quotation marks, we are using the statutory or regulatory definition of the term instead of the layman’s or dictionary definition.  We do this to clarify which definition we mean and to avoid creating the kind of confusion with definitions that our government and the unethical lawyers who work in it are famous for.  For instance, when we use say “employee”, we mean the statutory definition of that term found in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) and  26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c)-1 rather than the common definition everyone uses, which means anyone who receives compensation for their labor.  “Employees” are much more narrowly defined in the Internal Revenue Code to mean elected or appointed officers of the U.S. government only.  We also put terms in quotation marks if they are new or we just introduced the term, to emphasize that we are trying to explain what the word means.

Geographical terms:  The following geographical definitions apply in the reading of all law.

What the above table clearly shows is that the word “State” in the context of federal statutes and regulations means (not includes!) federal States only under Title 48 of the U.S. Code[4], and these areas do not include any of the 50 Union States.  This is true in most cases and especially in the Internal Revenue Code.  The lower case word “state” in the context of federal statutes and regulations means one of the 50 union states, which are “foreign states”, and “foreign countries” with respect to the federal government as clearly explained in section 5.2.11 of the Great IRS Hoax book.  In the context of the above, a “Union State” means one of the 50 Union states of the United States* (the country, not the federal United States**) mentioned in the Constitution for the United States of America.

---

FOOTNOTES:

5.  AUTHOR(S) OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS

In the final analysis, it simply doesn't matter who the authors are, because:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137; 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803),  that we are a "society of law, and not of men".  Therefore, the law must contain a complete and unambiguous description of everything the government can lawfully require from you and must be comprehensible by everyone in society or else it is void for vagueness and unenforceable.
2. This disclaimer requires that readers are not allowed to rely on any man or woman, including us, as their basis of belief.  Instead, they may only rely on the authorities described in the pamphlet Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007 (OFFSITE LINK).
3. Those who do not want to take responsibility for justifying and defending their own beliefs about the law are allowed to read this website but may not "use" the materials on this website to interact with the third parties in the government, courts, or legal profession as indicated in section 2 above, Intended Audience.
4. The de facto and so-called "government" has already repeatedly affirmed that everything on this website is truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law.  Click here for details.
5. Thomas Jefferson said on this subject:

   "It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice [including us] to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence [in ANY man] is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution [and positive law enacted consistent with the Constitution that acts as legal evidence]."
   [Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388]

The identity of the several authors who post materials on this website is considered secret, and this is done to protect them from becoming targets for persecution because of their decision to exercise their First Amendment rights.  What we do is the equivalent of "anonymous pamphleteering".  Everything on this website, in fact, is the equivalent of "anonymous pamphlets" as far as our participation is concerned.  Even the Supreme Court has acknowledged that this approach is an honorable undertaking protected by the First Amendment:

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. 4 Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. 5 Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

[. . .]

The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices. 362 U.S. 60 . Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 56 (1994) (footnote omitted), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. 6 This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation.

[. . .]

“Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent.  Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority”
[McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995)]

---

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." 
[Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)]

Since we are all God's agents and fiduciaries, then we want all glory and praise and thanks to go only to Him, and not us or any man.  Since this is a charitable ministry, the Holy Bible also says this must be so:

"Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites [lawyers and politicians] do in the synagogues and in the streets [and in jury trials, SCUM!], that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.^" 
[Matt. 6:1-4, Bible, NKJV]

Therefore, "secrecy", at least in the context of this ministry, is a "religious practice" and an exercise of religious rights that is protected by the First Amendment (OFFSITE LINK) to the United State Constitution. Also, since the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws and because our opponent, the IRS, insists on protecting the identity of its employees in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), then we are entitled to "equal protection under the law" as mandated by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (OFFSITE LINK).

We therefore have a solemn and binding contract with our users and more importantly with God Himself not to reveal any information about our authors and contributors to any third party.  In fulfillment of that binding contract:

1. Information about our authors and Users is considered copyrighted, and a trade secret, and protected contractually from disclosure.
2. We cannot and will not maintain any records about our authors or Users.  All information that might produce an audit trail will be destroyed immediately.
3. We cannot and will not ask for, use, or maintain information or records about people’s interactions with the Internal Revenue Service or state taxing authorities, including information about Social Security Numbers, Taxpayer Identification Numbers, etc.
4. If disclosure is ordered by any third party, we are obligated to:
   4.1.  Demand evidence and probable cause of wrongdoing and to not disclose any information without demonstrated probable cause.  Such information must be provided by a third party who does not work for the government, receive any government benefit based on income taxes, or receive employment wages derived from income taxes.
   4.2.  Demand payment of $2 Million dollars from the inquiring party prior to disclosure, and to give you the proceeds of any penalties paid.

The government cannot and will not be allowed to interfere with this contract we have with our authors, contributors, or Users, and the Supreme Court has said that the government is without authority to interfere with our private right to contract.  See Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1878). 

6.  COPYRIGHT/SOFTWARE/USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

This website consists of privileged copyrighted information and computer software.  Downloading any of the information here, using it in any legal proceeding against the copyright holder,  communicating with the website administrator or copyright holder(s) constitutes unconditional consent by those engaging in such activities to abide by the mandatory Copyright and Software User License Agreement below and applying to all information appearing on this website and all forms of communications with us:

1. Never use or abuse the materials or services provided on this website for or in connection with:
   

   1.1  An illegal purpose that violates any enacted positive law which applies within the jurisdiction where you are situated or domiciled.

   1.2  An unlawful purpose.

   1.3  An injurious purpose cognizable under the common law of the jurisdiction where you are situated.

2. Take full complete, exclusive, and personal responsibility for the consequences of any violations of law or injuries that might occur by virtue of using the materials or services available through this website.
3. Never register a complaint about this website or its contents to any law enforcement or government organization.  Nothing this ministry does is actionable on the part of those who use the information herein.
4. Never provide evidence about their experiences to law enforcement or government that might be used to prosecute or punish the Ministry, any agent or officer, or any User.
5. Compensate the Author, Users, and Ministry in full for legal and attorney fees and personal time associated with defending himself against any complaints registered by or evidence provided by the user to either government or law enforcement regarding this website, the materials on it, or any communications with us.
6. Substitute himself/herself as being liable for any judgments against this Ministry or its agents or Users relating to complaints filed by him/her or evidence provided by him/her to third parties or litigation initiated by him/her which result in prosecution of this ministry or its agents.
7. If any evidence or information is used from this website in a court trial, then the party to the suit calling the witness AND the witness submitting it to any court stipulates with the Ministry as a condition of the copyright license, pursuant to Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. 29 and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:

   7.1  To admit THE ENTIRE website into evidence (except the rebuttal letters), including but not limited to the Tax Deposition CD, Form #11.301, the Family Guardian Website DVD, Form #11.103, the Great IRS Hoax book, etc..  No part of the website can be admitted without the ENTIRE website also being admitted and subject to examination by the jury.

   7.2  That everything contained on this website is factual, truthful, actionable, and accurate IN THEIR CASE but not in the case of any other Member or officer of the Ministry.

   7.3  To take complete and personal and exclusive responsibility for all consequences arising out of the nature of evidence they provide as being factual or actionable.

8. Agree never to refer to anything on this website as an "investment", "tax shelter", "business", or "trade or business" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, or anything other than religious worship.  None of the donations made to this ministry are refundable, and therefore they cannot be referred to as "investments", nor are ministry offerings available to "taxpayers", who are the only proper audience for "tax shelters" to begin with.
9. If any litigation results from the materials or information offered here or their use:
   

   9.1  Users agree to litigate ONLY in a state court WITH a jury trial under the laws of the state and not the federal government, and to allow the jury to rule on BOTH the facts AND the law. No member of the jury or the judge may be either a "taxpayer", a statutory "U.S. citizen" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1401, or be in receipt of any government benefit, to ensure that the trial is completely impartial.  They also agree to allow us to say anything we want to the jury and call any witnesses we wish, and not to object to or rule out any of our testimony or our witnesses.

   9.2  If the party using the materials off this website for litigation is any state or federal government, then they stipulate with the accused party to answer the admissions and interrogatories at the end of all Memorandums of Law on the Forms/Pubs Page, Section 1.5 (OFFSITE LINK) and the admissions in all Tax Deposition Questions in their entirety on a signed affidavit, and to provide at least  an "Admit" or "Deny" answer to each question.  Any question not answered by the government or its agents shall be deemed to be "Admit".  They also stipulate to admit their response to the questions into evidence in any trial involving this website or the activities of the ministry or its officers, volunteers, or members.

   9.3  None of the persons called as witnesses by either side at any trial involving this ministry may work for the federal or state government, receive retirement benefits from the government, receive financial benefits of any kind from the government, nor be "taxpayers", "statutory U.S. citizens", or statutory "U.S. residents". This will ensure that the all witnesses called will be completely objective, neutral, and unbiased.

   9.4  Users and readers of our materials stipulate that their duty and allegiance to abide by this agreement is superior to their employment duties and any other agency they may claim to be exercising.   Judicial, sovereign, or official immunity are therefore subordinate to the terms of this agreement.  Readers and users of our materials agree that any and all lawsuits in which they are participants acting by or for or as witnesses for the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be filed by them personally, regardless of the party which they claim to be representing or which is named on the Complaint.  For instance if a government attorney named "John Doe" quotes or uses our licensed materials in any legal proceeding in which he or she is the Plaintiff or an agent for the Plaintiff, and files the lawsuit in the name of the "United States", this agreement stipulates that the definition of "United States" or "United States of America" shall instead mean "John Doe" and John Doe stipulates that he is acting by and on his own behalf and not on the behalf of the government of the states united by and under the Constitution of the United States of America.  This will ensure that the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney does not try to claim that he had no authority to bind the U.S. government to abide by this agreement.  An important implication of this provision is that if John Doe prosecutes this case on paid time for the U.S. Government, then he can and will be fired and disciplined for conducting private business on company time. 

10. Users who violate this agreement, who work either directly for the government in the legal or tax profession or as contractors for these functions, and who participate as either witnesses, informants, or representatives in any litigation directed against this ministry or its volunteers, members agree to a personal liability/fine of $300,000 payable out of their private funds and which they agree NOT to accept reimbursement for from the government. Payment shall occur BEFORE any trial is heard which involves them and is against this ministry.
11. Always use the very latest version of any information and this agreement provided on this website in any litigation, and to dispose of and stipulate NOT to admit into evidence any information that it older.  They agree to apply the current terms of this agreement retroactively to any behavior of theirs that might adversely affect this website or ministry, and especially in respect to any litigation they might initiate or become involved in that is against this ministry, its agents, or participants.  Ministry reserves the right to modify the terms of this agreement without notice to User and User waives the right to complain about or challenge this provision.
12. Bring any inaccurate statements noted on this website, in any educational materials we provide, or in any of our statements to our attention immediately at the time noticed and give us an opportunity to remedy it BEFORE pursuing either: 1. A refund for a bookstore item the statement was contained in, so that we may correct it and send the correction to you without the need for a refund or; 2. Any litigation or injunctions against us because any information provided is erroneous. If we are physically able to correct the erroneous information, then we will do so as soon as practicable, provided that your comments are accompanied with credible, admissible evidence that the information provided is erroneous. We cannot correct an allegedly erroneous statement without court admissible evidence proving it is erroneous or inaccurate. If this requirement is not heeded by the reader, then the reader agrees to
    

    12.1  Forfeit 50% of their pay as a federal public servant for the remainder of their life, and donate it to this ministry to help those who have been hurt by your failure to correct erroneous information provided on this website.  This is in satisfaction of the IRS website's Mission Statement, which says in IRM Section 1.1.1.1 that the mission of the IRS is to "Provide Americas taxpayers top quality service by helping them [correctly] understand and meet their tax responsibilities with integrity and fairness all."

    12.2  Pay the Author $10,000,000 prior to any litigation relating to false statements on this website and to not testify at all if they cannot pay the damages.

13. If readers find anything in any our publications which conflict with other information on this website or which conflicts with itself, you agree to presume that what is written is fiction and bring it to our attention immediately so that we may promptly correct the conflict.  This applies even to conflicts that a reader was not aware of at the time they first read something.
14. If you as a reader work for any government or as an agent, withholding agent, or public officer in relation to any government, you agree to be bound by the following franchise protecting the materials and services available through this website:
      Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
      FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
      DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf
15. User agrees to be bound by the Limited Power of Attorney described at the link below:

http://famguardian.org/LPOA.pdf

The purpose of the above license agreement is not to condone or advocate illegal, injurious, or criminal behavior of any kind by this ministry, its officers, or its members, but instead to: 

1. Protect the First Amendment rights of the author.
2. Discourage and prevent anti-whistleblowing activity on the part of public servants directed against this website.
3. Further the ends of liberty and justice for ALL, which is the sole function of this website and the object of our pledge of allegiance.
4. Help eliminate ignorance, fear, and presumption of the average American towards the legal and judicial process  through education and personal empowerment.
5. Encourage you, the reader, to take complete and exclusive and personal responsibility for yourself and to prevent you from transferring that responsibility in any form to us. It would be completely hypocritical of us to on the one hand say we want to encourage personal responsibility, but then on the other hand tell people that they can transfer any part of the responsibility for themselves, their lives, or their choices to us.
6. Provide strong protections for you and your Fourth Amendment privacy and personal data by ensuring that our organization is never infiltrated by government moles who mean to do anyone harm.
7. Ensure that we are LEFT ALONE, which the Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled is a Constitutional Right:

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting);  see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]

Therefore, it cannot be said that the above license agreement has any illegal purpose whatsoever that might render it unenforceable in a court of law.

7.  BASIS FOR BELIEF

In consideration of the valuable copyrighted and licensed information and computer software available on this website, the reader/user and this ministry jointly agree on all of the following facts related to the ministry and the offerings of the ministry.  Those who don't unconditionally agree and stipulate to these terms should not be viewing or using this website or obtaining or using any of the materials or services offered here.

The materials on this site are not legal advice or legal opinions on any specific matters. Legal advice involves applying the law to your specific and unique situation, which is your responsibility and not our responsibility. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between the author(s) and the reader. The opinions expressed on this website and the documents it displays are those of the author(s), or the researcher(s) or content providers and the only authorized audience are those same author(s) and researcher(s). You must validate and verify the accuracy of this information for yourself with your own research, legal education, experience, and the advice of a competent legal and/or tax professional who is NOT licensed by a corrupted government to gag them from telling you the truth and create a conflict of interest.    Readers should not act upon this information without first getting fully educated using the materials provided here and elsewhere.

The ONLY sources which may be relied upon to completely and accurately represent the policies of the owner of this website consist in the following:

  Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007

You as the user agree not to hold us to a higher standard of accountability than the IRS or the government itself.  The IRS claims in section 4.10.7.2.8 of its own Internal Revenue Manual that you cannot rely on its publications, which include its tax preparation forms.  The courts have also said that you cannot rely on the IRS' telephone support personnel or its Internal Revenue Manual.  Therefore, we will not be held to a higher standard than the IRS for our publications, statements, or actions, which include everything on this website, or for anything we say or write.  We make all the same disclaimer statements about our publications, statements, and support as the IRS, in fact, which means we can have no liability for anything we produce.  Click here for our article on this subject.

"Behold, the wicked brings forth iniquity;
Yes, he conceives trouble and brings forth falsehood [in their publications and their phone support],
He made a pit and dug it out,
And has fallen into the ditch [this disclaimer] which he made.
His trouble shall return upon his own head,
And his violent dealing shall come down on his own [deceitful] crown."
[Psalm 7:14-16, Bible, NKJV]

Everything appearing on this website is based entirely on publications, forms, statements, laws, and regulations published or made by the government. If you find that the information is erroneous, then you should be suing the government, not us.  Furthermore, it is a mandatory obligation of the license agreement and the system of membership protecting our materials to promptly notify both us and the government of their mistake so that both of us may prevent any harm from the government's mistake.  Furthermore, if  the government wishes to sue or prosecute this ministry or its officers for exercising its First Amendment rights, then they MUST sue the principal, and not the agent.   We are acting entirely and only as a fiduciary for God himself, and so you need to sue God and not us for the statements and actions of this ministry in obedience to God's laws and calling on this ministry, and doing so will cause you to prosecute yourself, not only because of the Copyright License agreement connected with all ministry materials, but also because you are tampering with federal witnesses of extensive criminal activity by specific public servants.

We make no guarantees about the effectiveness of anything appearing on this website, nor do we profit in any way from the information presented.  This website is strictly offered as a free educational public service designed to:

1. Encourage freedom and liberty, which means promoting a much smaller and more limited federal government than we have now.
2. Encourage self-government and self-reliance and completely eliminate any need for or dependence on government.  This way, people won't need the government or the law profession or lawyers to be involved in their lives anymore.
3. Encourage the values that made this country great, including patriotism, faith in God, morality, personal responsibility, and strong reliance on family.
4. Educate the reader about the federal and state statutes and regulations and about any conflicts these laws might have with God's laws.
5. Ensure that both the reader and more importantly their government, obeys all laws and does not harm or abuse those within or without the jurisdiction of the government.
6. Encourage people to be more involved in the governing process.
7. Encourage an ethical and moral government that protects our Constitutional rights.

8.  GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT WITH OUR MATERIALS AND INVITATION TO REBUT EVIDENCE OF GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING

The materials on this website have been extensively reviewed for accuracy by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service (a PRIVATE, for profit corporation owned by the U.S. government), and the Federal Judiciary and nothing was found herein that is violative of any law, false, fraudulent, or injurious.  Click here for details.  We invite and always have invited anyone from the government or law enforcement to rebut the overwhelming evidence found on this website that specific agencies and persons working within the government are engaging in illegal and injurious behavior.  We insist that anyone in government contact us within ten days through our Contact Us page as soon as they find anything that is illegal, injurious, false, or fraudulent or forever be estopped beyond that point from pursuing any kind of criminal prosecution or enforcement activity.  The noteworthy failure of the government to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of our materials.

If the government wants to assert that any of the religious statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must meet that burden of proof consistent with the following: 

1. Government Burden of Proof, Form #05.025 (OFFSITE LINK)
2. Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007 (OFFSITE LINK)
3. Proof of Claim: Your Main Defense Against Government Greed and Corruption, Form #09.073 (OFFSITE LINK)

The best way to prove us wrong is simply to:

1. Provide a list of errata containing the page address, page #, line number, and inaccurate statement located on this website.  Notice we didn't say "false", because nothing on this website is factual or legally actionable except the things expressly listed in section 1 of this disclaimer.
2. Answer the questions contained in the Test for Federal Tax Professionals.
3. Answer the questions at the end of all of the Memorandums of Law, SEDM Forms Page, Section 1.5 (OFFSITE LINK).
4. Answer the Tax Deposition Questions.
5. Rebut the document "Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid".
6. Rebut the document "Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments Against This Website" (OFFSITE LINK).
7. Rebut the rebutted version of the  IRS Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments.
8. Rebut the rebutted Congressional Research Service "Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax".
9. To indicate the legal authority upon which you relied in that determination based on the Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007 document above.
10. To sign your submission under penalty of perjury pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6065.
11. To waive official, judicial, and sovereign immunity and agree to take exclusive, personal, legal responsibility for the accuracy of your submission and agree to be sued if they are false. 

Your submission will be promptly posted on our website for all to read and will be implemented if sufficient evidence exists to prove our materials inconsistent with reality.

If the government believes that our materials suggest, aide, abet, or sanction illegal, injurious, or criminal activity, they as public officers have a fiduciary duty to us as the public to bring that to our attention immediately so that it can be promptly fixed. A failure to rebut our materials promptly or provide legally admissible evidence that they are wrong:

1. Constitutes an equitable estoppel from civil liability pursuant to Fed.Rul.Civ.P. 8(b)(6).
2. Makes those in government who have read our materials guilty of:

   2.1  Conspiracy to defraud the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §371.

   2.2  Accessory after the fact pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3.

   2.3  Misprision of felony pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4.

Remember:  Every tax crime has willfulness as a prerequisite.  You must inform us something is wrong before it can BE wrong, and that notification MUST be in court admissible, affidavit form signed under penalty of perjury with your real legal birthname, agreeing to take responsibility personally if your information is wrong, and providing the address where you can be personally served with legal papers if in fact you are wrong or fraudulent.

9.  APPROACH TOWARDS VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM

The legal education we provide to the public has the practical effect of empowering people to seek non-violent, legal and peaceful remedies to their problems RATHER than undertaking looting, killing, rioting, and even civil war to procure those remedies. Thus our teachings and advocacy PREVENT violence rather than advocate it.

This website was also established to prevent terrorism, not promote it.  We define any attempt to deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without their express consent manifested in a way that only they define as an act of terrorism.  We believe that there are only two types of governments: 

1. Government by consent (OFFSITE LINK).
2. Terrorist government (OFFSITE LINK)

Any attempt by any government to civilly govern or enforce, whether by civil STATUTORY law or franchise/contract law, without the express and continuing consent of those governed is an act of terrorism.

Original (pre-Orwellian) Definition of the Word "Terrorism" Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1946)

We don't object to the enforcement of the CRIMINAL statutory laws or the common law mandated in the Constitution, because these may be enforced WITHOUT consent in some form. We are NOT anarchists against all statutory law, as revealed in the following presentation:

Problems with Atheistic Anarchism, Form #08.020
SLIDES: https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ProbsWithAtheistAnarchism.pdf
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/n883Ce1lML0

For a representation of the kind of government terrorism we oppose, see:

1. Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018, Sections 5 and 7 (OFFSITE LINK)
2. De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043 (OFFSITE LINK)
3. Terrorism Playlist (OFFSITE LINK)- SEDM
4. Government Corruption (OFFSITE LINK)
5. Government Terror - Brasscheck TV
6.  I Want To Be A Spy
   http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crime/Humor/AshcroftSpy.mp3
7. The REAL Matrix (OFFSITE LINK)
8. Devil's Advocate: Lawyers
9. We Bomb for Cash
10. How the World Works
11. Pirates and Emperors
12. Government Mafia
13. If I Were The Devil (OFFSITE LINK)-Paul Harvey
14. Terrorstorm (OFFSITE LINK)
15. We are Preparing for Massive Civil War, Says DHS Informant (OFFSITE LINK)
16. Is the United States of America a leading terrorist state? (OFFSITE LINK)-Noam Chomsky
17. Statism and Terrorism - your government is terrorist.
18. Securiotic -how governments have created a fictional war on terror to themselves become terrorists
19. Amazing Speech by War Veteran-he identifies the REAL terrorists.
20. Party in the CIA.

For a list of specific government terrorist activities we oppose, see:

Ministry Introduction Course, Form #12.014, pp. 12-14 (OFFSITE LINK)

THIS WEBSITE CONDEMNS ANY AND ALL VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE PLANNING, VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND OR THOUGHT CRIME, AND AS SUCH CONTAINS NO SUCH INFORMATION OR LINKS TO SUCH INFORMATION.

This website is in full compliance with H.R. 1955 , and  Section 318, 319  of the Criminal Code of Canada and as such condemns and does not retain any information, plans, support, of a  terrorist or violent  propaganda, and or radicalization nature, and does not conduct, plan, or retain any forms of violent thoughts, feelings, impulses, moods, subconscious thought, primal urges, sexual cravings, hunger pains, restless leg twitches, rapid eye flutters, and or skin tone blemishes which may be mistook for a pre-anger flush.  All fonts, typesets, font colors of a red nature are not - *NOT* to be mistaken for an angry tone or mistakenly linked to a violent radicalization agenda. Source files of interviews or MP3 files are strictly those of the authors and do NOT reflect the intent, mood or thoughts of the author(s) of this website.

10.  APPROACH TOWARDS "HATE SPEECH", AND HATE CRIME

This website does not engage in, condone, or support hate speech or hate crimes,  violent thoughts, deeds or actions against any particular person(s), group, entity, government, mob, paramilitary force, intelligence agency, overpaid politician, head of state, queen, dignitary, ambassador, spy, spook, soldier, bowl cook, security flunky, contractor, dog, cat or mouse, Wal-Mart employee, amphibian, reptile, and or deceased entity without a  PB (Physical Body). By "hate speech" and "hate crime", we mean in the context of religious members of this site trying to practice their faith:

1. Compelling members to violate any aspect of the Laws of the Bible, Form #13.001. This includes commanding them to do things God forbids or preventing or punishing them from doing God commands.
2. Persecution or "selective enforcement" directed against those whose religious beliefs forbid them from contracting with, doing business with, or acquiring any civil status in relation to any and all governments. These people must be "left alone" by law and are protected in doing so by the First Amendment and the right to NOT contract protected by the Constitution. The group they refuse to associate with is civil statutory "persons". We call these people "non-resident non-persons" on this site as described in Form #05.020. See Proof That There Is a "Straw Man", Form #05.042 for a description of the civil "person" scam.
3. Engaging in legal “injustice” (Form #05.050). By "justice" we mean absolutely owned private property (Form #10.002), and equality of TREATMENT and OPPORTUNITY (Form #05.033) under REAL LAW (Form #05.048). "Justice" is defined here as God defines it in Form #05.050.
4. Any attempt to treat anyone unequally under REAL "law". This includes punishing or preventing actions by members to enforce against governments under their own franchise (Form #06.027) the same way governments enforce against them. See What is "law"?, Form #05.048.
5. Offering, implementing, or enforcing any civil franchise (Form #05.030).  This enforces superior powers on the part of the government as a form of inequality, results in religious idolatry, and violates the First Commandment of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20).  This includes:
   5.1 Making justice (Form #05.050) into a civil public privilege
   5.2 Turning  CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE citizens into STATUTORY PUBLIC citizens engaged in a public office and a franchise.
   5.3 Any attempt to impose equality of OUTCOME by law, such as by abusing taxing powers to redistribute wealth.  See Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302.
   Franchises are the main method of introducing UNEQUAL treatment by the government. See Why You Are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006.
6. Any attempt to outlaw or refuse to recognize or enforce absolutely owned private property (Form #12.025). This makes everyone into slaves of the government, which then ultimately owns ALL property and can place unlimited conditions upon the use of their property. It also violates the last six commandments of the Ten Commandments, which are the main religious laws that protect PRIVATE property and prevent it from being shared with any government. This includes:
   6.1 Refusing to provide civil statuses on government forms that recognize those who are exclusively private and their right to be left alone.
   6.2 Refusing to provide government forms that recognize those who are exclusively private such as "nontaxpayers" or "non-resident non-persons" and their right to be left alone.
   The result of the above forms of omission are hate, discrimination, and selective enforcement against those who refuse to become "customers" or franchisees (Form #05.030) of government. See Avoiding Traps in Government Forms, Form #12.023.
7. Any attempt by government to use judicial process or administrative enforcement to enforce any civil obligation derived from any source OTHER than express written consent or to an injury against the equal rights of others demonstrated with court admissible evidence.  See Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course, Form #12.040.

There is no practical difference between discriminating against or targeting people because of the groups they claim membership in and punishing them for refusing to consent to join a group subject to legal disability, such as those participating in government franchises. Members of such DISABILITY groups include civil statutory "persons", "taxpayers", "individuals" (under the tax code), "drivers" (under the vehicle code), "spouses" (under the family code). Both approaches lead to the same result: discrimination and selective enforcement. The government claims an exemption from being a statutory "person", and since it is a government of delegated powers, the people who gave it that power must ALSO be similarly exempt:

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government."
[Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F. 939 @ 943]

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
[Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979)]

"Since in common usage the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
[U.S. v. Cooper, 312 U.S. 600,604, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)]

"In common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so."
[U.S. v. Cooper, 312 U.S. 600,604, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)]

"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld."
[Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)]

The foundation of the religious beliefs and practices underlying this website is a refusal to:

1. Civilly or legally associate with any specific secular (pagan) government (Form #05.002) under their statutory franchises or "social compacts".
2. Acquire any "civil status" under any civil statutory enactment, including but not limited to "person", "indivdiual", "taxpayer", "U.S. person", etc. See: Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008.
3. Approach any government as a Buyer of their services or programs (Form #05.001) under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a).
4. Be anything OTHER than a Merchant selling absolutely owned, constitutionally protected private property under U.C.C. §2-104(1) under terms that only WE specify. The terms of the sale are specified in the Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027.
   

   "For the Lord your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations [governments and their officers], but you shall not borrow; you shall reign [civilly] over many nations, but they shall not reign [civilly] over you."
   [Deut. 15:6, Bible, NKJV]

The ability to do the above is protected by the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment. In theological terms, it is called "sanctification", meaning "set apart for a purpose", and that purpose is to worship and serve ONLY God, rather than His competitor, which is Government. We describe and define people who obey Biblical limitations giving rise to the above as "Non-Resident Non-Persons", "stateless" (in relation to the national but not state government), "foreign", or "sovereign" as described in Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020. Black's Law Dictionary defines "commerce" as "intercourse".

“Commerce.  …Intercourse by way of trade and traffic [money instead of semen] between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities [governments] and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on…” 
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 269]

Hence this website advocates a religious refusal to engage in sex or intercourse or commerce or contracting with any government as a Buyer waiving any Constitutionally protected or natural right (Form #10.002) or exchanging any such right for a statutory privilege (Form #05.037). In fact, the Bible even describes people who VIOLATE this prohibition as "playing the harlot" (Ezekiel 16:41) and personifies that harlot as "Babylon the Great Harlot" (Rev. 17:5), which is fornicating with the Beast, which it defines as governments (Rev. 19:19).

I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.' But you have not obeyed Me.  Why have you done this?  

 "Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'"  

So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.
[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]

_________________________________________

“The king establishes the land by justice, But he who receives bribes [socialist or franchise handouts] overthrows it.”
[Prov. 29:4, Bible, NKJV]

“Many seek the ruler’s favor [franchises and privileges, Form #05.030], But justice for man comes from the Lord.”
[Prov. 29:26, Bible, NKJV]

"Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?  Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [“citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, “inhabitant”, or "subject" under a king or political ruler] of the world [or any man-made kingdom other than God's Kingdom] makes himself an enemy of God. "
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]

“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God].   For if you serve their gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.”
[Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]

"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world [the obligations and concerns of the world]. "
[James 1:27, Bible, NKJV]

"You shall have no other gods [including political rulers, governments, or Earthly laws] before Me [or My commandments]."
[Exodus 20:3, Bible, NKJV]

_________________________________________

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel [the priest in a Theocracy] at Ramah, and said to him, ‘Look, you [the priest within a theocracy] are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways.  Now make us a king [or political ruler] to judge us like all the nations [and be OVER them]’.

“But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king [or political ruler] to judge us.’ So Samuel prayed to the Lord.  And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have rejected Me [God], that I should not reign over them.  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 [God as their ONLY King, Lawgiver, and Judge] and served other gods—so they are doing to you also [government or political rulers becoming the object of idolatry].”
[1 Sam. 8:4-8, Bible, NKJV]

_________________________________________

"Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers [the heathens], nor observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their [pagan government] idols. I am the LORD your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them; hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God."
[Ezekial 20:10-20, Bible, NKJV]

The ONLY capacity in which Christians may lawfully or biblically act in relation to any government is as a "Merchant" under U.C.C. §2-104(1) and NEVER as a "Buyer" under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a) in the context of commerce, "civil services" (see section 4.6 above), or civil law (see Form #05.037), or private property (Form #12.025).  That way, Christians always make the rules for the government and are never civilly governed by the government, preferring to be civilly governed instead by ONLY God and His Holy Laws (Form #13.001).  THIS is what "sanctification" means in a Christian and biblical or theological context, in fact.  We describe this approach in detail in:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.5-5.7
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

Where is "separation of church and state" when you REALLY need it, keeping in mind that Christians AS INDIVIDUALS are "the church" and secular society is the "state" as legally defined? The John Birch Society agrees with us on the subject of not contracting with anyone in the following video:

Trading Away Your Freedom by Foreign Entanglements
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q24tWlrRdk

Pastor David Jeremiah of Turning Point Ministries also agrees with us on this subject:

The Church in Satan's City, March 20, 2016
http://sedm.org/pastor-david-jeremiah-on-separation-between-church-and-state-the-church-in-satans-city/

President Obama also said that it is the right of EVERYONE to economically AND politically disassociate with the government so why don't the agencies of the government recognize this fact on EVERY form you use to interact with them?.

President Obama Says US Will NOT Impose Its Political or Economic System on Anyone, Exhibit #05.053
https://youtu.be/2t_ZRQSIPr0

SEDM wrote an entire book on how to economically and politically disassociate in fulfillment of Obama's promise above, and yet the government hypocritically actively interferes with economically and politically disassociating, in defiance of President Obama's assurances and promises. HYPOCRITES!

Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020r />

Government's tendency to compel everyone into a commercial or civil legal relationship with them is defined by the Bible as the ESSENCE of Satan himself! The personification of that evil is dramatized in the following video:

Devil's Advocate: Lawyers (OFFSITE LINK)

Therefore, the religious practice and sexual orientation of avoiding commerce and civil legal relationships (Form #05.002) with governments in any capacity OTHER than a "Merchant" and governor of the government is the essence of our religious faith.  This is the ONLY way that Jesus can truly have the "government upon His shoulder" (Isaiah 9:6) while we represent Him as His sovereign agents and fiduciaries on the planet that God and not Caesar created and owns and exclusively controls:

"I [God] brought you up from Egypt [government slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant [Bible contract] with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract, franchise, "social compact", or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.' But you have not obeyed Me.  Why have you done this?

"Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'"

So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.
[Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]

---

“By the abundance of your [Satan's] trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones."
[Ezekial 28:16, Bible, NKJV]

---

“As religion towards God is a branch of universal righteousness (he is not an honest man that is not devout), so righteousness towards men is a branch of true religion, for he is not a godly man that is not honest, nor can he expect that his devotion should be accepted; for,

1. Nothing is more offensive to God than deceit in commerce. A false balance is here put for all manner of unjust and fraudulent practices [of our public dis-servants] in dealing with any person [within the public], which are all an abomination to the Lord, and render those abominable [hated] to him that allow themselves in the use of such accursed arts of thriving. It is an affront to justice, which God is the patron of, as well as a wrong to our neighbour, whom God is the protector of. Men [in government] make light of such frauds, and think there is no sin in that which there is money to be got by, and, while it passes undiscovered, they cannot blame themselves for it; a blot is no blot till it is hit, Hos. 12:7, 8. But they are not the less an abomination to God, who will be the avenger of those that are defrauded by their brethren.

2. Nothing is more pleasing to God than fair and honest dealing, nor more necessary to make us and our devotions acceptable to him: A just weight is his delight. He himself goes by a just weight, and holds the scale of judgment with an even hand, and therefore is pleased with those that are herein followers of him.

A [false] balance, [whether it be in the federal courtroom or in the government or in the marketplace,] cheats, under pretence of doing right most exactly, and therefore is the greater abomination to God.”
[Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible; Henry, M., 1996, c1991, under Prov. 11:1]

---

‘If one of your brethren becomes poor [desperate], and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.
Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you.
You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit.
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave.
As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee.
And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers.
For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.
You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.
[Lev. 25:35-43, Bible, NKJV]

Any individual, group, or especially government worker that makes us the target of discrimination, violence, "selective enforcement", or hate because of this form of religious practice or "sexual orientation" or abstinence is practicing HATE SPEECH and possibly HATE CRIME based BOTH on our religious beliefs AND our sexual orientation as legally defined. Furthermore, all readers and governments are given reasonable timely notice that the terms of use for the information and services available through this website mandate that any attempt to compel us into a commercial, legal, civil, or tax relationship with any government OTHER than on the terms dictated herein shall constitute:

1. "purposeful availment" in satisfaction of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97.
2. A waiver of official, judicial, and sovereign immunity.
3. A commercial invasion within the meaning of Article 4, section 4 of the United States Constitution.
4. A tort cognizable as a Fifth Amendment taking without compensation.
5. A criminal attempt at identity theft by wrongfully associating us with a civil status of "citizen", "resident", "taxpayer", etc.
6. Duress as legally defined. See Affidavit of Duress: Illegal Tax Enforcement by De Facto Officers, Form #02.005.
7. Express consent to the terms of this disclaimer.

The result of the waivers of immunity above is to restore EQUALITY under REAL LAW between members and corrupt governments intent on destroying that equality by offering or enforcing civil franchises. All freedom derives from equality between you and the govenrment in the eyes of REAL law in court. See Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033.

The GOVERNMENT crimes documented on this website fall within the ambit of 18 U.S.C. §2381: Treason.  The penalty mandated by law for these crimes is DEATH.  We demand that actors in the Department of Justice for both the states and the federal government responsible for prosecuting these crimes of Treason do so as required by law.  A FAILURE to do so is ALSO  an act of Treason punishable by death.  Since murder is not only a crime, but a violent crime, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1111, then the government itself can also be classified as terrorist.  It is also ludicrous to call people who demand the enforcement of the death penalty for the crimes documented as terrorists.  If that were true, every jurist who sat on a murder trial in which the death penalty applied would also have to be classified as and prosecuted as a terrorist.  Hypocrites.

For those members seeking to prosecute government actors practicing hate speech or hate crime against them as documented here, see the following resource:

Discrimination and Racism page, Section 5: Hate Speech and Hate Crime; https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Discrimination/discrimination.htm#HATE_SPEECH

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship	Last revision: 8/16/09
Home  About  Contact	This private system is NOT subject to monitoring