Response of Family Guardian
Paul,
 
Thank you so much for sending the information I requested.  I am very gratified that your PDF file it is completely consistent with what I wrote in The Great IRS Hoax book!  You materials have clearly revealed that my book has some missing and very valuable pieces.  These missing pieces will prove extremely useful in improving my book for the many thousands of people who will read it. 
 
Your arguments are very similar to Paul Andrew Mitchell's book entitled "The Federal Zone".
His book appears at http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone1/index.htm,
I invite you to read his book to fill in some missing pieces in your work.  I have reused some of Mitchell's ideas in "The Great IRS Hoax", most notably in sections 4.7, 4.8.3 (which has the same Supreme Court Case that you cite about the term "United States"), 5.2.1, and especially 5.2.4.
 
In particular, Paul Mitchell indicates that Frank Brushaber was a French immigrant and was NOT born in New York. You might want to check your facts on this issue.  Here is what Paul Mitchell said in Chapter 2 of The Federal Zone:
 

" The federal government has tried to confuse the implications of Frank Brushaber's status by asserting that he was a French immigrant.  This is government propaganda, pure and simple.  This propaganda is designed to make us believe that Brushaber was found to be an alien because he was born in France, not because he declared himself to be a "citizen of the State of New York".  Accordingly, the federal officials responsible for this propaganda are trying in vain to convince everyone that the 50 States are inside the federal zone, because they want us to conclude that Frank Brushaber would have been a "U.S.** resident" if he resided in New York, or a "U.S.** citizen" if he had been born in New York.  It is fairly easy (and fun) to defeat this propaganda, because it is only make believe."

 
Interestingly, Mitchell uses EXACTLY the same notation for the three types of United States as you do (the asterisks).  Did you derive your materials from his?  The Tax Protester website and http://www.taxprotester.com" indicates there are flaws in the approaches advocated in "The Federal Zone".  You can read about these at:
     http://www.deoxy.org/fz/cooked_goose.htm
     http://www.denialofdueprocess.com/tp/shame/snake_oil.htm
 
In particular, they say about his work:
________________________________________

      To really get to the root of the weakness of the Non Resident Alien/Federal Zone argument is that not only are Non Resident Aliens (which people using this argument claim to be) subject to the withholding of the income Tax under 26 U.S.C. § 1441, are required to be assigned a Social Security Number pursuant to Title 42 § 405(c)(2)(B), and are taxed upon U.S. sources pursuant to 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)(iv) and -8T(d)(2)(iii)(A), they cannot claim the protections of the U.S. Citizen status under these respective and other related laws which plainly show that U.S. Citizens do not have to be assigned a number and that they are only taxed and withheld from in accordance with § 911, ultimately.

      So, it is rather apparent that statutorily, this argument is a trap, as the IRS and the courts are going to apply the statutes whether you like it or not. Why is that?

      The answer to that question is very simple, as the U.S. Congress has specifically defined "gross income" as something that can be earned by anyone within the realm of its power and authority. Since the Congress has subject matter jurisdiction over "gross income" which almost every employer is reporting (truthfully or not) to the Federal government under penalty of perjury, it is not going to matter what you claim yourself to be when the government has a witness claiming that you made "gross income" subject to the Income Tax Act.

      By slipping the "place where" (physical jurisdiction) gross income is earned into the definition and the laws setting forth the criteria of when a person, resident or not, citizen or not, receives gross income the mere fact of the employer making the legal presumption that the circumstances were all correct to claim that someone made "gross income" becomes the foundational statement supporting the information entered into the IRS computer, and then used by the IRS to support its claims against the person.

      So, now you should be able to see that in personum jurisdiction (authority over the person) is completely determined by the testimony of the employer that "gross income" was paid, which evidences subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the government has the right to make a claim against the person and his property, and the nonresident alien U.S. Person is scrambling around in his mind trying to figure out how the Judge is justifying his ignoring the person's argument that he is a Non resident of the U.S. and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

      The problem really is easy to see, the person cut off his only method of escape through the protection of the statutes and regulations which would give him an argument with legal and statutory merit, and is left with nothing concrete to argue and win with, other than some case law which he has not bothered to personally Shepardize (discover if it is still standing) nor read to see if the positions of the case were applicable to his case.

      I wonder how people sleep at night knowing that they wrote and sold a book with such off-point information in it, which some poor inexperienced and unstudied soul is going to implement years from now. "

______________________________________

 
What is your response to these arguments?  You will have to address these objections before I can advocate or endorse your approach.  Your approach seems plausible, if you could just help me to overcome the objections appearing on these two websites.
 
Does the missing piece (the 15% of the materials you mention that I wouldn't see by paying you to service my needs)  amount to Paul Mitchell's "Affidavit of Rescission" which is posted on my website at:
http://familyguardian.tzo.com/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/AffOfRescission.htm
??  If not, do you file a similar form or one that is slightly edited but essentially the same?
 
The weak point in your approach is that it would appear, based on your statements, that one has to give up the right to vote in order to avoid paying taxes.  Is that correct? What do you think would happen to this country if everyone did that?  I believe that our country would decay if everyone just stopped voting.  What remedy do you have for this defect in your approach?
 
I eagerly look forward to hearing your response, as this is an issue of great interest and considerable study of mine.
 
Thanks for taking the time to send me your enlightening emails and respond promptly to this email.
 
Warm Regards,
 
Family Guardian

Copyright Chris Hansen

By: Chris Hansen,  858-538-6607, chansen3@san.rr.com
Last revision: April 06, 2009 05:57 PM
  This private system is NOT subject to monitoring