SOURCE:

______________________________________

"The taxpayer-- that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."
[President Ronald W. Reagan]

1. Introduction

One must be engaged in a “trade or business”, which is defined as “the functions of a public office”, within the statutory but not constitutional “United States**”, which is geographically defined as federal territory or as the national government if non-geographical, in order to earn “gross income”. The only exception to this is nonresident aliens with income from the statutory "United States**" (federal terriorty) under 26 U.S.C. §871(a). This is because:

The income tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is an indirect excise tax, as the Supreme Court pointed out repeatedly. See section 5.1.3 of the Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 The “subject of” all indirect excise taxes are voluntary “taxable activities” that are privileged and in many cases licensed. The tax may only be instituted by the agency or government entity that issues the license or bestows the privilege to the person who volunteers to be the “licensee”, and the tax is only enforceable within the legislative jurisdiction of the taxing entity. The “privileged activity” in this case of the federal income tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is that of holding “public office” in the U.S. Government. A “public office” is therefore the only excise taxable activity that a biological person can involve themselves in that will make them the subject of the municipal donation program for the District of Columbia called the Internal Revenue Code.
According to 4 U.S.C. §72, all "public offices" may be exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere, except as "expressly provided by law". That is why the "United States" is defined in Subtitle A of the I.R.C. as federal territory in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d). There is also no provision of law which authorizes "public offices" outside the District of Columbia other than 48 U.S.C. §1612, and therefore, the I.R.C. Subtitle A Income tax upon "public offices" can apply nowhere outside the District of Columbia other than the Virgin Islands. This is also consistent with the definition of "U.S. sources" found in 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(3), which identifies all earnings originating from the "United States" as "effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business".
“Income” has the meaning it was given in the Constitution, which is “gain and profit” in connection with an excise taxable activity. Congress is forbidden to define the word “income” because the Constitution defines it. This was pointed out by several rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, including Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920); So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918); Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921). Where there is no “taxable activity”, there can be no “taxable income”. We covered this earlier in sections 5.6.5 if you want more detail.
Because all "taxpayers" under Subtitle A of the I.R.C. are “public officers” and work for a federal corporation called the “United States” (see 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A)), then they are acting as an “officer or employee of a federal corporation” and they:
4.1. Are the proper subject of the penalty statutes, as defined under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b). This is true even though the Constitution prohibits “Bills of Attainder” in Article 1, Section 10, because the penalty isn’t on the natural person, but upon the “office” or “agency” he volunteered to maintain in the process of declaring that he has “taxpable income”.

4.2. May have the code enforced against you without implementing regulations as required by 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1) and 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2)

4.3 Are the proper subject for the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, which identify officers of corporations as the only "persons" within 26 U.S.C. §7343
Earnings not connected with a “trade or business” under 26 U.S.C. §871(b) and 26 U.S.C. §864 and not originating from the statutory "United States**" (federal territory):
5.1. Are identified as part of a “foreign estate” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31). A foreign estate is not includible in gross income either, based on the definition of “foreign estate”, BECAUSE it is not connected with a “trade or business”.

5.2. Are not includable as “gross income” if paid by a "nonresident alien". See 26 U.S.C. §864(b)(1)(A). Remember: The Great IRS Hoax showed in sections 5.2.13 and 5.6.15 that states of the union are "foreign countries" with respect to the Internal Revenue Code and all of their inhabitants are "non-resident non-persons". ”. The subsect of state inhabitants who are also public officers are also “nonresident alien individuals”

This means one must be engaged in a “public office” in the District of Columbia in order to earn “gross income” as a human being. Statutory and not ordinary “gross income” that meets this criteria is described in the code simply as “income effectively connected with a trade or business from sources within the United States”. This is confirmed by 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31), which says that an estate that is in no way connected with a "trade or business" and whose sources of income are outside the statutory but not constitutional "United States**" (federal territory) may not have its earnings identified as statutory "gross income" and is a "foreign estate", which means it is not subject in any way to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701.

Sec. 7701. - Definitions

(a)(31) Foreign estate or trust

(A) Foreign estate

The term ''foreign estate'' means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States [under 26 U.S.C. §871(a)] which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States [under 26 U.S.C. §871(b) and 26 U.S.C. §864], is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

In this section, we will demonstrate all the evidence we can find that supports these conclusions, and also show you how the IRS has, with the implicit collusion and approval of the Congress and the Treasury Department, tried to do the following within their deceptive publications:

Taken great pains to hide and obfuscate the fact that Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is an indirect excise tax upon licensed, privileged activities. They have done this by burying the sordid truth deep in regulations that they hope people will never read and which have been carefully obfuscated over the years to make them virtually unintelligible for the average American.
Confuse the meaning of the term “trade or business” in their publications so that everyone thinks they meet this criteria.
Create a false and unsupportable presumption that all people and all earnings within states of the Union are connected with a “trade or business in the United States".
Create the illusion and deception that IRC Subtitle A describes a direct, unapportioned tax upon natural persons that cannot be avoided or shifted. Once IRS can establish the false presumption Subtitle A as a direct unapportioned tax, then they:
4.1. Can label those who choose not to volunteer as “frivolous” or worst yet, penalize them for filing an accurate return reflecting no “gross income” because not connected to a “trade or business”.

4.2. Have a way to exploit the false presumption and ignorance of juries to claim that those who avoid paying or filing are lawbreakers, even though they broke no laws and exercised their constitutionally protected choice not to volunteer to connect their earnings to a “trade or business”.

4.3. Have an excuse to ignore those who complain that private employers are forcing them to sign and submit W-4 withholding agreements under duress, or be denied employment. Instead, they have a presumptuous and mistaken excuse to say that it isn’t voluntary and that everyone must submit the form, when in fact, the regulations at 26 C.F.R. §31.3402(p)-1 clearly show otherwise.

If you read the IRS' Civil and Criminal Actions website at the address below, you will see that ALL of their propaganda in fact focuses on the above goals, as we predicted:

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/index.html

The IRS warned us it was going to try to deceive us by stating in its own Internal Revenue Manual that you can't rely upon any of its own publications. The federal courts warned us that the IRS was going to do this by telling us that we can't rely upon the phone or oral advice of anyone in the IRS, even if they signed their recommendation under penalty of perjury! Why didn’t we listen to any of these warnings? See the surprising truth for yourself:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSNotResponsible.htm

We must, however, remember what the Supreme Court said about false presumptions that come from deliberately deceptive IRS publications and phone advice:

"The power to create [false] presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions,"
[New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]

1.1. Income Taxation is a Proprietorial Power Limited to Federal Property

Legislative power to institute income taxation under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code originates from Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution:

U.S. Constitution, Article IV § 3 (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 [***]

"[1] The power of Congress, in the imposition of taxes and providing for the collection thereof in the possessions of the United States, is not restricted by constitutional provision (section 8, article 1), which may limit its general power of taxation as to uniformity and apportionment when legislating for the mainland or United States proper, for it acts in the premises under the authority of clause 2, section 3, article 4, of the Constitution, which clothes Congress with power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486, 24 Sup.Ct. 816, 48 L.Ed. 1087; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 Sup.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088."
[Lawrence v. Wardell, Collector. 273 F. 405 (1921). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]

The “property” of the national government subject to income taxation is the OFFICES it creates and owns. That office is legislatively created in 5 U.S.C. §2105. The creator of a thing is always the ABSOLUTE OWNER.[1] The income tax therefore functions as a user fee for the use of that federal property. Uncle is in the property rental business! All franchises are implemented with loans of government property with legal strings or conditions 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 Am.Rep. 63. Nor involve interest in land acquired by grantee. Whitbeck v. Funk, 140 Or. 70, 12 P.2d. 1019, 1020. In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage. etc. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H. 484; State v. Black Diamond Co., 97 Ohio.St. 24, 119 N.E. 195, 199, L.R.A.1918E, 352.

Elective Franchise. The right of suffrage: the right or privilege of voting in public elections.

Exclusive Franchise. See Exclusive Privilege or Franchise.

General and Special. The charter of a corporation is its "general" franchise, while a "special" franchise consists in any rights granted by the public to use property for a public use but-with private profit. Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212, 87 N.E. 443, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 420.

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, Fourth Edition, pp. 786-787]

All franchises create or recognize an “office”. In the case of the Internal Revenue Code, that office is called “person”, "citizen", "resident", or “taxpayer”.

privilege \ˈpriv-lij, ˈpri-və-\ noun
[Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law] 12th century: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor: prerogative especially: such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
[Mish, F. C. (2003). Preface. Merriam-Websters collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.]

A “public officer” is merely a fiction in charge of THE PROPERTY of the grantor of the franchise:

“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]

The I.R.C. Subtitles A and C therefore constitute the terms of a grant or loan of the “public office” (government property) to an otherwise private human:

“In a legal or narrower sense, the term "franchise" is more often used to designate a right or privilege conferred by law, [2] and the view taken in a number of cases is that to be a franchise, the right possessed must be such as cannot be exercised without the express permission of the sovereign power [3] –that is, a privilege or immunity of a public nature which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. [4] It is a privilege conferred by government on an individual or a corporation to do that "which does not belong to the citizens of the country generally by common right." [5] For example, a right to lay rail or pipes, or to string wires or poles along a public street, is not an ordinary use which everyone may make of the streets, but is a special privilege, or franchise, to be granted for the accomplishment of public objects [6] which, except for the grant, would be a trespass. [7] In this connection, the term "franchise" has sometimes been construed as meaning a grant of a right to use public property, or at least the property over which the granting authority has control. [8] ”
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Franchises, §1: Definitions (1999)]

Anyone in receipt, custody, or control of government property MUST be a public officer under the control of the person who lent it to them. It is a crime to use government property for PERSONAL gain.

The fact that the government continues to be the ABSOLUTE OWNER of the thing being loaned even after you receive it and possess it means they can take it back ANY TIME THEY WANT without your consent or permission or punish you for the misuse of the property. Below are the people subject to such punishment, ALL of whom are either officers of a federal corporation or in partnership with the government:

Definition of “person” for the purposes of “assessable penalties” within the Internal Revenue Code means an officer or employee of a corporation or partnership within the federal United States:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter B > PART I > Sec. 6671.
Sec. 6671. - Rules for application of assessable penalties
(b) Person defined

The term ''person'', as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs
Definition of “person” for the purposes of “miscellaneous forfeiture and penalty provisions” of the Internal Revenue Code means an officer or employer of a corporation or partnership within the federal United States:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 75 > Subchapter D > Sec. 7343.
Sec. 7343. - Definition of term ''person''

The term ''person'' as used in this chapter [Chapter 75] includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs

Note that the government cannot regulate or tax contracts where all parties are PRIVATE. The ability to regulate or tax PRIVATE property is repugnant to the Constitution. Therefore the only type of “partnership” they can be talking about in the above definitions are partnerships between an otherwise PRIVATE party and the government.

Constitutional states of the Union are not “Territory or other Property” of the United States.

Corpus Juris Secundum Legal Encyclopedia

"§1. Definitions, Nature, and Distinctions

"The word 'territory,' when used to designate a political organization has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and does not necessarily include all the territorial possessions of the United States, but may include only the portions thereof which are organized and exercise governmental functions under act of congress."

"While the term 'territory' is often loosely used, and has even been construed to include municipal subdivisions of a territory, and 'territories of the' United States is sometimes used to refer to the entire domain over which the United States exercises dominion, the word 'territory,' when used to designate a political organization, has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and the term 'territory' or 'territories' does not necessarily include only a portion or the portions thereof which are organized and exercise government functions under acts of congress. The term 'territories' has been defined to be political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States, and in this sense the term 'territory' is not a description of a definite area of land but of a political unit governing and being governed as such. The question whether a particular subdivision or entity is a territory is not determined by the particular form of government with which it is, more or less temporarily, invested.

"Territories' or 'territory' as including 'state' or 'states." While the term 'territories of the' United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress "territory" does not include a foreign state.
"As used in this title, the term 'territories' generally refers to the political subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several states."
[86 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Territories, §1 (2003)]

Therefore, federal income taxes within Constitutional states are limited to federal enclaves within the states of the Union. They do not apply within areas subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional State:

California Revenue and Taxation Code - RTC
DIVISION 1. PROPERTY TAXATION [50 - 5911]( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 154. )
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS [101 - 198.1]( Part 1 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 154. )
CHAPTER 1. Construction [101 - 136] ( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1939, Ch. 154. )

RTC 130 (f) "In this state" means within the exterior limit of the State of California, and includes all territory within these limits owned by, or ceded to, the United States of America.

California Revenue and Taxation Code – RTC
DIVISION 2. OTHER TAXES [6001 - 60709]( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1968, Ch. 279. ) PART 1. SALES AND USE TAXES [6001 - 7176]( Part 1 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 36. )
CHAPTER 1. General Provisions and Definitions [6001 - 6024]( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 36. )

RTC 6017.“In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

California Revenue and Taxation Code - RTC
DIVISION 2. OTHER TAXES [6001 - 60709] ( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1968, Ch. 279. )
PART 3. USE FUEL TAX [8601 - 9355]( Part 3 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 38. )
CHAPTER 1. General Provisions and Definitions [8601 - 8621] Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1941, Ch. 38

8609. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

California Revenue and Taxation Code – RTC
DIVISION 2. OTHER TAXES [6001 - 60709]( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1968, Ch. 279. )
PART 10. PERSONAL INCOME TAX [17001 - 18181]( Part 10 added by Stats. 1943, Ch. 659. )
CHAPTER 1. General Provisions and Definition [17001 - 17039.2]

17018.“State” includes the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.

For an explanation why excise taxable public offices do not lawfully exist in constitutional statues outside of federal enclaves and why the Constitution does not authorize Congress to abuse grants or loans of government property to create NEW public offices in the constitutional states that are subject to taxation, see:

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

Income taxation is based on domicile. See District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 (1941). As such, anyone domiciled OUTSIDE the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government is a “nonresident” in respect to the income tax. They cannot have a “civil status” such as “person” or “taxpayer” in relation to the civil statutory laws regulating these areas WITHOUT one or more of the following circumstances:

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.
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).
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).
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).
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

Those who do not fit any of the above 4 classifications are statutory “non-resident non-persons” and cannot be subject to federal income taxation. More on “civil status” can be found at:

Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Below is a geographical map showing all of the areas within the COUNTRY “United States*” that are subject to the income tax:

Figure 3: Federal areas and enclaves subject to the income tax

An entire memorandum on the subject of this section can be found at:

Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

FOOTNOTES:

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

[2] People ex rel. Fitz Henry v. Union Gas & E. Co. 254 Ill. 395, 98 N.E. 768; State ex rel. Bradford v. Western Irrigating Canal Co. 40 Kan 96, 19 P. 349; Milhau v. Sharp, 27 N.Y. 611; State ex rel. Williamson v. Garrison (Okla), 348 P.2d. 859; Ex parte Polite, 97 Tex Crim 320, 260 S.W. 1048.
The term "franchise" is generic, covering all the rights granted by the state. Atlantic & G. R. Co. v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359, 25 L.Ed. 185.
A franchise is a contract with a sovereign authority by which the grantee is licensed to conduct a business of a quasi-governmental nature within a particular area. West Coast Disposal Service, Inc. v. Smith (Fla App), 143 So.2d. 352.

[3] The term "franchise" is generic, covering all the rights granted by the state. Atlantic & G. R. Co. v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359, 25 L.Ed. 185.
A franchise is a contract with a sovereign authority by which the grantee is licensed to conduct a business of a quasi-governmental nature within a particular area. West Coast Disposal Service, Inc. v. Smith (Fla App), 143 So.2d. 352.

[4] State v. Real Estate Bank, 5 Ark. 595; Brooks v. State, 3 Boyce (Del) 1, 79 A. 790; Belleville v. Citizens’ Horse R. Co., 152 Ill. 171, 38 N.E. 584; State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. 40 Minn 213, 41 N.W. 1020.

[5] New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Louisiana Light & H. P. & Mfg. Co., 115 U.S. 650, 29 L.Ed. 516, 6 S.Ct. 252; People’s Pass. R. Co. v. Memphis City R. Co., 10 Wall (US) 38, 19 L.Ed. 844; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet (U.S.) 519, 10 L.Ed. 274; Bank of California v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 P. 832; Higgins v. Downward, 8 Houst (Del) 227, 14 A. 720, 32 A. 133; State ex rel. Watkins v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 86 A.L.R. 240; Lasher v. People, 183 Ill. 226, 55 N.E. 663; Inland Waterways Co. v. Louisville, 227 Ky. 376, 13 S.W.2d. 283; Lawrence v. Morgan’s L. & T. R. & S. S. Co., 39 La.Ann. 427, 2 So. 69; Johnson v. Consolidated Gas E. L. & P. Co., 187 Md. 454, 50 A.2d. 918, 170 A.L.R. 709; Stoughton v. Baker, 4 Mass 522; Poplar Bluff v. Poplar Bluff Loan & Bldg. Asso., (Mo App) 369 S.W.2d. 764; Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, 296 N.Y. 249, 72 N.E.2d. 697, 1 A.L.R.2d. 1160, cert den 332 U.S. 761, 92 L.Ed. 346, 68 S.Ct. 63; Shaw v. Asheville, 269 N.C. 90, 152 S.E.2d. 139; Victory Cab Co. v. Charlotte, 234 N.C. 572, 68 S.E.2d. 433; Henry v. Bartlesville Gas & Oil Co., 33 Okla 473, 126 P. 725; Elliott v. Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537; State v. Scougal, 3 S.D. 55, 51 N.W. 858; Utah Light & Traction Co. v. Public Serv. Com., 101 Utah 99, 118 P.2d. 683.
A franchise represents the right and privilege of doing that which does not belong to citizens generally, irrespective of whether net profit accruing from the exercise of the right and privilege is retained by the franchise holder or is passed on to a state school or to political subdivisions of the state. State ex rel. Williamson v. Garrison (Okla), 348 P.2d. 859.
Where all persons, including corporations, are prohibited from transacting a banking business unless authorized by law, the claim of a banking corporation to exercise the right to do a banking business is a claim to a franchise. The right of banking under such a restraining act is a privilege or immunity by grant of the legislature, and the exercise of the right is the assertion of a grant from the legislature to exercise that privilege, and consequently it is the usurpation of a franchise unless it can be shown that the privilege has been granted by the legislature. People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns (NY) 358.

[6] New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Louisiana Light & H. P. & Mfg. Co., 115 U.S. 650, 29 L.Ed. 516, 6 S.Ct. 252; People’s Pass. R. Co. v. Memphis City R. Co., 10 Wall (US) 38, 19 L.Ed. 844; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet (U.S.) 519, 10 L.Ed. 274; Bank of California v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 P. 832; Higgins v. Downward, 8 Houst (Del) 227, 14 A. 720, 32 A. 133; State ex rel. Watkins v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 86 A.L.R. 240; Lasher v. People, 183 Ill. 226, 55 N.E. 663; Inland Waterways Co. v. Louisville, 227 Ky. 376, 13 S.W.2d. 283; Lawrence v. Morgan’s L. & T. R. & S. S. Co., 39 La.Ann. 427, 2 So. 69; Johnson v. Consolidated Gas E. L. & P. Co., 187 Md. 454, 50 A.2d. 918, 170 A.L.R. 709; Stoughton v. Baker, 4 Mass 522; Poplar Bluff v. Poplar Bluff Loan & Bldg. Asso. (Mo App) 369 S.W.2d. 764; Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, 296 N.Y. 249, 72 N.E.2d. 697, 1 A.L.R.2d. 1160, cert den 332 U.S. 761, 92 L.Ed. 346, 68 S.Ct. 63; Shaw v. Asheville, 269 N.C. 90, 152 S.E.2d. 139; Victory Cab Co. v. Charlotte, 234 N.C. 572, 68 S.E.2d. 433; Henry v. Bartlesville Gas & Oil Co., 33 Okla 473, 126 P. 725; Elliott v. Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537; State v. Scougal, 3 S.D. 55, 51 N.W. 858; Utah Light & Traction Co. v. Public Serv. Com., 101 Utah 99, 118 P.2d. 683.
A franchise represents the right and privilege of doing that which does not belong to citizens generally, irrespective of whether net profit accruing from the exercise of the right and privilege is retained by the franchise holder or is passed on to a state school or to political subdivisions of the state. State ex rel. Williamson v. Garrison (Okla), 348 P.2d. 859.
Where all persons, including corporations, are prohibited from transacting a banking business unless authorized by law, the claim of a banking corporation to exercise the right to do a banking business is a claim to a franchise. The right of banking under such a restraining act is a privilege or immunity by grant of the legislature, and the exercise of the right is the assertion of a grant from the legislature to exercise that privilege, and consequently it is the usurpation of a franchise unless it can be shown that the privilege has been granted by the legislature. People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns (NY) 358.

[7] People ex rel. Foley v. Stapleton, 98 Colo. 354, 56 P.2d. 931; People ex rel. Central Hudson Gas & E. Co. v. State Tax Com. 247 N.Y. 281, 160 N.E. 371, 57 A.L.R. 374; People v. State Tax Comrs. 174 N.Y. 417, 67 N.E. 69, affd 199 U.S. 1, 50 L.Ed. 65, 25 S.Ct. 705.

[8] Young v. Morehead, 314 Ky. 4, 233 S.W.2d. 978, holding that a contract to sell and deliver gas to a city into its distribution system at its corporate limits was not a franchise within the meaning of a constitutional provision requiring municipalities to advertise the sale of franchises and sell them to the highest bidder.
A contract between a county and a private corporation to construct a water transmission line to supply water to a county park, and giving the corporation the power to distribute water on its own lands, does not constitute a franchise. Brandon v. County of Pinellas (Fla App), 141 So.2d. 278.

1.2. Main Technique of Corruption: Introduce Franchises to replace UNALIENABLE PRIVATE Rights with REVOCABLE PUBLIC Statutory PRIVILEGES

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

The secret to how scoundrels corrupt our republic based on inalienable rights and replace it with a democracy based on revocable statutory privileges is to offer to loan you government property with conditions or legal strings attached. That process is called a "franchise". The Bible and the U.S. Supreme Court both describe EXACTLY, from a legal perspective, WHEN AND HOW you personally facilitate this inversion of the de jure hierarchy in the previous section to make public servants into masters and make you the sovereign into a government employee or officer. It is done with loans of government property that have legal strings attached. This loan is what we call “government franchises” (Form #05.030) on our website. The word “privilege” in fact is synonymous with loans of absolutely owned GOVERNMENT property and the legal strings attached to the loan.

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

“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]

“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.

“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]

The problem with all such loans is that the covetous de facto (Form #05.043) government offering them can theoretically attach ANY condition they want to the loan. If the property is something that is life -threatening to do without, then they can destroy ALL of your constitutional rights and leave you with no judicial or legal remedy whatsoever for the loss of your fundamental or natural PRIVATE rights and otherwise PRIVATE property! This, in fact, is EXACTLY what Pharaoh did to the Israelites during the famine in Egypt, described in Genesis 47.

“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)]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

[. . .]

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.
FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108.
[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]

_______________________________________________________________________________________

"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.

Whether you know it or not, by accepting such physical or intangible property you are, in effect, manifesting your implied consent (assent) under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) to enter into a contract with the government that offered it in the process. Lawyers commonly call this type of interaction a "quid pro quo". That contract represents a constructive waiver of the sovereignty and sovereign immunity that comes from God Himself. Because the government is asking you to donate or GIVE PRIVATE/CONSTITUTIONAL rights in relation to them as consideration that would otherwise be INALIENABLE (Form #12.038), they are acting in a private, non-governmental capacity as a de facto government (Form #05.043) with no real official, judicial, or sovereign immunity. That franchise contract (Form #12.012) will, almost inevitably, end up being an adhesion contract that will be extremely one-sided and will not only NOT "benefit" you (the "Buyer") in the aggregate, but will work an extreme injury, inequality, and injustice (Form #05.050) that God actually forbids:

Lending to the Poor

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 [transient foreigner and/or non-resident non-person, Form #05.020], 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.

The Law Concerning Slavery

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 [Form #13.007] , 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]

Adhesion Contract

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Wikipedia.
Related to Adhesion Contract: unilateral contract, exculpatory clause, personal contract, Unconscionable contract

Adhesion Contract

A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.

An example of an adhesion contract is a standardized contract form that offers goods or services to consumers on essentially a "take it or leave it" basis without giving consumers realistic opportunities to negotiate terms that would benefit their interests. When this occurs, the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or service unless he or she acquiesces to the form contract.

There is nothing unenforceable or even wrong about adhesion contracts. In fact, most businesses would never conclude their volume of transactions if it were necessary to negotiate all the terms of every Consumer Credit contract. Insurance contracts and residential leases are other kinds of adhesion contracts. This does not mean, however, that all adhesion contracts are valid. Many adhesion contracts are Unconscionable; they are so unfair to the weaker party that a court will refuse to enforce them. An example would be severe penalty provisions for failure to pay loan installments promptly that are physically hidden by small print located in the middle of an obscure paragraph of a lengthy loan agreement. In such a case a court can find that there is no meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract and that the weaker party has not accepted the terms of the contract.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

adhesion contract (contract of adhesion)

n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer. (See: contract)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

[The Free Dictionary by Farlex: Adhesion Contract; Downloaded 10/9/2019; SOURCE: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract]

The temptation of the offer of the government franchise as an adhesion contract is exhaustively described, personified, and even dramatized in the following:

The Temptation of Jesus by Satan on the Mountain in Matthew 4:1-11.
Devil's Advocate: What We are Up Against (OFFSITE LINK)
Philosophical Implications of the Temptation of Jesus (OFFSITE LINK) -Stefan Molyneux
Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407

James Madison, whose notes were used to draft the Bill of Rights, predicted this perversion of the de jure Constitutional design, when he very insightfully said the following:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
[James Madison. House of Representatives, February 7, 1792, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties]

The term “general welfare” is synonymous with "benefit" in franchise language. "general welfare" as used above is, in fact, the basis for the entire modern welfare state that will eventually lead to a massive financial collapse and crisis worldwide.[NOTE 1] Anyone who therefore supports such a system is ultimately an anarchist intent on destroying our present dysfunctional government and thereby committing the crime of Treason:[NOTE 2]

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf

The Bible also describes how to REVERSE this inversion, how to restore our constitutional rights, and how to put public servants back in their role as servants rather than masters. Note that accepting custody or “benefit” or loans of government property in effect behaves as an act of contracting, because it accomplishes the same effect, which is to create implied “obligations” in a legal sense:

"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 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 worshiping 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]

Following the above commandments requires not signing up for and quitting any and all government benefits and services you may have consensually signed up for or retained eligibility for. All such applications and/or eligibility is called “special law” in the legal field.

“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]

We also prove that all such “special law” is not “law” in a classical sense, but rather an act of contracting, because it does not apply equally to all. It is what the U.S. Supreme Court referred to as “class legislation” in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust in which they declared the first income tax unconstitutional:

“The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of four thousand dollars and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation. Hamilton says in one of his papers, (the Continentalist,) "the genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the State demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue." 1 Hamilton's Works, ed. 1885, 270. The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society [e.g. wars, political conflict, violence, anarchy]. It was hoped and believed that the great amendments to the Constitution which followed the late civil war had rendered such legislation impossible for all future time. But the objectionable legislation reappears in the act under consideration. It is the same in essential character as that of the English income statute of 1691, which taxed Protestants at a certain rate, Catholics, as a class, at double the rate of Protestants, and Jews at another and separate rate. Under wise and constitutional legislation every citizen should contribute his proportion, however small the sum, to the support of the government, and it is no kindness to urge any of our citizens to escape from that obligation. If he contributes the smallest mite of his earnings to that purpose he will have a greater regard for the government and more self-respect 597 *597 for himself feeling that though he is poor in fact, he is not a pauper of his government. And it is to be hoped that, whatever woes and embarrassments may betide our people, they may never lose their manliness and self-respect. Those qualities preserved, they will ultimately triumph over all reverses of fortune.”
[Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court 1895)]

To realistically apply the above biblical prohibitions against contracting with any government so as to eliminate the reversal of roles and destroy the dulocracy, see:

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

Section 5 of the above document in particular deals with how to eliminate the dulocracy. Section 5.6 also discusses the above mechanisms.

The idea of a present-day dulocracy is entirely consistent with the theme of our website, which is the abuse of government franchises and privileges to destroy PRIVATE rights, STEAL private property, promote unhappiness, and inject malice and vitriol into the political process, as documented in:

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Bible both predicted these negative and unintended consequences of the abuse of government franchises, when they said:

“Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that they go down to the very foundations of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end?

The present assault upon capital [THEFT! and WEALTH TRANSFER by unconstitutional CONVERSION of PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property] is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will become war of the poor against the rich; a war of growing intensity and bitterness.”
[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), hearing the case against the first income tax passed by Congress that included people in states of the Union. They declared that first income tax UNCONSTITUTIONAL, by the way]
_______________________________________________________________________________________
“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [unearned money or “benefits”, privileges, or franchises, from the government] that war in your members [and your democratic governments]? You lust [after other people's money] and do not have. You murder [the unborn to increase your standard of living] and covet [the unearned] and cannot obtain [except by empowering your government to STEAL for you!]. You fight and war [against the rich and the nontaxpayers to subsidize your idleness]. Yet you do not have because you do not ask [the Lord, but instead ask the deceitful government]. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship [statutory “citizenship”] with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [STATUTORY “citizen”, “resident”, “inhabitant”, “person” franchisee] of the world [or the governments of the world] makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]

The “foundations of the government” spoken of above are PRIVATE property, separation between public and private, and equality of treatment and opportunity, which collectively are called “legal justice”, as we point out on our opening page:

Our ministry accomplishes the above goals by emphasizing:

12. The pursuit of legal “justice” (Form #05.050), which means absolutely owned private property (Form #10.002), and equality of TREATMENT and OPPORTUNITY (Form #05.033) under REAL LAW (Form #05.048). The following would be INJUSTICE, not JUSTICE:

12.1 Outlawing or refusing to recognize or enforce absolutely owned private property (Form #12.025).

12.2 Imposing equality of OUTCOME by law, such as by abusing taxing powers to redistribute wealth. See Form #11.302.

12.3 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 Form #09.073 and Form #12.040.

12.4 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 and results in religious idolatry. This includes making justice into a civil public privilege (Form #05.050, Section 13) or turning CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE citizens into STATUTORY PUBLIC citizens engaged in a public office and a franchise (Form #05.006).

Not only would the above be INJUSTICE, it would outlaw HAPPINESS, because the right to absolutely own private property is equated with “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Form #05.050 for the definition of “justice”. Click here to view a video on why all franchises produce selfishness, unhappiness, inequality, and ingratitude.
[SEDM Website Opening Page; SOURCE: http://sedm.org]

Too many public servants have assumed absolute authority over the people they are supposed to serve. This REVERSAL of roles and making the SERVANTS into the MASTERS was never the intent of the Founding Fathers who established the American governments as republics where the rights of the people are to be paramount and the sovereignty of the governments are limited by the rights of the people. Sovereignty in America is not based on the same premise as sovereignty in Europe. Sovereignty in Europe was based on the notion of the Divine Right of Kings where the king's sovereignty was absolute and the people were his subjects. Sovereignty in America is based on the notion that citizens are endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights and then lend their permission to the governments to carry out certain, limited responsibilities on their behalf. In a republican form of government, the government is never allowed to overstep its authority or trample on the rights of the citizen no matter how egalitarian the political arguments may be.

Jesus Himself also emphasized that public SERVANTS should never become RULERS or have superior authority to the people they are supposed to SERVE when He said the following.

“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]

Notice the word “ransom for many” in the above. This is an admission that Jesus acknowledges that cunning public servant lawyers have KIDNAPPED our legal identity from the protection of God’s law and that legal identity has been transported to a legislatively foreign jurisdiction, the District of Criminals. We exhaustively prove this with evidence in the following memorandum of law:

Government Identity Theft, Form #05.042
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovernmentIdentityTheft.pdf

Jesus also states in Matt. 20:25-28 that it is the DUTY and obligation of every Christian to fight this corruption of our political system. The Holy Bible is our Delegation of Authority to do precisely this, in fact, and to restore God to His proper role as the ruler of ALL nations and ALL politicians and the only rightful Lawgiver of all human law. That delegation of authority is described in:

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

___________________________

FOOTNOTES:

1. For details on the devastating political effects of the modern welfare state, see:

Communism, Socialism, Collectivism Page, Section 10: Welfare State, Family Guardian Fellowship, https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Communism/Communism.htm#Welfare_State.

2. In the landmark case of Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 310 U.S. 548 (1937) legalizing social security, the U.S. Supreme Court had the following to say about the treason of inverting the relationship of the states to the federal government:

“If the time shall ever arrive when, for an object appealing, however strongly, to our sympathies, the dignity of the States shall bow to the dictation of Congress by conforming their legislation thereto, when the power and majesty and honor of those who created shall become subordinate to the thing of their creation, I but feebly utter my apprehensions when I express my firm conviction that we shall see `the beginning of the end.'”
[Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 310 U.S. 548, 606 (1937)]

1.3 Why is the tax upon a "trade or business" instead of ALL earnings?

Why did Congress HAVE to place the tax upon an activity called a “public office” in the United States government? Because:

The U.S. Supreme Court also held that the income tax is NOT upon ALL YOUR EARNINGS, but only the portion that is “profit”:

“We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed.--), the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts—everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income,’ and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term “income’ has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417 S., 34 Sup. Ct. 136), and for the present purpose we assume there is not difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.”
[Southern Pacific Co., v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, 38 S.Ct. 540 (1918)]
The U.S. Supreme Court held in a challenge to the first income tax in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) that taxes upon private property are unconstitutional direct taxes. This is still the case today. They called this property “capital” in that case. You own yourself. Your body and the fruits of your labor are absolutely owned PRIVATE property protected by the constitution. The income tax therefore can only be upon PROFIT and never the underlying private property or capital that produced the profit.
The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that involuntary taxation of labor is unconstitutional.

“Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…”
[The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66; 10 Wheat 66; 6 L.Ed. 268 (1825)]
26 U.S.C. §83 acknowledges that only profit is taxed as "income" in the case of transfers of property (such as my labor for money) by deducting the fair market value the property (labor) from the amount paid for it if the payment was to the laborer rather than the person he or she is working for. It permits an exception to this rule in which an "election" can be made to treat the WHOLE amount paid to the laborer as "income" in 26 U.S.C. §83(b)(2). However, only an IDIOT would consent to make such an election to convert the entire amount of reimbursement for labor into "income" or "profit" under the Sixteenth Amendment or "gross income" under the "internal revenue code".
There are specific people like federal judges and the president, all of whose earnings are "gross income" by statute such as that found in the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, Section 22(a) and Social Security recipients in 26 U.S.C. §861(a)(8), but no such provision is provided for the compensation for one’s own labor. Per the rules of statutory construction, without such an express statutory provision, one’s own labor is purposefully EXCLUDED but not EXEMPT from statutory "gross income" defined in 26 U.S.C. §61. More at:

Excluded Earnings and People, Form #14.019
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/ExcludedEarningsAndPeople.pdf
We can find no place in the entire Internal Revenue Code where exchanges of any kind of property for another kind of equal value is "income" or "gross income" in a constitutional sense. It is our understanding that Congress has no constitutional authority to even define "Income" in a constitutional or Sixteenth Amendment sense, much less EXPAND the definition to include anything that is NOT profit or is merely property such as "wages".

“In order, therefore, that the [apportionment] clauses cited from article I [§2, cl. 3 and §9, cl. 4] of the Constitution may have proper force and effect …[I]t becomes essential to distinguish between what is an what is not ‘income,’…according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone, it derives its power to legislate, and within those limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised… [pg. 207]…After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Sup.Ct. 136, 140 [58 L.Ed. 285] and Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Sup.Ct. 467, 469, 62 L.Ed. 1054…” [Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S.Ct. 189, 9 A.L.R. 1570 (1920)]
The government can only pass civil laws to regulate its own public officers, territory, franchises, and property. The ability to regulate the PRIVATE conduct of the public at large is “repugnant to the constitution”, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court. See the following for proof:

Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

The Thirteenth Amendment outlaws involuntary servitude EVERYWHERE, including on federal territory. It does not and cannot outlaw VOLUNTARY servitude. The only way they can tax your labor without instituting slavey is for you to volunteer for public office franchise in the government. See the following for proof:

How the Government Defrauds You Out of Legitimate Deductions for the Market Value of Your Labor, Form #05.026
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Congress has no legislative jurisdiction within states of the Union, which are “foreign states” that are sovereign, but they have jurisdiction over anyone that contracts with them wherever they are. Hence, Congress instituted a franchise that functions as a contract that they can enforce anywhere the contractors are found. See the following for proof:

Debitum et contractus non sunt nullius loci.
Debt and contract [franchise agreement, in this case] are of no particular place.

Locus contractus regit actum.
The place of the contract [franchise agreement, in this case] governs the act.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

“It is generally conceded that a franchise is the subject of a contract between the grantor and the grantee, and that it does in fact constitute a contract when the requisite element of a consideration is present.[1] Conversely, a franchise granted without consideration is not a contract binding upon the state, franchisee, or pseudo-franchisee.[2] “
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Volume 36, Franchises, Section 6: As a Contract ]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Larson v. South Dakota, 278 U.S. 429, 73 L.Ed. 441, 49 S Ct 196 ; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U.S. 544, 57 L.Ed. 633, 33 S.Ct 303; Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 50 L.Ed 801, 26 S Ct 427; Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Brown, 176 Ark 774, 4 SW2d 15, 58 ALR 534; Chicago General R. Co. v. Chicago, 176 Ill 253, 52 NE 880; Louisville v. Louisville Home Tel. Co., 149 Ky 234, 148 SW 13; State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co. 140 Mo 539, 41 SW 955; Baker v. Montana Petroleum Co., 99 Mont 465, 44 P2d 735; Re Board of Fire Comrs. 27 NJ 192, 142 A2d 85; Chrysler Light & P. Co. v. Belfield, 58 ND 33, 224 NW 871, 63 ALR 1337; Franklin County v. Public Utilities Com. 107 Ohio St 442, 140 NE 87, 30 ALR 429; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 SC 1, 153 SE 537; Rutland Electric Light Co. v. Marble City Electric Light Co. 65 Vt 377, 26 A 635 ; Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Commonwealth, 125 Va 469, 99 SE 723, 9 ALR 1148, cert den 251 U.S. 557, 64 L.Ed. 413, 40 S Ct 179, disapproved on other grounds Victoria v. Victoria Ice, Light & Power Co. 134 Va 134, 114 SE 92, 28 ALR 562, and disapproved on other grounds Richmond v. Virginia Ry. & Power Co. 141 Va 69, 126 SE 353.

[2] Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa 183, 16 A 836.

See:

Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

These critical facts are very carefully concealed by the IRS in their publications to hide the true nature of the income tax and instead to make it appear as an “unapportioned direct tax” upon "persons" domiciled in states of the Union. If the American people understood on a large scale:

That the I.R.C. Subtitle A income tax was an “excise tax” upon privileged "taxable activities" only.
Exactly what activity was being taxed.
That the IRS has no jurisdiction within states of the Union against anyone who does not sign a private agreement with the government by submitting a W-4 or a 1040 tax return.
That one must be domiciled on federal territory as a statutory “citizen” or “resident” before they can lawfully engage in the activity.
That the law specifically forbids the activity to be exercised outside the District of Columbia per 4 U.S.C. §72 or within a state of the Union.
That it is a CRIME for most Americans to engage in the activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §912.

. . .then they would exit the tax system en masse by simply avoiding the activity. All excise taxes are "avoidable" by avoiding the taxed activity, and therefore they are completely "voluntary". Therefore, the IRS and our public dis-servants have a vested interest in hiding and concealing the true nature of the income tax as an “excise tax” in order to maintain revenues unlawfully collected from the income tax. They sold the truth and your liberty to Satan for 20 pieces of silver. Some things never change, do they?

“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
[1 Tim. 6:10, Bible, NKJV]

1.4. It is ILLEGAL for the Average American to call their earnings “trade or business” earnings

“The American president Abraham Lincoln liked to engage with his audiences and would often use riddles and humor when he spoke. One story goes that he asked an audience how many legs a dog would have if the tail were counted as a leg. When they said five, he responded that the answer was four, because calling the tail a leg did not make it so.” [Anonymous]

Throughout our site, we prove that the average American is:

A common law “national” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).
Nonresident to federal government exclusive jurisdiction.
A “nonresident alien” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B).
NOT:

A statutory “citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
A statutory “non-citizen national of the United States[**] at birth” under 8 U.S.C. §1408.

This section will also prove that it is ILLEGAL for the Average American “nonresident alien” to call their PRIVATE earnings “trade or business” earnings if they are NOT, IN FACT ALREADY lawfully occupying a public office or agency OUTSIDE of the Internal Revenue Code.

The proof is provided by the following regulation:

26 C.F.R §1.871-8(c)(1) Taxation of nonresident alien individuals engaged in U.S. business or treated as having effectively connected income.
“. . . Income, gain, or loss of a nonresident alien individual is not treated as being effectively connected for the taxable year with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States if he is not engaged in trade or business within the United States during such year, . . .”

The above excerpt is incontrovertible evidence that the phrase “conduct of a trade or business” is a term of art and is statutorily defined and restricted to the performance of a REAL public office lawfully created under another title of the U.S. code.

The regulation itself admits that the distinct possibility that a non resident alien could earn and receive income, gain, or losses, WITHOUT being engaged in the conduct of a trade or business.

Now, if the term “trade or business” as used in the above regulation meant it’s ordinary definition, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a nonresident alien to earn or receive any income, gain, or loss unless they were employed or engaged in the conduct of a trade or business in an ACTUAL, lawfully created public office within the U.S. government!!

This is also a good section of regulation for another reason. The fact that they vacillate between "in the United States" and "within the United States" in the same sentence is very telling. One could definitely be construed as geographical where the other one is clear not otherwise there would be no need to be redundant. Also they often use “a” in regards to “engaged in ‘a’ trade or business in”, in juxtaposition to “engaged in trade or business within”. In this scenario, it therefore appears that:

“A trade or business” means a REAL lawfully created, elected or appointed public office.
“Engaged in trade or business within” means the office is LAWFULLY EXERCISED WITHIN the LEGAL FICTION “United States” as a federal corporation under 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A).

Note that the above regulation restricts itself to nonresident aliens ONLY, meaning people over whom the IRS has no “personal jurisdiction”:

“In the case of the federal government where the individual is either a United States citizen or an alien residing in the taxing jurisdiction, the tax under section 1 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the person; where the individual is an alien [LEGISLATIVELY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY “foreign”, INCLUDING states of the Union] not residing in the taxing jurisdiction [the “geographical United States”, meaning the District of Columbia per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d)], the tax under section 871 of the Code is based upon jurisdiction over the [PUBLIC] property or income of the nonresident individual [GEOGRAPHICALLY and PHYSICALLY] located or earned in the taxing jurisdiction”
[Great Cruz Bay, Inc., St. John v. Wheatley, 495 F.2d. 301, 307 (3d Cir. 1974)]

The SOLE BASIS for income taxation, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, is domicile within the forum, which is ALWAYS geographical. The civil statutory office of “taxpayer” is domiciled in the District of Columbia under the Internal Revenue Code, while the human being who VOLUNTEERED for the office need not be.[1] “Nonresident aliens” are not domiciled in the statutory geographical “United States” (federal zone), which is why they are “nonresident”. STATUTORY “citizens” and “residents” ARE domicile within the statutory geographical “United States” and a “nonresident alien” is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) as OTHER than these two things:

“The obligation of one domiciled within a state to pay taxes there, arises from unilateral action of the state government in the exercise of the most plenary of sovereign powers, that to raise revenue to defray the expenses of government and to distribute its burdens equably among those who enjoy its benefits. Hence, domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are inseparable from the responsibility for sharing the costs of government. See Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U.S. 54, 58; Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 14, 17; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 498; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 50. The Federal Constitution imposes on the states no particular modes of taxation, and apart from the specific grant to the federal government of the exclusive 280 *280 power to levy certain limited classes of taxes and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, it leaves the states unrestricted in their power to tax those domiciled within them, so long as the tax imposed is upon property within the state or on privileges enjoyed there, and is not so palpably arbitrary or unreasonable as to infringe the Fourteenth Amendment. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, supra.
[Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]

The implication of the Great Cruz Bay case above is that IRS can’t reach the PERSON filling the office of “taxpayer”, but they can reach their PROPERTY. That property MUST be geographically situated in the statutory geographical “United States” in order to be reachable by a court or an Executive Branch agency or bureau such as the IRS. Otherwise, there is not method of enforcement:

“Thus the State, through its tribunals, may compel persons domiciled within its limits to execute, in pursuance of their contracts respecting property elsewhere situated, instruments in such form and with such solemnities as to transfer the title, so far as such formalities can be complied with; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no manner interferes with the supreme control over the property by the State within which it is situated. Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. 444; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25; Corbett v. Nutt, 10 Wall. 464.”

So the State, through its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits owned by non-residents to the payment of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are domiciled. Every State owes protection to its own citizens; and, when non-residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens. It is in virtue of the State’s jurisdiction over the property of the non-resident situated within its limits that its tribunals can inquire into that non-resident’s obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of the property. If the non-resident 724*724 have no property in the State, there is nothing upon which the tribunals can adjudicate.“
[Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)]

If the “nonresident alien” is NOT lawfully engaged in a public office, which itself is PROPERTY of the national government legislatively created and granted by the national government, there is no property that the national government can reach or adjudicate in order to satisfy judgements against the nonresident alien. That is why they must state in the regulation that the OWNER of the earnings must occupy a REAL civil statutory public office in order to claim the “benefits” of “electing” to treat earnings as connected with the office. If they didn’t, they would have no jurisdiction to enforce! If there were no REAL lawfully created public office, for instance, they couldn’t lien or levy the owner of the income, because 26 U.S.C. §6331 limits ENFORCEMENT/distraint to INSTRUMENTALITIES of the national government, of which a PRIVATE human being is NOT!

26 U.S. Code § 6331 - Levy and distraint
(a)Authority of Secretary

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

Thus, this regulation COMPLETELY OBLITERATES the idea that you as a PRIVATE human being can lawfully "effectively connect" that which is NOT connected to a "trade or business" and a REAL lawfully created public office to that which IS. Why? Because it is a CRIME to bribe ANOTHER public officer such as an IRS agent to treat YOU as a public officer if you aren’t already lawfully elected or appointed in ANOTHER title of the U.S. code!

18 U.S. Code §210 - Offer to procure appointive public office

Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value, to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or place under the United States for any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 694, § 210, formerly § 214; renumbered § 210, Pub. L. 87–849, § 1(b), Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1125; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

To put it another way, governments HIGHEST DUTY under the Declaration of Independence is to protect EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE property. The first step in that protection is to protect PRIVATE property from being connected to PUBLIC property, public offices, or public control without the express consent of the owner, and vice versa. A failure to do that is a denial of the MAIN “benefit” of the Constitution, which PRIVATE property and the “pursuit of Happiness” that it produces as described in the Declaration of Independence. Thus, their MAIN job is to PERPETUALLY maintain an inviolable wall of LEGAL separation between PRIVATE and PUBLIC, as this regulation tries to recognize, and which is exhaustively explored in the following document on our site:

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

They buried the MANDATORY constitutional separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE SO DEEP in this regulation that the average American would certainly never recognize it. This is because if they DID recognize it, they could opt out of the system and withdraw their consent and cooperation. The legalese is designed to literally make your consent to convert PRIVATE to PUBLIC invisible so that you will not know how to withdraw it:

Hot Issues: Invisible Consent*, SEDM
https://sedm.org/invisible-consent/

We learned a long time ago, that often times when we examine a problem, that we discover truth. And we came to understand that the problem is never apart from the answer.
We came to realize that if one invests the time and effort into studying that tax code and the treasury regulations, we acquired a deep understanding of both, and we understood that the PROBLEM is the ANSWER. Understanding the problem dissolves the problem.
The problem - in this case - Understanding the complexity of the tax code and regulations, is greatly simplified, when one realizes that the problem is the answer. Understanding the problem will dissolve that problem.
Our research pivots off of “The Trade or Business Scam”. Responsible American citizens and newbies to the sites, must understand and know the truth about the term “trade or business”.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For proof that you volunteered, see: How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024; https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf.

1.5 Historical significance and evolution of the legal term "trade or business"

The term “trade or business” was in the Revenue Act of 1862 at 12 Stat. 453, Section 59. Taxes to fund the Civil war mainly consisted of excise or franchise taxes upon “trades and occupations”, “trades or professions”, and a “trade or business”, meaning a public office. To wit:

Figure 2: Revenue Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 453, Section 59

To view this act yourself online, see: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=463

As you might expect even to this day, the entire Title 26 Subtitle A is an excise tax upon a “trade or business” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). All such franchise taxes were declared unconstitutional within the sovereign states by the License Tax Cases in 1872 after the end of the Civil War, and they CONTINUE to be unconstitutional now unless they are entirely voluntary. This is precisely why the geographical definition of “United States” in the Internal Revenue Code limits itself to federal territory and the federal zone:

The term “trade or business” was first used in the case of the License Tax Cases.

The “State” they are referring to above is a CONSTITUTIONAL state ONLY. It is lawful and even constitutional to establish franchises such as a “trade or business” in a STATUTORY “State”, meaning a federal territory.

The term “trade or business” has always referred to those WITHIN the United States federal corporation and acting as officers of said corporation and not private humans protected by the Constitution. Those WITHIN the corporation called “United States” are “domestic”, while those WITHOUT it are “foreign”. A “source within the United States” therefore refers to payments from the United States government or its agents or instrumentalities:

The key word is “created”. Congress can only tax what it creates, as is proven in the following:

The statutory “individual” who is in the performance of “the functions of a public office” is not a private human protected by the Constitution, and yet is an “individual” whose trade or business was created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State. It is a CRIME for PRIVATE people to act in the capacity of a public office without a specific election or appointment per 18 U.S.C. §912 and they cannot unilaterially “elect” themselves into said office by merely filling out a tax form.

The history of 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) appeared in the 1939 Internal Revenue Code (1939 IRC), under statute Sec. 48(a)(d) Definitions; Trade or Business. The Congressional hearings, Calendar No. 591; Senate Report No. 558, at page 29, stated that,

The above “Gross Income” definition of the public employee or officer is in effect today, as it was never repealed nor amended, the words or terms pertaining to the public employee or officer were omitted from the IRC of 1928 only as "surplusage" as explained in the report of the House of Representatives, 70th Congress, 1st Session, Union Calendar No. 3, Report No. 2, at page 12, under the heading, "Technical and Administrative Provisions". Again these individuals were not private individuals. After the Supreme Court decided the case of Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, 64 L.Ed. 887, 40 S.Ct. 550, 11 A.L.R. 519; in the year 1930 the definition of gross income was amended once again, see as follows:

Later during the same year of 1939, the Public Salary Tax Act was passed, and as such, the definition of Gross Income again changed by adding STATUTORY State officers or employees to the text. By “State” we mean TERRITORIAL states and not Constitutional states of the Union, as defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d). This definition remains in effect to this date, as the statutory language pertaining to "and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service", has never been repealed nor amended, see as follows:

2. Heart of the Income Tax FRAUD

We asked the Bing ChatGPT Artificial Intelligence Chatbot the following question:

For the purposes of the above "U.S. assets" means GOVERNMENT property and NOT the geographical "United States", So it is a synonym for PUBLIC property. That is why the statutory "U.S. person", "U.S. citizen", or "U.S. resident" identified as parties "LIABLE TO" rather than "LIABLE FOR" the income tax in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) are liable for tax on their worldwide earnings:

Property of the national government, public property, and "U.S. assets" are all synonymous in the I.R.C. Anyone who uses PUBLIC property is availing themselves of a PUBLIC GRANT and a PRIVILEGE and will be treated AS IF they are a public officer through IMPLIED consent in this case. The definition of “public office” confirms that a public officer is someone in charge of "THE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC":

We just love how the IRS website is cited so heavily in the above ChatGPT dialog and others. Of course they say themselves we can’t trust anything on their website. The courts repeat the same thing! See:

We also love how the ChatGPT chatbot uses "trade or business" in the definitions they provide, as does the IRS when defining or describing anything having to do with “trade or business” as statutorily defined and not commonly understood. It's a tautology designed to deceive. All of the ‘evidence’ in support of these claims boils down to tautologies and circular reasoning.

IRS publications and websites are the exoteric. The code and regs the esoteric. IRS is counting on the fact that the average American doesn’t read the statutes or the regulations and instead will rely on LIES on their website. The DECEPTION on the IRS website is designed to equivocate using the word “United States” to make the average reader falsely believe that “United States” includes the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union among those who don’t CONSENT to anything the government offers them. “United States” can include ANYTHING one wants it to mean if the reader has already determined that they consent to pay the tax by volunteering for a public office in the “United States” federal corporation. Of course such volunteers are “in the United States” and even a “source within the United States” as a legal fiction and corporation. Public officers of the “United States” are, in fact SYNONYMOUS with that corporation while serving on official duty. But its ultimately a fraud because:

Most courts, both state and federal, like to divert attention away from the subject of this section by saying that the income tax is NOT a tax on “property”.

We now know from this section, however, that this statement is NOT entirely correct because it uses the word “property” in only ONE context: That of the “taxpayer”, and not “government” or PUBLIC property. In fact, in all cases where an income tax is levied, the ACTIVITY subject to excise tax always involves GOVERNMENT property in some form CONSENSUALLY consumed or used by the “taxpayer”, such as:

As an example of the above, domicile is the SOLE BASIS for the collection of state income taxes:

And what is the criteria for establishing what amounts to a CIVIL STATUTORY domicile? Quite simply, either you participated in the government as a public officer called a CIVIL STATUTORY “citizen”, “resident”, or “person” that is their legislatively created property, or you VOLUNTARILY and CONSENSUALLY consumed government services of some kind that cost money to deliver. Thus, you have an equitable obligation to reimburse the government and if you don’t, you are engaging in “unjust enrichment”. Don’t believe us? See:

The issues discussed here are the HEART of the fraud that is protected with silence, equivocation, and deception to ensure it is never discovered. They are all THIRD RAIL issues NO ONE in the government can ever talk about without committing commercial suicide. Now do you know why our best President honestly said the following:

3. Overview of the Income Taxation Process

This section provides basic background on how the income tax described in Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A functions. This will help you fit the explanation contained in this memorandum into the overall taxation process. Below is a summary of the taxation process:

All of the above requirements have in common that violating them would result in the equivalent of exercising eminent domain over the private property of the private person without their consent and without just compensation, which the U.S. Supreme Court said violates the Fifth Amendment takings clause:

As a consequence of the above considerations, any government officer or employee who does any of the following is unlawfully converting private property to a public use without the consent of the owner and without consideration:

[1] An example of direct conversion would be the process of “registering” a vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles in your state. The act of registration constitutes consent by original ABSOLUTE owner to change the ownership of the property from ABSOLUTE to QUALIFIED and to convey legal title to the state and qualified title to himself.

[2] An example of a PUBLIC status is statutory “taxpayer” (public office called “trade or business”), statutory “citizen”, statutory “driver” (vehicle), statutory voter (registered voters are public officers).

4. Proof IRC Subtitle A is primarily an excise tax on activities in connection with a "trade or business"

The Internal Revenue Code, Subtitles A and C is an excise tax or franchise tax upon activities in connection with a statutory franchise called a “public office”. All franchises are contracts or agreements that only acquire the force of law with the consent of BOTH the GRANTOR and the GRANTEE.

[1] Larson v. South Dakota, 278 U.S. 429, 73 L.Ed. 441, 49 S.Ct. 196; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U.S. 544, 57 L.Ed. 633, 33 S.Ct. 303; Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 50 L.Ed. 801, 26 S.Ct. 427; Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Brown, 176 Ark. 774, 4 S.W.2d. 15, 58 A.L.R. 534; Chicago General R. Co. v. Chicago, 176 Ill. 253, 52 N.E. 880; Louisville v. Louisville Home Tel. Co., 149 Ky. 234, 148 S.W. 13; State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co., 140 Mo. 539, 41 S.W. 955; Baker v. Montana Petroleum Co., 99 Mont. 465, 44 P.2d. 735; Re Board of Fire Comrs. 27 N.J. 192, 142 A.2d. 85; Chrysler Light & P. Co. v. Belfield, 58 N.D. 33, 224 N.W. 871, 63 A.L.R. 1337; Franklin County v. Public Utilities Com., 107 Ohio.St. 442, 140 N.E. 87, 30 A.L.R. 429; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co., 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537; Rutland Electric Light Co. v. Marble City Electric Light Co., 65 Vt. 377, 26 A. 635; Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 469, 99 S.E. 723, 9 A.L.R. 1148, cert den 251 U.S. 557, 64 L.Ed. 413, 40 S.Ct. 179, disapproved on other grounds Victoria v. Victoria Ice, Light & Power Co. 134 Va. 134, 114 S.E. 92, 28 A.L.R. 562, and disapproved on other grounds Richmond v. Virginia Ry. & Power Co. 141 Va. 69, 126 S.E. 353.

[2] Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa. 183, 16 A. 836.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the national government CANNOT expand its powers within a constitutional state of the Union by using any kind of contract or compact or agreement:

By “authorize” they mean “license”. That’s what the above case was about. And WHAT “license” are they talking about? In the next section, we prove that the license is, in fact, the Social Security Number or "Taxpayer Identification Number”.

And guess what? The ONLY thing they can tax under I.R.C. Subtitles A and C of the Internal Revenue Code is a “trade or business”, which they define as “the functions of a public office”. The implication of the above is that a taxable “trade or business” CANNOT lawfully be offered in a state of the Union. That, in fact, is why the geographical definitions of “State” and “United States” found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d) limit themselves to federal territory not within any state. That is also why there are no internal revenue districts within any state of the Union and 26 U.S.C. §7601 limits IRS Enforcement to “Internal Revenue Districts”. If this limit on the jurisdiction of the national government is violated, then in effect we have an unconstitutional “INVASION” in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. That “invasion” is a commercial invasion intended to “worship” mammon and filthy lucre:

To prove the foregoing, we’ll start off with a definition of “trade or business”:

The definition of “privilege”, which is also called a “public right” and a “franchise” in the legal field is very revealing about what privileges ATTACH to:

Notice that “privileges” and therefore “public rights” and “franchises” always attach to an OFFICE. In the government that office is called a “public office”. What office is that? It’s called a STATUTORY “citizen”, “resident”, “person”, or “taxpayer”. The definition of “person” even confirms this!

We know that the IRS likes to point to the word “includes” in the above definitions of “trade or business” and “person” and state that it is an “expansive” definition that does not exclude the common meaning of the term. We must remember, however, that there is an important principle of statutory construction which states that anything not mentioned in a law, statute, code, or regulation is “excluded by implication”, which means that all things not connected to a “public office” are excluded from the definition of “trade or business” by implication:

Therefore, the definition of the term “trade or business”, says what it means and means what it says. The Supreme Court has held many times that words used in a law or statute are to be given their ordinary and plain meaning and are to be restricted to the clear language found in the code itself. If you would like an exhaustive analysis of the meaning of the word “includes” within the Internal Revenue Code, please refer to the free pamphlet available on the internet at:

Judges and even government administrators are NOT legislators and cannot by fiat or presumption add ANYTHING they want to the definition of statutory terms. If they do, they are violating the separation of powers and conducting a commercial invasion of the states in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, according the creator of our three branch system of government, there is NO FREEDOM AT ALL and liberty is IMPOSSIBLE when the Executive and LEGISLATIVE functions are united under a single person. These observations would also apply when Judges act as Legislators by adding things to statutory definitions that do not expressly appear in the statute:

The only time in the I.R.C. where the term “trade or business” can mean anything other than what it is defined above to mean is in places where there is a regional definition that overrides the general or default definition found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) above. Below is the only example of that within the I.R.C., which is intended to be used only in the context of “self employment”:

So in other words, in the context of self employment ONLY, the term “trade or business” excludes public offices in the District of Columbia and only includes those of federal territories and possessions, which are called “States” within the I.R.C. This is because the default definition in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) includes ALL public offices everywhere within federal jurisdiction, whereas those public offices in the District of Columbia are specifically not mentioned by the above definition. When the authors of the U.S. Code in the Office of Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives wants to confuse and mislead the American people, they will write the code in such as way as to use a double-negative, whereby they define what the new definition of “trade or business” excludes, and then don’t include public offices in the District of Columbia but include all other types of political offices under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, for self employment context ONLY, “trade or business” has a different meaning than the default definition in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) and has been overridden to exclude public offices in the District of Columbia but include all other types of public offices otherwise within federal jurisdiction.

Government franchises and the excise taxes that implement them such as the “trade or business” franchise are commonly called by any of the following names to disguise the nature of the transaction:

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the income tax was an excise tax indirectly when they held the following:

[1] Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932), attempted to catalog some of the matters that fall within the public-rights doctrine:

“Familiar illustrations of administrative agencies created for the determination of such matters are found in connection with the exercise of the congressional power as to interstate and foreign commerce, taxation, immigration, the public lands, public health, the facilities of the post office, pensions and payments to veterans.” Id., at 51, 52 S.Ct., at 292 (footnote omitted).

[2] Congress cannot “withdraw from [Art. III] judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty.” Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 284 (1856) (emphasis added). It is thus clear that the presence of the United States as a proper party to the proceeding is a necessary but not sufficient means of distinguishing “private rights” from “public rights.” And it is also clear that even with respect to matters that arguably fall within the scope of the “public rights” doctrine, the presumption is in favor of Art. III courts. See Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S., at 548-549, and n. 21, 82 S.Ct., at 1471-1472, and n. 21 (opinion of Harlan, J.). See also Currie, The Federal Courts and the American Law Institute, Part 1, 36 U.Chi.L.Rev. 1, 13-14, n. 67 (1968). Moreover, when Congress assigns these matters to administrative agencies, or to legislative courts, it has generally provided, and we have suggested that it may be required to provide, for Art. III judicial review. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S., at 455, n. 13, 97 S.Ct., at 1269, n. 13 .

To give you an example of the above phenomenon, the so-called “U.S. Tax Court” is identified in 26 U.S.C. §7441 as an Article I court, and hence NOT an Article III court as described above. It is therefore what the U.S. Supreme Court identified above as a “particularized” tribunal that officiates ONLY over “Congressionally created rights”, which is a euphemism for “privileges” incident to a franchise.

Only “public rights” exercised by “public officers” may be officiated in the U.S. Tax Court, which is a “legislative franchise court”.

Below are the legal mechanisms involved as described by the Annotated U.S. Constitution:

So the U.S. Tax Court is really nothing more than an administrative binding arbitration board for federal statutory “employees” and public officers in resolving disputes INTERNAL to the national government and among federal instrumentalities, officers, bureaus, and agencies. All these entities are identified in 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) as the ONLY proper subject of IRS enforcement activity, which the code calls “distraint”. That, in fact, is why the INTERNAL Revenue Service begins with the word “INTERNAL”. The “private causes of action” they are referring to are the exercise of “private law”, which is a fancy term for contract law, where the franchise itself codified in I.R.C. Subtitles A through C is the franchise contract. The U.S. Supreme Court called income taxes a “quasi contract”, in fact.[1]

Private law such as the I.R.C. Subtitles A through C can only acquire the “force of law” through the consent of BOTH parties to it. Contracts between private people are an example of private law. This is thoroughly established in:

Many people misrepresent the facts by claiming that the I.R.C. is not “law”. It IS law, but NOT for everyone. If someone shoves a signed contract in front of you and you manifest actions that indicate consent to the provisions of the contract, then its as good as if you signed it. This kind of consent is called “implied” consent or “tacit procuration”. This kind of consent is manifested in several forms, including:

The IRS, judges, and government prosecutors don’t want you to know this stuff and carefully hide the nature of the transaction to keep you in the dark. They love what we call “mushrooms”, which are organisms that you keep in the dark and feed SHIT to. The SHIT is:

Your public dis-servants play these games to disguise the consensual nature of what they are doing and let you practically convict and hang yourself. They also do it to protect their “plausible deniability” and absolute irresponsibility towards the public. That lack of responsiblity and complete unaccounability and even anonymity is the source of GREAT evil, in fact:

We call this “hide the presumption and hide the consent” game. The trap is their own omission and the legal ignorance they manufactured in you within the public/government school system that they use to HARVEST your labor and property when you enter the work force. Here is how the Bible describes this trap:

You live on a corporate farm and you are government livestock if you let that legal ignorance continue. A cage is reserve for you on the federal planatation UNLESS and UNTIL you take charge and prosecute these CRIMINALS who never protect you and ONLY protect their own mafia RICO racket. See:

Why do they need your consent? Because the Declaration of Independence says ALL JUST AUTHORITY of any civil government derives from CONSENT of the governed, and they need that consent in a LOT of ways to govern. Another reason is that he who consents cannot complain of an injury accomplished during tax enforcement and in some cases entirely forfeits their right to sue in REAL, Constitutional court instead of fake U.S. Tax Court franchise court. Tax Court is an Aritcle I court under 26 U.S.C. §7441 in the Executive rather than Judicial branch.

It is otherwise an unconstitutional “bill of attainder” to institute IRS penalties against a person protected by the Constitution:

The important thing to remember, however, is that Congress is FORBIDDEN from creating franchises within states of the Union. Why? Because:

That is why the geographical definitions within the I.R.C. limit themselves to federal territory exclusively and include no part of any state of the Union.

If you want an exhaustive analysis of how franchises such as the I.R.C. Subtitles A through C operate, please see the following:

[1] See Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935).

5. Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) are what the FTC calls a “franchise mark”

The Federal Trade Commission (F.T.C.) has defined a commercial franchise as follows:

In the context of the above document, the “Social Security Number” or “Taxpayer Identification Number” function essentially as what the FTC calls a “franchise mark”. It behaves as what we call a “de facto license” to represent Caesar as a public officer:

The nature of Social Security Numbers as a franchise mark is implemented as follows from a legal perspective:

This same SSN or TIN “ franchise mark” is what the Bible calls “the mark of the beast”. It defines “the Beast” as the government or civil rulers:

The “business” that is “operated” or “licensed” by THE BEAST in statutes is called a “trade or business” which is defined as follows:
26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(26)

Those engaged in “the trade or business” franchise activity are officers of Caesar and have fired God as their civil protector. By becoming said public officers or officers of Caesar, they have violated the FIRST COMMANDMENT of the Ten Commandments, because they are “serving other gods”, and the pagan god they serve is a man:

By “bowing down” as indicated above, the Bible means that you cannot become UNEQUAL or especially INFERIOR to any government or civil ruler under the civil law. In other words, you cannot surrender your equality and be civilly governed by any government or civil ruler under the Roman system of jus civile, civil law, or civil “statutes”. That is not to say that you are lawless or an “anarchist” by any means, because you are still accountable under criminal law, equity, and the common law in any court. All civil statutory codes make the government superior and you inferior so you can’t consent to a domicile and thereby become subject to it. The word “subjection” in the following means INFERIORITY:

Below are ways one becomes subject to Caesar’s civil statutory “codes” and civil franchises as a “subject”, and thereby surrenders their equality to engage in government idolatry:

Those who violate the First Commandment by doing any of the above become subject to the civil statutory franchises or codes. They are thereby committing the following form of idolatry because they are nominating a King to be ABOVE them rather than EQUAL to them under the common law:

In support of this section, the following evidence is provided for use in court which PROVES that those who use SSNs or TINs are considered to be and MUST, by law, be considered to be public officers:

Based on the preceding overwhelming evidence, the inference and conclusion that Social Security Numbers are regarded and treated as a de facto license to occupy a public office is inescapable. The taxation of the exercise of that office, in fact, is the main object of the entire Internal Revenue Code Subtitles A and C. It is de facto, because those exercising said office do so illegally and unconstitutionally in the vast majority of cases.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Below is an example from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the “trade or business” excise taxable income tax franchise:

“Even if the judgment is deemed to be colored by the nature of the obligation whose validity it establishes, and we are free to re-examine it, and, if we find it to be based on an obligation penal in character, to refuse to enforce it outside the state where rendered, see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 , 292, et seq. 8 S.Ct. 1370, compare Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 , 28 S.Ct. 641, still the obligation to pay taxes is not penal. It is a statutory liability, quasi contractual in nature, enforceable, if there is no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common-law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit. United States v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 , 31 S.Ct. 155; Price v. United States, 269 U.S. 492 , 46 S.Ct. 180; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227; and see Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 542; Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 493. This was the rule established in the English courts before the Declaration of Independence. Attorney General v. Weeks, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 223; Attorney General v. Jewers and Batty, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 225; Attorney General v. Hatton, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. [296 U.S. 268, 272] 262; Attorney General v. _ _, 2 Ans.Rep. 558; see Comyn's Digest (Title 'Dett,' A, 9); 1 Chitty on Pleading, 123; cf. Attorney General v. Sewell, 4 M.&W. 77. “
[Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935)]

6. Public v. Private[1]

A very important subject is the division of legal authority between PUBLIC and PRIVATE rights. On this subject the U.S. Supreme Court held:

If you can't "execute" them, then you ALSO can't enforce them against ANYONE else. Some people might be tempted to say that we all construe them against the private person daily, but in fact we can't do that WITHOUT being a public officer WITHIN the government. If we do enforce the law as a private person, we are criminally impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912. Another U.S. Supreme Court cite also confirms why this must be:

You MUST therefore be an agent of the government and therefore a PUBLIC officer in order to “make constitutions or laws or administer, execute, or ENFORCE EITHER”. Examples of “agents” or “public officers” of the government include all the following:

So how do you “OBEY” a law without “EXECUTING” it? We’ll give you a hint: It CAN’T BE DONE!

Likewise, if ONLY public officers can “administer, execute, or enforce” the law, then the following additional requirements of the law are unavoidable and also implied:

6.1 Introduction

In order to fully understand and comprehend the nature of franchises, it is essential to thoroughly understand the distinctions between PUBLIC and PRIVATE property. The following subsections will deal with this important subject extensively. In the following subsections, we will establish the following facts:

For an example of how this phenomenon works in the case of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitles A and C “trade or business” franchise, see:

As an example of why an understanding of this subject is EXTREMELY important, consider the following dialog at an IRS audit in which the FIRST question out of the mouth of the agent is ALWAYS “What is YOUR Social Security Number?”:
______________________________________________________________________________________________

YOU: 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) says SSNs belong to the government. The only way it could be MY number is if I am appearing here today as a federal employee or officer on official business. If that is the case, no, I am here as a private human being and not a government statutory “employee” in possession or use of “public property” such as a number. Therefore, I don’t HAVE a Social Security Number. Furthermore, I am not lawfully eligible and never have been eligible to participate in Social Security and any records you have to the contrary are FALSE and FRAUDULENT and should be DESTROYED.

YOU: Well then EVERYONE is a STUPID whore for acting as a federal employee or agent without compensation THEY and not YOU determine. The charge for my services to act as a federal “employee” or officer or trustee in possession of public property such as an SSN is ALL the tax and penalty liability that might result PLUS $1,000 per hour. Will you agree in writing to pay the compensation I demand to act essentially as your federal coworker, because if you don’t, then it’s not MY number?

YOU: Well why do the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) say it belongs to the Social Security Administration instead of me? I am not appearing as a Social Security employee at this meeting and it's unreasonable and prejudicial for you to assume that I am. I am also not appearing here as “federal personnel” as defined in 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(13). I don’t even qualify for Social Security and never have, and what you are asking me to do by providing an INVALID and knowingly FALSE number is to VIOLATE THE LAW and commit fraud by providing that which I am not legally entitled to and thereby fraudulently procure the benefits of a federal franchise. Is that your intention?

YOU: Well good. Then if it’s MY number and MY property, then I have EXCLUSIVE control and use over it. That is what the word “property” implies. That means I, and not you, may penalize people for abusing MY property. The penalty for wrongful use or possession of MY property is all the tax and penalty liability that might result from using said number for tax collection plus $1,000 per hour for educating you about your lawful duties because you obviously don’t know what they are. If it’s MY property, then your job is to protect me from abuses of MY property. If you can penalize me for misusing YOUR procedures and forms, which are YOUR property, then I am EQUALLY entitled to penalize you for misusing MY property. Are you willing to sign an agreement in writing to pay for the ABUSE of what you call MY property, because if you aren’t, you are depriving me of exclusive use and control over MY property and depriving me of the equal right to prevent abuses of my property??

IRS AGENT: OK, well it’s OUR number. Sorry for deceiving you. Can you give us OUR number that WE assigned to you?

YOU: You DIDN’T assign it to ME as a private person, which is what I am appearing here today as. You can’t lawfully issue public property such as an SSN to a private person. That’s criminal embezzlement. The only way it could have been assigned to me is if I’m acting as a “public officer” or federal employee at this moment, and I am NOT. I am here as a private person and not a public employee. Therefore, it couldn’t have been lawfully issued to me. Keep this up, and I’m going to file a criminal complaint with the U.S. Attorney for embezzlement in violation of 18 U.S.C. §641 and impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912. I’m not here as a public officer and you are asking me to act like one without compensation and without legal authority. Where is the compensation that I demand to act as a fiduciary and trustee over your STINKING number, which is public property? I remind you that the very purpose why governments are created is to PROTECT and maintain the separation between "public property" and "private property" in order to preserve my inalienable constitutional rights that you took an oath to support and defend. Why do you continue to insist on co-mingling and confusing them in order to STEAL my labor, property, and money without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment takings clause?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Usually, after the above interchange, the IRS agent will realize he is digging a DEEP hole for himself and will abruptly end that sort of inquiry, and many times will also end his collection efforts.

6.2 What is “Property”?

Keep in mind the following critical facts about “property” as legally defined:

6.3 "Public” v. “Private” property ownership

Next, we would like to compare the two types of property: Public v. Private. There are two types of ownership of “property”: Absolute and Qualified. The following definition describes and compares these two types of ownership:

Participation in franchises causes PRIVATE property to transmute into PUBLIC property. Below is a table comparing these two great classes of property and the legal aspects of their status.

[1] See: About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012.

6.4 The purpose and foundation of de jure government: Protection of EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE rights

The main purpose for which all governments are established is the protection of EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE rights and property. This purpose is the foundation of all the just authority of any government as held by the Declaration of Independence:

The fiduciary duty that a public officer who works for the government has is founded upon the requirement to protect PRIVATE property.

[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.

[2] 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).

The VERY FIRST step that any lawful de jure government must take in protecting PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights is to protect it from being converted to PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property. After all: If the people you hire to protect you won’t even do the job of protecting you from THEM, why should you hire them to protect you from ANYONE ELSE?

The U.S. Supreme Court has also affirmed that the protection of PRIVATE rights and PRIVATE property is “the foundation of the government” when it held the following. The case below was a challenge to the constitutionality of the first national income tax, and the U.S. government rightfully lost that challenge:

In the above landmark case, the lawyer for the petitioner, Mr. Choate, even referred to the income tax as COMMUNISM, and he was obviously right! Why? Because communism like socialism operates upon the following political premises:

Look at some of the planks of the Communist Manifesto and confirm the above for yourself:

The legal definition of “property” confirms that one who OWNS a thing has the EXCLUSIVE right to use and dispose of and CONTROL the use of his or her or its property and ALL the fruits and “benefits” associated with the use of such property . The implication is that you as the PRIVATE owner have a right to EXCLUDE ALL OTHERS including all governments from using, benefitting from, or controlling your property. Governments, after all, are simply legal “persons” and the constitution guarantees that ALL “persons” are equal. If your neighbor can’t benefit from your property without your consent, then neither can any so-called “government”.

The above requirements of the USA Constitution are circumvented with nothing more than the simple PRESUMPTION, usually on the part of the IRS and corrupted judges who want to STEAL from you, that the GOVERNMENT owns it and that you have to prove that they CONSENTED to let you keep the fruits of it. They can’t and never have proven that they have such a right, and all such presumptions are a violation of due process of law.

In order to unconstitutionally and TREASONOUSLY circumvent the above limitation on their right to presume, corrupt governments and government actors will play “word games” with citizenship and key definitions in the ENCRYPTED “code” in order to KIDNAP your legal identity and place it OUTSIDE the above protections of the constitution by:

This kind of arbitrary discretion is PROHIBITED by the Constitution, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Thomas Jefferson, our most revered founding father, precisely predicted the above abuses when he astutely said:

The key to preventing the unconstitutional abuse of presumption by the corrupted judiciary and IRS to STEAL from people is to completely understand the content of the following memorandum of law and consistently apply it in every interaction with the government:

6.5 The Ability to Regulate Private Rights and Private Conduct is Repugnant to the Constitution

The following cite establishes that private rights and private property are entirely beyond the control of the government:

Notice that they say that the ONLY basis to regulate private rights is to prevent injury of one man to another by the use of said property. They say that this authority is the origin of the "police powers" of the state. What they hide, however, is that these same POLICE POWERS involve the CRIMINAL laws and EXCLUDE the CIVIL laws or even franchises. You can TELL they are trying to hide something because around this subject they invoke the Latin language that is unknown to most Americans to conceal the nature of what they are doing. Whenever anyone invokes Latin in a legal setting, a red flag ought to go up because you KNOW they are trying to hide a KEY fact. Here is the Latin they invoked:

The other phrase to notice in the Munn case above is the use of the word "social compact". A compact is legally defined as a contract.

Therefore, one cannot exercise their First Amendment right to legally associate with or contract with a SOCIETY and thereby become a party to the "social compact/contract" without ALSO becoming a STATUTORY "citizen". By statutory citizen, we really mean a domiciliary of a SPECIFIC municipal jurisdiction, and not someone who was born or naturalized in that place. Hence, by STATUTORY citizen we mean a person who:

A CONSTITUTIONAL citizen, on the other hand, is someone who cannot consent to choose the place of their birth. These people in statutes are called “non-citizen nationals”. Neither BEING BORN nor being PHYSICALLY PRESENT in a place is an express exercise of one’s discretion or an act of CONSENT, and therefore cannot make one a government contractor called a statutory “U.S. citizen”. That is why birth or naturalization determines nationality but not their status under the CIVIL laws. All civil jurisdiction is based on “consent of the governed”, as the Declaration of Independence indicates. Those who do NOT consent to the civil laws that implement the social compact of the municipal government they are PHYSICALLY situated within are called “free inhabitants”, “nonresidents”, “transient foreigners”, “non-citizen nationals”, or “foreign sovereigns”. These “free inhabitants” are mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, which continue to this day and they are NOT the same and mutually exclusive to a statutory “U.S. citizen”. These “free inhabitants” instead are CIVILLY governed by the common law RATHER than the civil law.

Policemen are NOT allowed to involve themselves in CIVIL disputes and may ONLY intervene or arrest anyone when a CRIME has been committed. They CANNOT arrest for an "infraction", which is a word designed to hide the fact that the statute being enforced is a CIVIL or FRANCHISE statute not involving the CRIMINAL "police powers". Hence, civil jurisdiction over PRIVATE rights is NOT authorized among those who HAVE such rights. Only those who know those rights and claim and enforce them, not through attorneys but in their proper person, have such rights. Nor can those PRIVATE rights lawfully be surrendered to a REAL, de jure government, even WITH consent, if they are, in fact, UNALIENABLE as the Declaration of Independence indicates.

The only people who can consent to give away a right are those who HAVE no rights because domiciled on federal territory not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights:

To apply these concepts, the police enforce the "vehicle code", but most of the vehicle code is a civil franchise that they may NOT enforce without ABUSING the police powers of the state. In recognition of these concepts, the civil provisions of the vehicle code are called "infractions" rather than "crimes". AND, before the civil provisions of the vehicle code may lawfully be enforced against those using the public roadways, one must be a "resident" with a domicile not within the state, but on federal territory where rights don't exist. All civil law attaches to SPECIFIC territory. That is why by applying for a driver's license, most state vehicle codes require that the person must be a "resident" of the state, meaning a person with a domicile within the statutory but not Constitutional "United States", meaning federal territory.

So what the vehicle codes in most states do is mix CRIMINAL and CIVIL and even PRIVATE franchise law all into one title of code, call it the "Vehicle code", and make it extremely difficult for even the most law abiding "citizen" to distinguish which provisions are CIVIL/FRANCHISES and which are CRIMINAL, because they want to put the police force to an UNLAWFUL use enforcing CIVIL rather than CRIMINAL law. This has the practical effect of making the "CODE" not only a deception, but void for vagueness on its face, because it fails to give reasonable notice to the public at large, WHICH specific provisions pertain to EACH subset of the population. That in fact, is why they have to call it “the code”, rather than simply “law”: Because the truth is encrypted and hidden in order to unlawfully expand their otherwise extremely limited civil jurisdiction. The two subsets of the population who they want to confuse and mix together in order to undermine your sovereignty are:

The way they get around the problem of only being able to enforce the CIVIL provisions of the vehicle code against domiciliaries of the federal zone is to:

The act of "governing" WITHOUT consent therefore implies CRIMINAL governing, not CIVIL governing. To procure CIVIL jurisdiction over a private right requires the CONSENT of the owner of the right. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court states in Munn the following:

Therefore, if one DOES NOT consent to join a “society” as a statutory citizen, he RETAINS those SOVEREIGN rights that would otherwise be lost through the enforcement of the civil law. Here is how the U.S. Supreme Court describes this requirement of law:

A PRIVATE right that is unalienable cannot be given away by a citizen, even WITH consent, to a de jure government. Hence, the only people that any government may CIVILLY govern are those without unalienable rights, all of whom MUST therefore be domiciled on federal territory where CONSTITUTIONAL rights do not exist.

Notice that when they are talking about "regulating" conduct using CIVIL law, all of a sudden they mention "citizens" instead of ALL PEOPLE. These "citizens" are those with a DOMICILE within federal territory not protected by the Constitution:

All "citizens" that they can regulate therefore must be WITHIN the government and be acting as public officers. Otherwise, they would continue to be PRIVATE parties beyond the CIVIL control of any government. Hence, in a Republican Form of Government where the People are sovereign:

These observations are consistent with the very word roots that form the word "republic". The following video says the word origin comes from "res publica", which means a collection of PUBLIC rights shared by the public. You must therefore JOIN "the public" and become a public officer before you can partake of said PUBLIC right.

This gives a WHOLE NEW MEANING to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in which he refers to American government as:

You gotta volunteer as an uncompensated public officer for the government to CIVILLY govern you. Hence, the only thing they can CIVILLY GOVERN, is the GOVERNMENT! Pretty sneaky, huh? Here is a whole memorandum of law on this subject proving such a conclusion:

The other important point we wish to emphasize is that those who are EXCLUSIVELY private and therefore beyond the reach of the civil law are:

For a VERY interesting background on the subject of this section, we recommend reading the following case:

6.6 The Right to be left alone

The purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America is to confer the “right to be left alone”, which is the essence of being sovereign:

The legal definition of “justice” confirms that it’s purpose is to protect your right to be “left alone”:

And finally, Thomas Jefferson agreed with the above by defining “justice” as follows in his First Inaugural Address:

Therefore, the word “injustice” means interference with the equal rights of others absent their consent and which constitutes an injury NOT as any law defines it, but as the PERSON who is injured defines it. Under this conception of “justice”, anything done with your consent cannot be classified as “injustice” or an injury.

Those who are “private persons” fit in the category of people who must be left alone as a matter of law:

The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that the ability to regulate what it calls “private conduct” is repugnant to the constitution. It is the differentiation between PRIVATE rights and PUBLIC rights, in fact, that forms the basis for enforcing your right to be left alone:

Only by taking on a “public character” or engaging in “public conduct” rather than a “private” character may our actions become the proper or lawful subject of federal or state legislation or regulation.

The phrase “subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law” refers ONLY to statutes or court decisions that pertain to licensed or privileged activities or franchises, all of which:

If you don’t maintain a domicile on federal territory, which is called the “United States” in the U.S. Code, or you don’t work for the government by participating in its franchises, then the government has NO AUTHORITY to even keep records on you under the authority of the Privacy Act and you would be committing perjury under penalty of perjury to call yourself an “individual” on a government form. Why? Because you are the sovereign and the sovereign is not the subject of the law, but the author of the law!

In summary, the only way the government can control you through civil law is to connect you to public conduct or a “public office” within the government executed on federal territory. If they are asserting jurisdiction that you believe they don’t have, it is probably because:

6.7 The PUBLIC You (straw man) vs. the PRIVATE You (human)

It is extremely important to know the difference between PRIVATE and PUBLIC “persons”, because we all have private and public identities. This division of our identities is recognized in the following maxim of law:

The next time you are in court as a PRIVATE person, here are some questions for the next jury, judge, or government prosecutor trying to enforce a civil obligation upon you as a PRESUMED public officer called a “citizen”, “resident”, “person”, or “taxpayer”:

[1] Levasseur v. Field (Me), 332 A.2d. 765; Hinds v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 155 Me 349, 155 A.2d. 721, 85 A.L.R.2d. 703 (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Poitras v. R. E. Glidden Body Shop, Inc. (Me) 430 A.2d. 1113); Connizzo v. General American Life Ins. Co. (Mo App), 520 S.W.2d. 661.

If the answer to all the above is NO, then there ARE no PRIVATE rights or PRIVATE property and there IS no “government” because governments only protect PRIVATE rights and private property!

We’d love to hear a jury, judge, or prosecutor address this subject before they hall him away in a straight jacket to the nuthouse because of a completely irrational and maybe even criminal answer.

The next time you end up in front of a judge or government attorney enforcing a civil statute against you, you might want to insist on proof in the record during the process of challenging jurisdiction as a defendant or respondent:

We can handle private and public affairs from the private, but we cannot handle private affairs from the public. The latter is one of the biggest mistakes many people make when trying to handle their commercial and lawful (private) or legal (public) affairs. Those who use PUBLIC property for PRIVATE gain in fact are STEALING and such stealing has always been a crime.

In law, all rights attach to LAND, and all privileges attach to one’s STATUS under voluntary civil franchises. An example of privileged statuses include “taxpayer” (under the tax code), “person”, “individual”, “driver” (under the vehicle code), “spouse” (under the family code). Rights are PRIVATE, PRIVILEGES are PUBLIC.

In our society, the PRIVATE “straw man” was created by the application for the birth certificate. It is a legal person under contract law and under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), with capacity to sue or be sued under the common law. It is PRIVATE PROPERTY of the human being described in the birth certificate.

The PUBLIC officer “straw man” (e.g. statutory "taxpayer") was created by the Application for the Social Security Card, SSA Form SS-5. It is a privileged STATUS under an unconstitutional national franchise of the de facto government. It is PROPERTY of the national government. The PUBLIC “straw man” is thoroughly described in:

The PRIVATE "John Doe" is a statutory "non-resident alien non-individual" not engaged in the “trade or business”/PUBLIC OFFICER franchise in relation to the PUBLIC. He exists in the republic and is a free inhabitant under the Articles of Confederation. He has inalienable rights and unlimited liabilities. Those unlimited liabilities are described in

The PUBLIC "JOHN DOE" is a public office in the government corporation and statutory "U.S. citizen" per 8 U.S.C. §1401, 26 U.S.C. §3121(e), and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). He exists in the privileged socialist democracy. He has “benefits”, franchises, obligations, immunities, and limited liability.

In the PRIVATE, money is an ASSET and always in the form of something that has intrinsic value, i.e. gold or silver. Payment for anything is in the form of commercial set off.

In the PUBLIC, money is a LIABILITY or debt and normally takes the form of a promissory note, i.e. an Federal Reserve Note (FRN), a check, bond or note. Payment is in the form of discharge in the future.

The PRIVATE realm is the basis for all contract and commerce under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.). The PUBLIC realm was created by the bankruptcy of the PRIVATE entity. Generally, creditors can operate from the PRIVATE. PUBLIC entities are all debtors (or slaves). The exercise of the right to contract by the PRIVATE straw man makes human beings into SURETY for the PUBLIC straw man.

Your judicious exercise of your right to contract and the requirement for consent that protects it is the main thing that keeps the PUBLIC separate from the PRIVATE. See:

Be careful how you use your right to contract! It is the most DANGEROUS right you have because it can destroy ALL of your PRIVATE rights by converting them to PUBLIC rights and offices.

All PUBLIC franchises are contracts or agreements and therefore participating in them is an act of contracting.

[2] Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa 183, 16 A 836.

Franchises include Social Security, income taxation (“trade or business”/public office franchise), unemployment insurance, driver licensing (“driver” franchise), and marriage licensing (“spouse” franchise).

Therefore, it is important to learn how to be EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE and a CREDITOR in all of our affairs. Freedom is possible in the PRIVATE; it is not even a valid fantasy in the realm of the PUBLIC.
Below is a summary:
Table 3: Public v. Private

6.8 All PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT law attaches to government territory, all PRIVATE law attaches to your right to contract

Next, we must describe exactly what we mean by “territory”, and the three types of “territory” identified by the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to the term “United States”. Below is how the united States Supreme Court addressed the question of the meaning of the term “United States” (see Black’s Law Dictionary) in the famous case of Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945). The Court ruled that the term United States has three uses:

We will now break the above definition into its three contexts and show what each means.

Table 4: Meanings assigned to "United States" by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison v. Evatt

The way our present system functions, all PUBLIC rights are attached to federal territory. They cannot lawfully attach to EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE property because the right to regulate EXCLUSLIVELY PRIVATE rights is repugnant to the constitution, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lastly, when the government enters the realm of commerce and private business activity, it operates in equity and is treated as EQUAL in every respect to everyone else. ONLY in this capacity can it enact law that does NOT attach to its own territory and to those DOMICILED on its territory:

If a government wants to reach outside its territory and create PRIVATE law for those who have not consented to its jurisdiction by choosing a domicile on its territory, the ONLY method it has for doing this is to exercise its right to contract.

The most important method by which governments exercise their PRIVATE right to contract and disassociate with the territorial limitation upon their lawmaking powers is through the use or abuse of franchises, which are contracts.

[1] Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta, 154 Ga. 731, 115 S.E. 263; Lippencott v. Allander, 27 Iowa 460; State ex rel. Hutton v. Baton Rouge, 217 La. 857, 47 So.2d. 665; Tower v. Tower & S. Street R. Co. 68 Minn 50 0, 71 N.W. 691.

[2] Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta, 154 Ga. 731, 115 S.E. 263; Lippencott v. Allander, 27 Iowa 460; State ex rel. Hutton v. Baton Rouge, 217 La. 857, 47 So.2d. 665; Tower v. Tower & S. Street R. Co. 68 Minn 500, 71 N.W. 691.

6.9. Taxation of “Public” v. “Private” property

The U.S. Supreme Court has held many times that the ONLY purpose for lawful, constitutional taxation is to collect revenues to support ONLY the machinery and operations of the government and its “employees”. This purpose, it calls a “public use” or “public purpose”:

So in order to be legitimately called a “tax” or “taxation”, the money we pay to the government must fit all of the following criteria:

If the monies demanded by government do not fit all of the above requirements, then they are being used for a “private” purpose and cannot be called “taxes” or “taxation”, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Actions by the government to enforce the payment of any monies that do not meet all the above requirements can therefore only be described as:

The U.S. Supreme Court has further characterized all efforts to abuse the tax system in order to accomplish “wealth transfer” as “political heresy” that is a denial of republican principles that form the foundation of our Constitution, when it issued the following strong words of rebuke. Incidentally, the case below also forms the backbone of reasons why the Internal Revenue Code can never be anything more than private law that only applies to those who volunteer into it:

We also cannot assume or suppose that our government has the authority to make “gifts” of monies collected through its taxation powers, and especially not when paid to private individuals or foreign countries because:

Based on the foregoing analysis, we are then forced to divide the monies collected by the government through its taxing powers into only two distinct classes. We also emphasize that every tax collected and every expenditure originating from the tax paid MUST fit into one of the two categories below:
Table 5: Two methods for taxation

The U.S. Supreme Court also helped to clarify how to distinguish the two above categories when it said:

If we give our government the benefit of the doubt by “assuming” or “presuming” that it is operating lawfully and consistent with the model on the left above, then we have no choice but to conclude that everyone who lawfully receives any kind of federal payment MUST be either a federal “employee” or “federal contractor” on official duty, and that the compensation received must be directly connected to the performance of a sovereign or Constitutionally authorized function of government. Any other conclusion or characterization of a lawful tax other than this is irrational, inconsistent with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court on this subject, and an attempt to deceive the public about the role of limited Constitutional government based on Republican principles. This means that you cannot participate in any of the following federal social insurance programs WITHOUT being a federal “employee”, and if you refuse to identify yourself as a federal employee, then you are admitting that your government is a thief and a robber that is abusing its taxing powers:

An examination of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(13), in fact, identifies all those who participate in the above programs as “federal personnel”, which means federal “employees”. To wit:

The “individual” they are talking about above is further defined in 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2) as follows:

The “citizen of the United States” they are talking about above is based on the statutory rather than constitutional definition of the “United States”, which means it refers to the federal zone and excludes states of the Union. Also, note that both of the two preceding definitions are found within Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which is entitled “Government Organization and Employees”. Therefore, it refers ONLY to government “employees” and excludes private employees. There is no definition of the term “individual” anywhere in Title 26 (I.R.C.) of the U.S. Code or any other title that refers to private natural persons, because Congress cannot legislate for them. Notice the use of the phrase “private business” in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling below:

Another very important point to make here is that the purpose of nearly all federal law is to regulate “public conduct” rather than “private conduct”. Congress must write laws to regulate and control every aspect of the behavior of its employees so that they do not adversely affect the rights of private individuals like you, who they exist exclusively to serve and protect. Most federal statutes, in fact, are exclusively for use by those working in government and simply do not apply to private citizens in the conduct of their private lives. This fact is exhaustively proven with evidence in:

Federal law cannot apply to the private realm because the Thirteenth Amendment says that involuntary servitude has been abolished. If involuntary servitude is abolished, then they can't use, or in this case “abuse” the authority of law to impose ANY kind of duty against anyone in the private realm except possibly the responsibility to avoid hurting their neighbor and thereby depriving him of the equal rights he enjoys.

Thomas Jefferson, our most revered founding father, summed up this singular duty of government to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE and only interfere or impose a "duty" using the authority of law when and only when they are hurting each other in order to protect them and prevent the harm when he said.

What the U.S. Supreme Court is saying above is that the government has no authority to tell you how to run your private life. This is contrary to the whole idea of the Internal Revenue Code, whose main purpose is to monitor and control every aspect of those who are subject to it. In fact, it has become the chief means for Congress to implement what we call “social engineering”. Just by the deductions they offer, people are incentivized into all kinds of crazy behaviors in pursuit of reductions in a liability that they in fact do not even have. Therefore, the only reasonable thing to conclude is that Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A which would “appear” to regulate the private conduct of all human beings in states of the Union, in fact:

The I.R.C. therefore essentially amounts to a part of the job responsibility and the “employment contract” of EXISTING “public employees”, “public officers”, and federal instrumentalities. This was also confirmed by the House of Representatives, who said that only those who take an oath of “public office” are subject to the requirements of the personal income tax. See:

The total lack of authority of the government to regulate or tax private conduct explains why, for instance:

Within the Internal Revenue Code, those legal “persons” who work for the government are identified as engaging in a “public office”. A “public office” within the Internal Revenue Code is called a “trade or business”, which is defined below. We emphasize that engaging in a privileged “trade or business” is the main excise taxable activity that in fact and in deed is what REALLY makes a person a “taxpayer” subject to the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A:

Those who are fulfilling the “functions of a public office” are under a legal, fiduciary duty as “trustees” of the “public trust”, while working as “volunteers” for the “charitable trust” called the “United States Government Corporation”, which we affectionately call “U.S. Inc.”:

Those who are acting as “public officers” for “U.S. Inc.” have essentially donated their formerly private property to a “public use”. In effect, they have joined the SOCIALIST collective and become partakers of money STOLEN from people, most of whom, do not wish to participate and who would quit if offered an informed choice to do so.

Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court says about those who have donated their private property to a “public use”. The ability to volunteer your private property for “public use”, by the way, also implies the ability to UNVOLUNTEER at any time, which is the part no government employee we have ever found is willing to talk about. I wonder why….DUHHHH!:

Any legal person, whether it be a natural person, a corporation, or a trust, may become a “public office” if it volunteers to do so. A subset of those engaging in such a “public office” are federal “employees”, but the term “public office” or “trade or business” encompass much more than just government “employees”. In law, when a legal “person” volunteers to accept the legal duties of a “public office”, it therefore becomes a “trustee”, an agent, and fiduciary (as defined in 26 U.S.C. §6903) acting on behalf of the federal government by the operation of private contract law. It becomes essentially a “franchisee” of the federal government carrying out the provisions of the franchise agreement, which is found in:

If you would like to learn more about how this “trade or business” scam works, consult the authoritative article below:

If you would like to know more about the extreme dangers of participating in all government franchises and why you destroy ALL your Constitutional rights and protections by doing so, see:

The IRS Form 1042-S Instructions confirm that all those who use Social Security Numbers are engaged in the “trade or business” franchise:

Engaging in a “trade or business” therefore implies a “public office”, which makes the person using the number into a “public officer” who has donated his formerly private time and services to a “public use” and agreed to give the public the right to control and regulate that use through the operation of the franchise agreement, which is the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A and the Social Security Act found in Title 42 of the U.S. Code. The Social Security Number is therefore the equivalent of a “license number” to act as a “public officer” for the federal government, who is a fiduciary or trustee subject to the plenary legislative jurisdiction of the federal government pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39), 26 U.S.C. §7408(c ), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17(b), regardless of where he might be found geographically, including within a state of the Union. The franchise agreement governs “choice of law” and where it’s terms may be litigated, which is the District of Columbia, based on the agreement itself.

Now let’s apply what we have learned to your employment situation. God said you cannot work for two companies at once. You can only serve one company, and that company is the federal government if you are receiving federal benefits:

Everything you make while working for your slave master, the federal government, is their property over which you are a fiduciary and “public officer”.

A federal “public officer” has no rights in relation to their master, the federal government:

Your existence and your earnings as a federal “public officer” and “trustee” and “fiduciary” are entirely subject to the whim and pleasure of corrupted lawyers and politicians, and you must beg and grovel if you expect to retain anything:

You will need an “exemption” from your new slave master specifically spelled out in law to justify anything you want to keep while working on the federal plantation. The 1040 return is a profit and loss statement for a federal business corporation called the “United States”. You are in partnership with your slave master and they decide what scraps they want to throw to you in your legal “cage” AFTER they figure out whatever is left in financing their favorite pork barrel project and paying off interest on an ever-expanding and endless national debt. Do you really want to reward this type of irresponsibility and surety?

The W-4 therefore essentially amounts to a federal employment application. It is your badge of dishonor and a tacit admission that you can’t or won’t trust God and yourself to provide for yourself. Instead, you need a corrupted “protector” to steal money from your neighbor or counterfeit (print) it to help you pay your bills and run your life. Furthermore, if your private employer forced you to fill out the W-4 against your will or instituted any duress to get you to fill it out, such as threatening to fire or not hire you unless you fill it out, then he/she is:

The higher-ups at the IRS probably know the above, and they certainly aren’t going to tell private employers or their underlings the truth, because they aren’t going to look a gift horse in the mouth and don’t want to surrender their defense of “plausible deniability”. They will NEVER tell a thief who is stealing for them that they are stealing, especially if they don’t have to assume liability for the consequences of the theft. No one who practices this kind of slavery, deceit, and evil can rightly claim that they are loving their neighbor and once they know they are involved in such deceit, they have a duty to correct it or become an “accessory after the fact” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §3. This form of deceit is also the sin most hated by God in the Bible. Below is a famous Bible commentary on Prov. 11:1:

The Bible also says that those who participate in this kind of “commerce” with the government are practicing harlotry and idolatry. The Bible book of Revelations describes a woman called “Babylon the Great Harlot”.

This despicable harlot is described below as the “woman who sits on many waters”.

These waters are simply symbolic of a democracy controlled by mobs of atheistic people who are fornicating with the Beast and who have made it their false, man-made god and idol:

The Beast is then defined in Rev. 19:19 as “the kings of the earth”, which today would be our political rulers:

Babylon the Great Harlot is “fornicating” with the government by engaging in commerce with it. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “commerce” as “intercourse”:

If you want your rights back people, you can’t pursue government employment in the context of your private job. If you do, the Bible, not us, says you are a harlot and that you are CONDEMNED to hell!

[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.

[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, 889 F.2d. 1367 (CA5 Miss)) 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.

[5] 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).

6.10 "Political (PUBLIC) law” v. “civil (PRIVATE) law”

Within our republican government, the founding fathers recognized three classes of law:

The above three types of law were identified in the following document upon which the founding fathers wrote the constitution and based the design of our republican form of government:

The Spirit of Laws book is where the founding fathers got the idea of separation of powers and three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Montesquieu defines “political law” and “political liberty” as follows:

The Constitution in turn is a POLITICAL document which represents law EXCLUSIVELY for public officers within the government. It does not obligate or abrogate any PRIVATE right. It defines what the courts call “public rights”, meaning rights possessed and owned exclusively by the government ONLY.

The vast majority of laws passed by Congress are what Montesquieu calls “political law” that is intended exclusively for the government and not the private citizen. The authority for implementing such political law is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. To wit:
United States Constitution

The only areas where POLITICAL law and CIVIL law are supposed to overlap under the separation of powers doctrine is in the exercise of the political rights to vote and serve on jury duty. Why? Because jurists are regarded as public officers in 18 U.S.C. §201(a)(1):

However, it has also repeatedly been held by the courts that poll taxes are unconstitutional. Hence, voters technically are NOT to be regarded as public officers or franchisees for any purpose OTHER than their role as a voter. Recall that all statutory “Taxpayers” are public offices in the government.

Tax laws, for instance, are “political law” exclusively for the government or public officer and not the private citizen. Why? Because:

In Book XXVI, Section 15 of the Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu says that POLITICAL laws should not be allowed to regulate CIVIL conduct, meaning that POLITICAL laws limited exclusively to the government should not be enforced upon the PRIVATE citizen or made to “appear” as though they are “civil law” that applies to everyone:

What Montesquieu is implying is what we have been saying all along, and he said it in 1758, which was even before the Declaration of Independence was written:

Unfortunately, it is precisely the above type of corruption that Montesquieu describes that is the foundation of the present de facto government, tax system, and money system. ALL of them treat every human being as a PUBLIC officer against their consent, and impose what he calls the “rigors of the political law” upon them, in what amounts to unconstitutional eminent domain and a THEFT and CONFISCATION of otherwise PRIVATE property by enforcing PUBLIC law against PRIVATE people.

The implications of Montesquieu’s position are that the only areas where POLITICAL law and CIVIL law should therefore overlap are in the exercise of the political rights to vote and serve on jury duty. Why? Because jurists are regarded as public officers in 18 U.S.C. §201(a)(1):

In the days since Montesquieu, the purpose and definition of what he has called the CIVIL law has since been purposefully and maliciously corrupted so that it no longer protects exclusively PRIVATE rights or implements the COMMON law, but rather protects mainly PUBLIC rights and POLITICAL officers in the government. In other words, society has become corrupted by the following means that he warned would happen:

The above transformations are documented in the following memorandum of law on our site:

6.11 Lawful methods for converting PRIVATE property into PUBLIC property

Next, we must carefully consider all the rules by which EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE property is lawfully converted into PUBLIC property subject to government control or civil regulation. These rules are important, because the status of a particular type of property as either PRIVATE or PUBLIC determines whether either COMMON LAW or STATUTORY LAW applies respectively.

In general, only by either accepting physical property from the government or voluntarily applying for and claiming a status or right under a government franchise can one procure a PUBLIC status and be subject to STATUTORY civil law. If one wishes to be governed ONLY by the common law, then they must make their status very clear in every interaction with the government and on EVERY government form they fill out so as to avoid connecting them to any statutory franchise.

Below is a detailed list of the rules for converting PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property:

By assessing yourself, you implicitly give your consent to allow the public the right to control that use of the formerly PRIVATE property donated to a public use.

A THEFT of property has occurred on behalf of the government if it attempts to do any of the following:

6.12 Unlawful methods abused by government to convert PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property

There are a LOT more ways to UNLAWFULLY convert PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property than there are ways to do it lawfully. This section will address the most prevalent methods abused by state actors so that you will immediately recognize them when you are victimized by them. For the purposes of this section CONTROL and OWNERSHIP are synonymous. Hence, if the TITLE of the property remains in your name but there is any aspect of control over the USE of said property that does not demonstrably injure others, then the property ceases to be absolutely owned and therefore is owned by the government.

Based on the previous section, there is ONLY one condition in which PRIVATE property can be converted to PUBLCI property without the consent of the owner, which is when it is used to INJURE the rights of others. Any other type of conversion is THEFT. The U.S. Supreme Court describes that process of illegally CONVERTING property from PRIVATE to PUBLIC as follows. Notice that they only reference the “citizen’ as being the object of regulation, which implies that those who are “nonresidents”, “transient foreigners”, and “non-citizen nationals” are beyond the control of those governments in whose territory they have not chosen a civil domicile:

Below is a list of the more prevalent means abused by corrupt and covetous governments to illegally convert PRIVATE property to PUBLIC PROPERTY without the express consent of the owner. Many of these techniques are unrecognizable to the average American and therefore surreptitious, which is why they continue to be abused so regularly and chronically by public dis-servants:

If you want to prevent the above, reserve all your rights on the application, indicate duress, and define all terms on the form as NOT connected with any government or statutory law.

What all of the above government abuses have in common is that they do one or more of the following:

It ought to be obvious to the reader that the basis for Socialism is public ownership of ALL property.

Any system of law that recognizes no absolute and inviolable constitutional boundary between PRIVATE property and PUBLIC property, or which regards ALL property as being subject to government taxation and/or regulation is a socialist or collectivist system. That socialist system is exhaustively described in the following:

Below is how the U.S. Supreme Court characterizes efforts to violate the rules for converting PRIVATE property into PUBLIC property listed above and thereby STEAL PRIVATE property. The text below the following line up to the end of the section comes from the case indicated:
_______________________________

6.13 The public office is a “fiction of law”

The fictitious public office and “trade or business” to which all the government’s enforcement rights attach is called a “fiction of law” by some judges. Here is the definition:

The fictitious public office that forms the heart of the modern SCAM income tax clearly does not satisfy the elements for being a “fiction of law” because:

Therefore it is clearly a CRUEL FRAUD for any judge to justify his PRESUMPTION of the existence of the BOGUS public office that is the subject of the excise tax by calling it a “fiction of law”.

If you want to see an example of WHY this fiction of law was created as a way to usurp jurisdiction, read the following U.S. Supreme Court cite:

The reason for the controversy in the above case was that the bribe occurred on state land by a nonresident domiciled in the state, and therefore that federal law did not apply. In the above case, the court admitted that a "fiction" was resorted to usurp jurisdiction because no legal authority could be found. The fact that the defendant was in custody created the jurisdiction. It didn't exist before they KIDNAPPED him. Notice also that they mention an implied "compact" or contract related to the office being exercised, and that THAT compact was the source of their jurisdiction over the officer who was bribed. This is the SAME contract to which all those who engage in a statutory “trade or business” are party to.

7. Introduction to the Law of Agency

A very important subject to learn is the law of agency. This law is intimately related to franchises because:

In the following subsections, we will summarize the law of agency so that you can see how franchises implement it and thereby adversely impact and take away your PRIVATE rights by converting them to PUBLIC rights, often without your knowledge. Exploitation of the ignorance of the average American about this subject is the main method that governments use to unwittingly recruit more taxpayers, surety for government debt, and public officers called “citizens” and “residents”.

If you would like to study the law of agency from a legal perspective, please read the following exhaustive free treatise at Archive.org, which we used in preparing the subsections which follow:

7.1 Agency generally[1]

Entire legal treatises hundreds of pages in length have been written about the laws of agency. To save you the trouble of reading them, we summarize the basics below:

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Extracted from Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007, Section 2.

7.2 Agency within the Bible

God is a spiritual being who most people have never seen in physical form. As such, to influence the affairs of this physical Earth, He must act through His agents. Those agents are called believers, Christians, “god’s family”, etc. in the case of Christianity. The law of agency governs His acts and the consequences of those acts as He influences the affairs of this Earth. This chapter will therefore summarize the law of agency so that it can be applied to the Bible, which we will regard in this document as a delegation order that circumscribes the exercise of God’s agency on Earth by believers.

It is very important to study and know the law of agency, because the Bible itself is in fact a delegation of authority from God to believers. That delegation of authority occurred when God created the Earth in the book of Genesis and commanded Adam and Eve to have dominion over the Earth:

If you would like an exhaustive treatise proving that the Bible is in fact a delegation of authority order from God to Christians, please read the following on our site:

7.3 Agency within government

The law of agency dictates the entire organization of government and the legal system it implements and enforces. For instance:

[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.

[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.

[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).

7.4 Illegal uses of agency or compelled agency

FOOTNOTES:
On this subject, Leon Trotsky, the Soviet communist said: “"In a country where the sole employer is the State...the old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

8. Synonyms for "trade or business"

Another important concept we need to be very aware of is that there are also synonyms for "trade or business" used within the Internal Revenue Code.

8.1. "wages"

The term "wages" is synonymous with a "trade or business". Below is the proof from 26 U.S.C. §3401, where it says that earnings not in the course of an employers "trade or business" are exempted from "wages".

The above is also completely consistent with the IRS form W-2 itself, which is an information return that 26 U.S.C. §6041 says may ONLY be filed to document earnings in excess of $600 in the course of a "trade or business".

So if you aren't engaged in a "trade or business", then your private employer cannot lawfully or truthfully report "wages" on an IRS form W-2 in connection with you. If they do, they are in criminal violation of 26 U.S.C. §7207, which provides for a $10,000 fine and imprisonment for up to one year for filing a false information return such as a W-2.

Those who do not serve in a "public office" therefore can only earn "wages" if they sign an agreement and stipulate to call their PRIVATE earnings wages. In the absence of such an agreement, it is false and fraudulent and a criminal offense to report any amount other than ZERO on an IRS form W-2 in connection with a person who is not engaged in a "trade or business". These conclusions are confirmed by 26 C.F.R. §31.3402(p)-1:

If you do not give your private employer a W-4 form or if it is signed under duress and indicates so, it is a criminal offense to report anything other than ZERO on any IRS form W-2 that is sent to the IRS. Even if the IRS orders the private employer to withhold at single zero, he can STILL only withhold on "wages", which are ZERO for a person who never signed or submitted an IRS form W-4. 100% of ZERO is still ZERO. Furthermore, nothing signed under any threat of duress, such as a threat to either fire you or not hire you for refusing to sign and submit an IRS form W-4 can be described as an "agreement" pursuant to any of the above regulations and anyone who concludes otherwise is engaged in a criminal conspiracy against your rights. This is ESPECIALLY true if they are acting under the "color of law" as a voluntary officer of the government, such as an "employer".

Yet another confirmation of the conclusions of this section is found in the Individual Master File (IMF) that the IRS uses to maintain a record of your tax liability. The amount of “taxable income” is called NOT "income", but "wages" at the end of the report! Quite telling. See for yourself:

8.2. "personal services"

The term "personal services" in nearly all cases where it is used in the code means "work performed by an individual in connection with a trade or business". Here is an example:

The only place in the code where "personal services" is mentioned outside the context of a "trade or business" is the case where earnings from it are NOT taxable:

Therefore, whenever you see the term "personal services", it means "work performed by an individual in connection with a 'trade or business'" unless specifically defined otherwise. This will become very important when we are talking about earnings of "U.S. citizens" who are abroad.

8.3. "United States"

The term “United States” is also a synonym for “trade or business” under the I.R.C. in most cases. Under 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(3), all earnings originating within the statutory "United States**", which is defined as federal territory in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d) is also treated as "effectively connected with a trade or business".

Therefore, whenever you see the phrase "sources within the United States" associated with any earnings, then indirectly, it is being associated with a "trade or business". This is the case for 26 U.S.C. §871(a), which identifies income of "nonresident aliens" from only from within the statutory "United States**" (federal territory) that is not connected to a "trade or business". 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(3) says that this income is ALSO connected with a trade or business if it was derived from sources within the statutory but not constitutional "United States**" (federal territory). 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(2) identifies all sources of income not associated with a "trade or business" and they include ONLY:

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d) define the statutory "United States**" in a "geographical sense" only as being federal territories and possessions.

However, I.R.C. Section 864 above does not directly state or imply a "geographical sense", so it may have some other undefined meaning. We allege that the ONLY way that working for a living can be an excise taxable privilege or "trade or business" is where the Constitution itself, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 requires all "public offices" ("trades or businesses"), to be exercised, which is the District of Columbia:

Since accepting a public office in the federal government is a voluntary act, then the tax is voluntary. If you don't want to pay it, you don't accept or run for the office. In furtherance of the above, 4 U.S.C. §72 requires all "public offices" that are the subject of the tax upon a "trade or business" to be exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and NOT elsewhere, except as "expressly provided by law":

Therefore, all persons engaged in public offices MUST serve ONLY in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere, and there is no enactment of Congress authorizing them to serve in any state of the Union. Therefore, the term "United States" as used throughout Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code:

Consequently, "sources within the United States" really refers to payments to or from the U.S. government, all of which are enumerated and described and listed in 26 U.S.C. §871 in the context of nonresident aliens. Subtitle A of the I.R.C. is therefore a "kickback program" for federal instrumentalities, domiciliaries, franchises, and employees, and the "profit and loss" statement for these instrumentalities is I.R.S. form 1040. The tax is on the "profit" of these instrumentalities, which the I.R.S. calls "income". 26 U.S.C. §643(b) confirms that "income" means the earnings of a trust or estate connected with a public office and NOT all earnings. That "trust" is the "public trust". Government is a "public trust" per Executive Order 12731 and 5 C.F.R. §2635.101(a). If you never received a payment from the government or accepted a payment on behalf of the government while acting in a representative capacity as a "public officer", then we allege that you cannot be a "taxpayer" or have a tax liability pursuant to Subtitle A of the I.R.C.

The conclusions of this section are also consistent with 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d), which both effectively kidnap a “taxpayers” identity and move it to the District of Columbia for the purposes of Subtitle A of the I.R.C. The "citizen" and "resident" they are talking about in these statutes are statutory and not constitutional "citizens" and "residents" which rely on the statutory term "United States", which means a person domiciled on federal territory and NOT domiciled within any state of the Union. Why would they need such a provision and why would they try to fool you into declaring yourself to be a statutory "U.S. citizen" using their deceptive forms if they REALLY had jurisdiction within states of the Union? More about this later.

8.4. Statutory “citizen of the United States**” or “U.S.** citizen”

You may wonder as we have how it is that Congress can make it a crime to falsely claim to be a statutory “U.S. citizen” in 18 U.S.C. §911.

The reason is that you cannot tax or regulate something until abusing it becomes harmful. A “license”, after all, is legally defined as permission from the state to do that which is otherwise illegal or harmful or both. And of course, you can only tax or regulate things that are harmful and licensed. Hence, they had to:

Every type of franchise works and is implemented exactly the same way, and the statutory “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States**” franchise is no different. This section will prove that being a “citizen of the United States**” under the I.R.C. is, in fact, a franchise, that the franchise began in 1924 by judicial pronouncement, and that because the status is a franchise and all franchises are voluntary, you don’t have to participate, accept the “benefits”, or pay for the costs of the franchise if you don’t consent.

As you will eventually learn, one becomes a “citizen” in a common law or constitutional sense by being born or naturalized in a country and exercising their First Amendment right of political association by voluntarily choosing a national and a municipal domicile in that country. How can Congress criminalize the exercise of the First Amendment right to politically associate with a “state” and thereby become a citizen? After all, the courts have routinely held that Congress cannot criminalize the exercise of a right protected by the Constitution.

Even the U.S. Code recognizes the protected First Amendment right to not associate during the passport application process. Being a statutory and not constitutional “citizen” is an example of type of membership, because domicile is civil membership in a territorial community usually called a county, and you cannot be a “citizen” without a domicile:

The answer to how Congress can criminalize the exercise of a First Amendment protected right of political association that is the foundation of becoming a “citizen” therefore lies in the fact that the statutory “U.S.** citizen” mentioned in 18 U.S.C. §911 is not a constitutional citizen protected by the Constitution, but rather is:

Ordinarily, and especially in the case of states of the Union, domicile within that state by the state “citizen” is the determining factor as to whether an income tax is owed to the state by that citizen:

We also establish the connection between domicile and tax liability in the following article.

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the statutory “citizen of the United States**” mentioned in the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C. §911 and at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c ) is not associated with either domicile OR with constitutional citizenship (nationality) of the human being who is the “taxpayer” in the following case. The party they mentioned, Cook, was domiciled within Mexico at the time, which meant he was NOT a statutory “citizen of the United States**” under the Internal Revenue Code but rather a “non-resident non-person”. However, because he CLAIMED to be a statutory “citizen of the United States**” and the Supreme Court colluded with that FRAUD, they treated him as one ANYWAY.

So the key thing to note about the above is that the tax liability attaches to the STATUS of BEING a statutory but not constitutional “citizen of the United States” under the Internal Revenue Code, and NOT to domicile of the party, based on the above case.

There are only two ways to reach a nonresident party through the civil law: Domicile and contract.[1] That status of being a statutory “U.S. citizen” under the Internal Revenue Code, in turn, can only be a franchise contract that establishes a “public office” in the U.S. government, which is the property of the U.S. Government that the creator of the franchise can regulate or tax ANYWHERE under the franchise “protection” contract. All rights that attach to STATUS are, in fact, franchises, and the Cook case is no exception. This, in fact, is why falsely claiming to be a “U.S. citizen” is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §911, because the status is “property” of the national government and abuse of said property or the public rights and “benefits” that attach to it is a crime. The use of the “Taxpayer Identification Number” then becomes a de facto “license” to exercise the privilege. You can’t license something unless it is ILLEGAL to perform without a license, so they had to make it illegal to claim to be a statutory “U.S. citizen” before they could license it and tax it.

How can they tax someone without a domicile in the “United States” and with no earnings from the United States in the case of Cook, you might ask? Well, the REAL “taxpayer” is a public office in the U.S. government. That office REPRESENTS the United States federal corporation. All corporations are “citizens” of the place of their incorporation, and therefore under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), the effective domicile of the “taxpayer” is the District of Columbia.[2] All taxes are a civil liability that are implemented with civil law. The only way they could have reached extraterritorially with civil law to tax Cook without him having a domicile or residence anywhere in the statutory “United States**” was through a private law franchise contract in which he was a public officer. It is a maxim of law that debt and contract know no place, meaning that they can be enforced anywhere.

The feds have jurisdiction over their own public officers wherever they are but the EFFECTIVE civil domicile of all such offices and officers is the District of Columbia pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b). Hence, the ONLY thing such a statutory “citizen of the United States**” could be within the I.R.C. is a statutory creation of Congress that is actually a public office which is domiciled in the statutory but not constitutional “United States*” in order for the ruling in Cook to be constitutional or even lawful. AND, according to the Cook case, having that status is a discretionary choice that has NOTHING to do with your circumstances, because Cook was NOT a statutory “citizen of the United States**” as someone not domiciled in the statutory but not constitutional “United States**”. Instead, he was a "non-resident non-person" by virtue of his foreign domicile and the fact that he was not engaged in a public office in the national government. The court allowed him to accept the voluntary “benefit” of the statutory status and hence, it had nothing to do with his circumstances, but rather his CHOICE to nominate a “protector” and join a civil statutory franchise. Simply INVOKING the status of being a statutory “citizen of the United States**” on a government form is the only magic word needed to give one’s consent to become a a “taxpayer” in that case. It is what the court called a “benefit”, and all “benefits” are voluntary and the product of a franchise contract. It was a quasi-contract as all taxes are, because the consent was implied rather than explicit, and it manifested itself by using property of the government, which in this case was the STATUS he claimed.

“HOW did the government create the public office that they could tax and which Cook apparently occupied as a franchisee?”

Well, apparently the “citizen of the United States**” status he claimed is a franchise and an office in the U.S. government that carries with it the “public right” to make certain demands upon those who claim this status. Hence, it represents a “property interest” in the services of the United States federal corporation. In law, all rights are property, anything that conveys rights is property, contracts convey rights and are therefore property, and all franchises are contracts and therefore property. A “public officer” is legally defined as someone in charge of the property of the public, and the property Cook was in possession of was the public rights that attach to the status of being a statutory “citizen of the United States**”.

For Cook, the statutory status of being a “citizen of the United States**” was the “res” that “identified” him within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and hence made him a “res-ident” or “resident” subject to the tax with standing to sue in a territorial franchise court, which is what all U.S. District Courts are. In effect, he waived sovereign immunity and became a statutory “resident alien” by invoking the services of the federal courts, and as such, he had to pay for their services by paying the tax. Otherwise, he would have no standing to sue in the first place because he would be a “stateless person” and they would have had to dismiss his case.

If you would like a much more thorough discussion of all of the nuances of the Cook case, we strongly recommend the following:

Here is another HUGE clue about what they think a “U.S. citizen” really is in federal statutes. Look at the definition below, and then consider that you CAN’T own a human being as property. That’s called slavery:

Now look at what the U.S. Supreme Court said about “ownership” of human beings. You can’t “own” a human being as chattel. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits that. Therefore, the statutory “U.S. citizen” they are talking about above is an instrumentality and public office within the United States. They can only tax, regulate, and legislate for PUBLIC objects and public offices of the United States under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. The ability to regulate PRIVATE conduct of human beings has repeatedly been held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be “repugnant to the constitution” and beyond the jurisdiction of Congress.

Federal courts also frequently use the phrase “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”. Below is an example:

Note that the “citizen of the United States**” described above is a statutory rather than constitutional citizen, which is why the court admits that the rights of such a person are inferior to those possessed by a “citizen” within the meaning of the United States Constitution. A constitutional but not statutory citizen is, in fact, NOT “privileged” in any way and none of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution can truthfully be called “privileges” without violating the law. It is a tort and a violation of due process, in fact, to convert rights protected by the Constitution and the common law into “privileges” or franchises or “public rights” under statutory law without at least your consent, which anyone in their right mind should NEVER give.

It is furthermore proven in the following memorandum of law that civil statutory civil law pertains almost exclusively to government officers and employers and cannot and does not pertain to human beings or private persons not engaged in federal franchises/privileges:

Consequently, if a court refers to “privileges and immunities” in relation to you, chances are they are presuming, usually FALSELY, that you are a statutory “U.S. citizen” and NOT a constitutional citizen. If you want to prevent them from making such false presumptions, we recommend attaching the following forms at least to your initial complaint and/or response in any action in court:

If you would like to know more about the devious abuse of franchises to destroy your rights and break the chains of the Constitution that bind your public servants and protect your rights, see:

[1] See Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.2.4 : The Two Sources of Federal Civil Jurisdiction: “Domicile” and “Contract”; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

[2] "A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only." [19 Corpus Juris Secundum, Corporations, §886 TA \s "19 Corpus Juris Secundum, Corporations, §886" ]

9. I.R.C. requirements for the exercise of a "trade or business"

Next, we must search the code for the uses of the term “trade or business” to define how it applies by using the context. Below is a summary of our findings:

If you examine the above list, there are only four statuses or conditions throughout the I.R.C. that don’t specifically mention that they must be connected to a “trade or business” in order to qualify as “gross income”, which are:

We know that the first two are ALSO involved in a “trade or business” because in the only place they are mentioned in the I.R.C., which is 26 U.S.C. §1(a) and 1(b), a graduated rate of tax appears there. There is no way to elect a flat 30% tax rate as a "Married individual" or "Head of household" without declaring oneself as a “nonresident alien” coming under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. §871(a) INSTEAD of these two provisions. Furthermore, the requirement for "equal protection of the laws", found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and in 42 U.S.C. 1981(a), mandates that "Heads of Household" and "Married individuals" shall be subjected to the same burdens, taxes, and penalties as "Married individuals filing separately" or "Unmarried individuals" or they would be discriminated against. Therefore, they too must be engaged in a "trade or business" in order to earn "taxable income" as well. We also know that the graduated rate of tax cannot be implemented in states of the Union, because they are not "uniform", meaning that everyone doesn't pay the same percentage, as required by the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which says:

The reason all excise taxes within states of the Union must be uniform throughout the states and have the same percentage on all persons is that if they weren't, then the federal government would be depriving sovereign American Nationals in the states of "equal protection of the laws". However, the Constitutional requirement for "equal protection" does not apply within areas under exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as the District of Columbia, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. There have been at least two state supreme Court rulings consistent with this conclusion, which declared that graduated rate income taxes are unconstitutional within states of the Union. See Culliton v. Chase, 25 P.2d 81 (1933) and Jensen v. Henneford, 53 P.2d 607 (1936). You will also learn later in this section that those who elect for a graduated rate of tax are “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States” under 26 U.S.C. §871(b).

We’ll now provide a table summarizing our findings to show the excise taxable activity for each type of entity to make the results of this survey of the I.R.C. crystal clear. Note that all the taxable activities must occur within exclusive federal jurisdiction under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, or else they become “extortion under the color of law”. The federal government cannot collect or assess taxes in areas where it has no legislative jurisdiction:

10. What kind of tax is it?: Direct or Indirect, Constitutional or Unconstitutional?

We already proved in section 3 that the I.R.C. Subtitles A and C income tax is an excise or franchise tax upon public offices within the national but not state government. The next important questions we must answer are the following, which we frequently hear from our readers:

Therefore, Subtitle A of the I.R.C. describes an excise tax upon “privileges”. If it ain’t a privilege, then they can’t tax it. Neither can the government lawfully tax the exercise of a right, such as the right to work and support yourself, unless that right is exercised coincident with a “privilege” of federal employment, agency, or benefits.

Now that we have thoroughly analyzed why Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code describes an “excise” tax on a taxable activity called a “trade or business”, we are now ready to address how this tax functions. We have prepared a table to clarify these mechanisms:

A picture is worth a thousand words. Below is a diagram showing the condition of those who are employed by private employers and who have consented to participate in the federal tax system by completing a W-4. This diagram shows graphically the relationships described in the table above.

1. The I.R.C. Subtitle A income tax is NOT implemented through public law or positive law, but primarily through private law. Private law always supersedes enacted positive law because no court or government can interfere with your right to contract. See Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution for the proof. The W-4 is a contract, and the United States has jurisdiction over its own property and employees under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, wherever they may reside, including in places where it has no legislative jurisdiction. The W-4 you signed is a private contract that makes you into a federal employee, and neither the state nor the federal government may interfere with the private right to contract. 26 C.F.R. §31.3402(p)-1 identifies the W-4 as an “agreement”, which is a contract. It doesn’t say that on the form, because your covetous government doesn’t want you to know you are signing a contract by submitting a W-4.

2. The “tax” is not paid by you, but by your “strawman”, who is a federal “public officer” engaged in a “trade or business” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). That “public officer” you volunteered to represent is working as a federal “employee” who is part of the United States government, which is defined as a federal corporation in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A). In that sense, the “tax” is indirect, because you don’t pay it, but your strawman, who is a “public officer”, pays it to your “employer”, the federal government, which is a federal corporation.

3. Because you are presumed by the IRS to be a federal “employee” and you work for an unspecified and unidentified federal corporation, then you are acting as an “officer or employee of a federal corporation” and you:

3.1. Are the proper subject of the penalty statutes, as defined under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b).

3.2. May have the code enforced against you without implementing regulations as required by 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1) and 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2)

4. The “activity” of performing a “trade or business” is only “taxable” when executed in the statutory “United States**” is defined as in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d). See 26 U.S.C. §864 and this section for evidence.

5. Those who file form 1040 instead of the proper form 1040NR provide evidence under penalty of perjury that they are "U.S. persons" (see 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30) who are domiciled in the statutory but not constitutional "United States**" (federal territory). The IRS Published Products catalog says the form can only be used for “citizens or residents” of the “United States”, which is defined as federal territory in the I.R.C..

The words you use to describe this tax can get you into trouble in court and attract insincere and covetous judges and prosecutors to call you frivolous and try to penalize you to evade addressing the issues raised in this memorandum. We would now like to clarify the following important facts about the nature of the I.R.C. Subtitles A and C income tax to ensure that our readers stay out of harm’s way:

We would therefore strongly suggest that in describing this tax in court pleadings or to juries and in front of malicious judges, you:

11. Who's "trade or business": The PAYER, the PAYEE, or BOTH?

Every transaction must involve the de facto government and therefore public rights and franchises in order to qualify as an excise taxable event. The income tax under I.R.C. Subtitle A, as we all well know, is a franchise/excise tax. The only context in which the statutory definition of "United States" makes any sense at all is in fact to treat it as an excise/franchise tax. The "United States" in the I.R.C. then becomes the franchisor in a virtual and not a physical or geographical sense. The ability to regulate, tax, or burden private conduct is beyond the reach of the Constitution, and therefore the activity must involve publici juris and public rights to be taxable.

Every transaction involving the government has two parties: The payer and the payee. That is why the tax is upon both "trade or business" earnings and "U.S. source" earnings: The payer is always a public office in the government and the recipient is either a resident alien individual or a nonresident alien "individual" receiving payments from this "U.S. source" if the transaction is taxable to EITHER party. This is made clear by 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31), which says that the transaction is not "gross income" and is "foreign" and beyond the jurisdiction of the I.R.C. if it does not involve one of these two aspects, meaning if it does not involve a public officer payer OR an "individual" recipient:

Whenever a taxable payment occurs, an information return is filed usually by the payer, who in law must always be treated as a public officer in the government, meaning a "source within the United States" (government, not geographical USA). 26 U.S.C. §6041(a) says that the information return can only be filed in connection with a "trade or business", meaning that at least one end of the transaction must involve a public officer in the government.

Our job is to figure out WHICH end of the transaction is a public officer, because that is the only one subject to the code and therefore a "taxpayer". The PAYOR can be a public officer and therefore a "taxpayer" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) while the PAYEE can be a nonresident and a "nontaxpayer". It makes no sense to report a transaction or withhold, in fact, if the PAYEE is not a “taxpayer”.

26 U.S.C. §6041 gives us a clue to the puzzle: it says the PAYER must file the information return and is engaged in a "trade or business", but it doesn't say that the PAYEE ALSO is involved in a "trade or business" as a public officer. Therefore, as a bare minimum every transaction involves a PAYER who is a public officer and therefore a "taxpayer" engaged in a "trade or business". We still don't yet know how the PAYEE would be treated in such a transaction, but as a bare minimum, we know that it is in receipt of "U.S. source" income from a public officer within the "United States" government. Some clues, though:

An example of payment that would not be taxable or reportable is one made to a nonresident who is not an alien or an "individual". This would be the case with those in the military who file nonresident alien withholding paperwork such as the Form W-8BEN, who modify block 3 of the form to indicate that they are "nonresident" but not "individuals", and who are enlisted rather than commissioned officers. When the transaction involves only one "taxpayer", the code does NOT create a liability to report against the withholding agent because the recipient is not a "person" (or "another person" as referred to in 26 U.S.C. §6041(a) and 26 U.S.C. §1461) as a nonresident. The code is civil law that is not enforceable against nonresidents. All civil law attaches to the choice of domicile of the parties and cannot operate beyond the territory of the law making power unless:

26 U.S.C. §1461 makes the PAYER liable to deduct and withhold payment to another "person" but a nonresident cannot be a "person" within the meaning of this civil provision because all civil law attaches to one’s choice of domicile:

The phrase "general or legitimate power" imply "general and exclusive jurisdiction", not subject matter jurisdiction. The feds only have general jurisdiction within federal territory. In a state, they have limited and subject matter jurisdiction ONLY and NOT general jurisdiction. That is not to say that they don't have jurisdiction over ALL PEOPLE within a state. They always have jurisdiction over those domiciled on federal territory, regardless of where they are situated, including in a state, but they don't have such jurisdiction within a state of those domiciled outside of federal territory and who therefore are not statutory "U.S. citizens", "U.S. residents", and "U.S. persons". The following article emphasizes this point, but is FLAT OUT WRONG in concluding that District Courts in the States of the Union are Article III courts. They have NEVER been given this power. The only thing they can or do is officiate over are Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 franchises such as income taxes, Social Security, etc. and crimes committed on federal territory where they enjoy general jurisdiction. The What Happened to Justice book proves this with thousands of pages of evidence.

So there are two criteria: The PAYER and the PAYEE must BOTH be "persons" and therefore "taxpayers" within the I.R.C., which is civil law that attaches to their mutual domiciles, in order for either reporting or withholding to lawfully occur. If only the PAYER is a "person" but the payee is NOT, then the transaction is not "gross income" TO THE PAYEE. The term "person" is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(c ) to include "individuals", but "individual" in turn does not include statutory or constitutional "citizens" per 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c )(3). Therefore, both the PAYER and the PAYEE MUST be aliens and not citizens engaged in privileged activities. See:

All of these games with "words of art" relating to Effectively Connected Income (ECI) are designed to disguise and confuse WHICH end of the transaction is a "taxpayer": the PAYER, the PAYEE, or BOTH. Statutes such as 26 U.S.C. §881(a), for instance, refer to the "recipient", meaning the PAYEE:

26 U.S.C. §864(c )(3) at first glance might appear to confuse this explanation, but in fact it doesn’t. It implies that “sources within the United States” and “trade or business” are synonymous when in fact they aren’t the same for BOTH parties to the transaction:

There is no contradiction because the PAYER is ALWAYS a public officer and therefore a "U.S. source" and a "taxpayer" on one side of the coin while the PAYEE can be a nonresident and yet also not a "taxpayer", "individual", or "person" on the other side of the same coin. Everyone serving in a public office within the U.S. government is, by definition, a “source within the United States” if they are making a payment to someone else in their official capacity. Once again: EVERY TRANSACTION has two ends, and it depends which end you are looking at. You need to be VERY clear from the language which end it is and what you are looking for, because the language will try to confuse the ends to make it look like EVERYONE is a "taxpayer", "individual", and therefore "person". Clues to which end of the transaction they are talking about:

Another fact is also important that people like Pete Hendrickson chronically overlook. Yes, an information return always involves a "trade or business" because 26 U.S.C. §6041(a) says so. However, does it ALSO imply or require or impute that the PAYEE is engaged in a "trade or business"? A worthy exercise would be to go through all the instruction forms for information returns and the IRS publications to see what they say about WHICH ends of the transaction must be engaged in a "trade or business". We did a cursory look and they almost always talk to the FILER of the information return and use the phrase "YOUR trade or business", as though they are implying that the PAYER is the ONLY one engaged in the public office.

How then, does the PAYEE become involved in a "trade or business" if the information return doesn’t imply it? Below are the MAIN techniques":

12. Public office generally

12.1. Legal requirements for holding a “public office”?

The subject of exactly what constitutes a “public office” within the meaning described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) is not defined in any IRS publication we could find. The reason is quite clear: the “trade or business” scam is the Achilles heal of the IRS fraud and both the IRS and the Courts are loath to even talk about it because there is nothing they can defend themselves with other than unsubstantiated presumption created by the abuse of the word “includes” and certain key “words of art”. In the face of such overwhelming evidence of their own illegal and criminal mis-enforcement of the tax codes, silence or omission in either admitting it or prosecuting it can only be characterized as FRAUD on a massive scale, in fact:

The “duty” the courts are talking about above is the fiduciary duty of all those serving in public offices in the government, and that fiduciary duty was created by the oath of office they took before they entered the office. Therefore, those who want to know how they could lawfully be classified as a “public office” will have to answer that question completely on their own, which is what we will attempt to do in this section.

We begin our search with a definition of “public office” from Black’s Dictionary:

Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition further clarifies the meaning of a “public office” below:

American Jurisprudence Legal Encyclopedia further clarifies what a “public office” is as follows:

Ordinary or common-law employees of the government also do not qualify as “public officers”:

All public officers must take an oath. The oath, in fact, is what creates the fiduciary duty that attaches to the office. This is confirmed by the definition of "public official" in Black's Law Dictionary:

The oath for United States federal and state officials was prescribed in the very first enactment of Congress on March 4, 1789 as follows:

Based on the above, the following persons within the government are “public officers”:

At the federal level, all those engaged in the above “public offices” are statutorily identified in 5 U.S.C. §2105. Consistent with this section, what most people would regard as ordinary common law employees are not included in the definition. Note the phrase “an officer AND an individual”:

Within the military, only commissioned officers are “public officers”. Enlisteds or NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers) are not.

Those holding Federal or State public office, county or municipal office, under the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch, including Court Officials, Judges, Prosecutors, Law Enforcement Department employees, Officers of the Court, and etc., before entering into these public offices, are required by the U.S. Constitution and statutory law to comply with 5 U.S.C. §3331, “Oath of office.” State Officials are also required to meet this same obligation, according to State Constitutions and State statutory law.

All oaths of office come under 22 CFR, Foreign Relations, Sections §§92.12 - 92.30, and all who hold public office come under 8 U.S.C. §1481 “Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions.”

Under Title 22 U.S.C., Foreign Relations and Intercourse, Section §611, a Public Official is considered a foreign agent. In order to hold public office, the candidate must file a true and complete registration statement with the State Attorney General as a foreign principle.

The Oath of Office requires the public officials in his/her foreign state capacity to uphold the constitutional form of government or face consequences, according to 10 U.S.C. §333, “Interference with State and Federal law”

Willful refusal action while serving in official capacity violates 18 U.S.C. §1918, “Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government”

The “public offices” described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) within the definition of “trade or business” are ONLY public offices located in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere. To wit:

The only provision of any act of Congress that we have been able to find which authorizes “public offices” outside the District of Columbia as expressly required by law above, is 48 U.S.C. §1612, which authorizes enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code within the U.S. Virgin Islands. To wit:

There is NO PROVISION OF LAW which would similarly extend public offices or jurisdiction to enforce any provision of the Internal Revenue Code to any place within the exclusive jurisdiction of any state of the Union, because Congress enjoys NO LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION THERE.

By law then, no “public office” may therefore be exercised OUTSIDE the District of Columbia except as “expressly provided by law”, including privileged or licensed activities such as a “trade or business”. This was also confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the License Tax Cases, when they said:

Since I.R.C. Subtitle A is a tax on “public offices”, which is called a “trade or business”, then the tax can only apply to those domiciled within the statutory but not constitutional "United States**" (federal territory), wherever they are physically located to include states of the Union, but only if they are serving under oath in their official capacity as “public officers”.

Another important point needs to be emphasized, which is that those working for the federal government, while on official duty, are representing a federal corporation called the “United States”, which is domiciled in the District of Columbia.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) says that the capacity to sue and be sued civilly is based on one’s domicile:

Government employees, including “public officers”, while on official duty representing the federal corporation called the “United States”, maintain the character of the entity they represent and therefore have a legal domicile of the statutory but not constitutional "United States**" (federal territory) within the context of their official duties. The Internal Revenue Code also reflects this fact in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d):

Kidnapping and transporting the legal identity of a person domiciled outside the District of Columbia in a foreign state, which includes states of the Union, is illegal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1201. Therefore, the only people who can be legally and involuntarily “kidnapped” by the courts based on the above two provisions of statutory law are those who individually consent through private contract to act as “public officials” in the execution of their official duties. The fiduciary duty of these “public officials” is further defined in the I.R.C. as follows, and it is only by an oath of “public office” that this fiduciary duty can lawfully be created:

We remind our readers that there is no liability statute within Subtitle A of the I.R.C. that would create the duty documented above, and therefore the ONLY way it can be created is by the oath of office of the “public officers” who are the subject of the tax in question. This was thoroughly described in the following article:

The existence of fiduciary duty of “public officers” toward the office they VOLUNTEERED for and were never COERCED to occupy is therefore the ONLY lawful method by which anyone can be prosecuted for an “omission”, which is a thing they didn’t do that the law required them to do. It is otherwise illegal and unlawful to prosecute anyone under either common law or statutory law for a FAILURE to do something, such as a FAILURE TO FILE a tax return pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7203. Below is an example of where the government gets its authority to prosecute "taxpayers" for failure to file a tax return, in fact:

In addition to the above, every attorney admitted to practice law in any state or federal court is described as an “officer of the court”, and therefore ALSO is a “public officer”:

Executive Order 12731 and 5 C.F.R. §2635.101(a) furthermore both indicate that “public service is a public trust”:

The above provisions of law imply that everyone who works for the government is a “trustee” of “We the People”, who are the sovereigns they serve in the public. In law, EVERY “trustee” is a “fiduciary” of the Beneficiary of the trust within which he serves:

The fact that public service is a “public trust” was also confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, when it said:

An example of someone who is NOT a “public officer” is a federal worker on duty and who is not required to take an oath. These people may think of themselves as employees in an ordinary and not statutory sense and even be called employees by their supervisor or employer, but in fact NOT be the statutory “employee” defined in 5 U.S.C. §2105(a). Remember that 5 U.S.C. §2105(a) defines a STATUTORY “employee” as “an officer and an individual” and you don’t become an “officer” in a statutory sense unless and until you take a Constitutional oath. Almost invariably, such workers also have some kind of immediate supervisor who manages and oversees and evaluates his activities pursuant to the position description drafted for the position he fills. He may be a “trustee” and he may have a “fiduciary duty” to the public as a “public servant”, but he isn’t an “officer” or “public officer” unless and until he takes an oath of office prescribed by law. A federal worker, however, can become a “public office” by virtue of any one or more of the following purposes that we are aware of so far:

A “public office” is not limited to a human being. It can also extend to an entire entity such as a corporation. An example of an entity that is a “public office” in its entirety is a federally chartered bank, such as the original Bank of the United States described in Osborn v. United States, in which the U.S. Supreme Court identified the original and first Bank of the United States, a federally chartered bank corporation created by Congress, as a “public office”:

The record of the House of Representatives after the enactment of the first income tax during the Civil War in 1862, confirmed that the income tax was upon a “public office” and that even IRS agents, who are not “public officers” and who are not required to take an oath, are therefore exempt from the requirements of the revenue acts in place at the time. Read the amazing truth for yourself:

Below is an excerpt from that report proving our point. The Secretary of the Treasury at the time is comparing the federal tax liabilities of postal clerks to those of internal revenue clerks. At that time, the IRS was called the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was established in 1862 as an emergency measure to fund the Civil War, which ended shortly thereafter, but the illegal enforcement of the revenue laws continued and expanded into the states over succeeding years:

Notice based on the above that revenue officers don’t take an oath, so they don’t have to pay the tax, while postal clerks take an oath, so they do. Therefore, the oath that creates the “public office” is the method by which the government manufactures “public officers”, “taxpayers”, and “sponsors” for its wasteful use or abuse of public monies. If you would like a whole BOOK full of reasons why the only "taxpayers" under the I.R.C. Subtitle A are "public officials", please see the following exhaustive analysis:

12.2. De Facto Public Officers

Based on the previous section, we are now thoroughly familiar with all the legal requirements for:

What we didn’t cover in the previous section is what are all the legal consequences when someone performs the duties of a public office without satisfying all the legal requirements for lawfully occupying the office? In law, such a person is called a “de facto officer” and books have been written about the subject of the “de facto officer doctrine”. Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court held on the subject of “de facto officers”:

As we have already established, all statutory “taxpayers” are public officers in the U.S. and not state government. This is exhaustively proven with evidence in:

A person who fulfills the DUTIES of a statutory “taxpayer” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) without lawfully occupying a public office in the U.S. government BEFORE becoming a “taxpayer” would be a good example of a de facto public officer. Those who exercise the duties of a public officer without meeting all the requirements, from a legal perspective, are in fact committing the crime of impersonating a public officer.

What are some examples where a person would be impersonating a public officer unlawfully? Here are a few:

. . .then you end up not only with a LOT of public officers, but a de facto GOVERNMENT as well. That government is thoroughly described in:

Even at the state level, it is a crime in every state of the Union to pretend to be a public officer of the state government who does not satisfy ALL of the legal requirements for occupying the public office. Below is an itemized list by jurisdiction of constitutional and statutory requirements that are violated by those who either impersonate a state public officer OR who serve simultaneously serve in BOTH a FEDERAL public office and a STATE public office AT THE SAME TIME. That’s right: When you either impersonate a state public officer OR serve in BOTH a FEDERAL public office and STATE public public office AT THE SAME TIME, then you are committing a crime and have a financial conflict of interest and conflict of allegiance that can and should disqualify you from exercising or accepting the duties of the office:

Table 4: Statutory remedies for those compelled to act as public officers and straw man

If you would like to research further the laws and remedies available in the specific jurisdiction you are in, we highly recommend the following free tool:

The above tool is also available at the top row under the menu on our Litigation Tools page at the link below:

12.3. How do ordinary government workers not holding “public office” become “taxpayers”

A question we are asked frequently is whether ordinary government workers not otherwise engaged in a “public office” are “taxpayers” and how they become “taxpayers”.

[1] Trainor v. Board of County Auditors, 89 Mich. 162, 16 L. R. A. 96; Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U.S. 5; Opinion of Judges, 3 Maine 481.

[2] See Hall v. Wisconsin, supra.

[3] Herrington v. State, 103 Ga. 318, 68 Am. St. 95.

[4] State v. Hocker, 39 Fla. 477. 63 Am. St. 174; Water Commissioners v. Cramer, 61 N.J.L. 270.

[5] In re Oaths. 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 492; Olmstead v. Mayor, 42 N.Y. Supr. 481; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall (U.S.) 385.

[6] State v. Wilson, 29 Ohio.St. 347; People v. Stratton, 28 Cal. 382.

[7] See the opinion of Marshall, C. J., m United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 102; State v. Jennings, 57 Ohio.St. 415.

[8] Brown v. Russell, 186 Mass. 14.

[9] Trainor v. Board of County Auditors, 89 Mich. 162, 16 L.R.A. 95; State v. Hewitt, 3 S.D. 187, 16 L.R.A. 413; Jacques v. Little, 51 Kan. 300; Board of Com'rs v. Johnson, 124 Ind. 145, 19 Am.St. 88; State v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383, 41 Am.St. 788; State v. Johnson, 57 Ohio.St. 429.

[10] State v. Dalis, 44 Mo. 129.

[11] State v. Hawkins, 44 Ohio.St. 98.

The answer is they aren’t. The reason is that the above treatise explains that the office CANNOT be a product of contract. They may file a false and fraudulent IRS Form W-4 AGREEMENT and therefore CONTRACT to be TREATED as if they are public officers, but it constitutes the crime of impersonating a public officer per 18 U.S.C. §912 to do so. The remainder of this section will explain why this is.

The previous section discussed the differences between a “public office” and “public employment” and clearly proved that they are NOT equivalent. Consequently, ordinary government workers or civil service employees are NOT “public officers” nor are they therefore engaged in the “trade or business” franchise and contract by default.

So how did sneaky Congress get around the roadblock that “public offices” and “public employments” are NOT equivalent in law? Here is how they did it:

Earnings not connected to the “trade or business” and public office franchise are described in 26 U.S.C. §871(a) in the case of “nonresident aliens”. The following article proves that nonresident aliens not engaged in the “trade or business” franchise cannot earn “wages” unless they consent to do so by signing a contract called IRS Form W-4:

I.R.C. Subtitle A is a franchise tax on public offices, which the I.R.C. calls a “trade or business”. “Public office” and “public employment” are NOT equivalent in law. Even for government workers, they don't earn “wages” as legally defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401 unless they are ALREADY public officers in the government BEFORE they sign the W-4. This is because:

The IRS Form W-4 form is being used to connect private earnings to “wages” as legally defined and the “trade or business”/”public office” franchise by all of the following mechanisms:

Please show us a case where the License Tax cases was overruled? It's still in force. The feds can't license ANYTHING within a state, including “public offices” and the “trade or business” franchise that is being ILLEGALLY enforced within states of the Union at this time. To admit otherwise is to sanction a destruction of the separation of powers between the states and the federal government. There is NO PLACE within the I.R.C. that authorizes the CREATION of public offices using any tax form, and yet that is what the IRS is unlawfully using W-2, W-4, and 1040 forms for. 4 U.S.C. §72 says there MUST be a statute that authorizes the creation and exercise of such offices within a state in order for such public offices to be valid. Essentially what is happening is that the forms constitute an election to make you into a “resident agent” for an office that exists in the District of Columbia.

The existence of 26 U.S.C. §871(a) is a deception, because 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) says the property of those not engaged in the “trade or business' franchise is a foreign estate not subject to the I.R.C. One's earnings are part of that “foreign estate”.

26 U.S.C. §3401(a)(6) excludes earnings of “nonresident aliens” from “wages”, if regulations exist. Government workers who aren't public officers therefore have the same protections as ordinary private industry workers who are nonresident aliens not engaged in the “trade or business” franchise. The only way a nonresident alien not otherwise engaged in the “trade or business” franchise can become subject is to sign the W-4 contract to:

Where within 26 U.S.C. §3401 is the term “wages” treated any differently for government workers who AREN'T “public officers”? It AIN'T, friend.

Remember: Information returns are the only way the IRS could find out about the earnings of a government employee, and these returns can ONLY be filed against those engaged in the “trade or business” franchise or who elect to be using the W-4 agreement/contract. 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3(a), 26 C.F.R. §31.3402(p)-1. How would the IRS find out about 871(a) income that is NOT connected with the “trade or business”? There is no information return that is NOT connected to a “trade or business” and it is a CRIME for a person not ALREADY engaged in a public office in the government BEFORE they signed the W-4 to impersonate a public officer or engage in the activities of a public office. 18 U.S.C. §912.

The income tax is upon the COINCIDENCE of DOMICILE within the jurisdiction AND being engaged in the “trade or business” franchise. The VOLUNTARY use of an identifying number connects you to BOTH of these prerequisites:

You can STILL be a government worker as a "non-resident non-person" not engaged in a “trade or business”, not have a domicile on federal territory, and therefore STILL be a “foreigner” who is free and sovereign. The domicile and the protection it pays for is where the government's authority comes from to collect the tax in the first place. It is a CIVIL liability and you aren't subject to their CIVIL statutory law without a domicile on federal territory, unless you contract with them to procure an identity or “res”, and thereby become a “res-ident”. When you contract with them, you create a “public office” in the government and become surety for the office you created using your signature. F.R.Civ.P. 17(b), 26 U.S.C. §7408(d), and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) then changes the choice of law to the District of Columbia for all functions of the “public office” because now you are acting in a representative capacity on behalf of the federal corporation as such public officer.

On the subject of contracting with the government, the Bible forbids Christians from nominating a King or Protector above them, or from contracting with the pagan government:

The government can’t lawfully force you to choose a domicile in their jurisdiction or to nominate a protector or become a “resident” if you are a “national” who was born in this country. They can force an alien born in another country to become a privileged “resident”, but the can't force a “national” who is born here to become a “resident”, because they can't lawfully compel a “citizen” under the constitution to suffer any of the disabilities of alienage without engaging in involuntary servitude and violation of constitutional rights. This is also confirmed by the definition of “residence” at 26 C.F.R. §1.871-2, which only includes aliens and not “nonresident aliens” or even "non-resident non-persons". If they did force you to choose a domicile or residence and thereby become a “taxpayer”, it would be a violation of the First Amendment prohibition against compelled association and the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. It has always been lawful to refuse protection and refuse to be a domiciliary called a statutory “U.S. citizen”, “U.S. person”, or statutory “U.S. resident”, and to refuse to contract with them or accept any “benefits” that might give rise to a “quasi-contractual” obligation to pay for “social insurance”. See:

As Frank Kowalik points out in his wonderful book, IRS Humbug , the income tax is a public officer kickback program disguised to “look” like a legitimate income tax. It's smoke and mirrors. To make it look like an income tax, they had to throw the “domicile” stuff into it, but the public officer status is still the foundation. That is why 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) says everything in the code is “foreign” that is not connected to the public office (“trade or business”) franchise. To be “foreign” means it is outside the jurisdiction of the franchise agreement because not consensually connected to it.

13. Methods of Connecting You to the Franchise

13.1. W-4 Agreements or Contracts: Illegal for PRIVATE people

Before you can file a W-4 form, you must be an “employee”. Most people who file this form are NOT:

The above statutory “employee” is the same statutory “employee” defined in 5 U.S.C. §2105(a) as an officer of the national and not state government. The “corporation” they are talking about above is FEDERAL corporation and not a STATE corporation.

26 U.S.C. §3402(p)(1)(A) only authorizes people receiving payments from the national government to enter into a W-4 agreement, not private people.

The “person” above, is a STATUTORY “nonresident alien” at home under 26 U.S.C. §871 and a STATUTORY “U.S.** citizen” or STATUTORY “U.S.** resident” (alien) abroad under 26 U.S.C. §911. By “home” we mean federal territory, such as a territory, possession, or federal enclave. See:

The person above party submitting the W-4 Form is also ONLY receiving a “specified Federal Payment”, meaning a payment from the national government to one of their officers or contractors. This is NOT a payment of a PRIVATE company to a PRIVATE human!

If you are not a federal officer or statutory “employee” or if you are not receiving payments from the national government, then you aren’t even ELIGIBLE to submit a W-4 form! If you submit this form, you indirectly are creating prima facie evidence that is FALSE that you are a federal statutory “employee”. BAD IDEA! This is why we tell our members that they should NEVER submit IRS Form W-4 to anyone they work with or for.

The IRS Form W-4 identifies itself as an agreement, not on the form, but in the regulations that implement it.

The laws of the United States make it a crime to use a W-4 to in effect “elect” yourself into the public office that is the subject of the I.R.C. Subtitle A income tax:

If the person submitting the form is NOT a public officer but a private human, then by signing and submitting the form, they are identifying themselves as THE statutory “employee” identified in the upper left corner of the form AND legally defined in 5 U.S.C. §2105(a) as a public officer and indirectly, electing themselves into office AND bribing the person receiving the form to TREAT them AS IF they are public officers. Earlier versions of the IRS Internal Revenue Manual recognized the difference between a PRIVATE worker and a PUBLIC statutory “employee” with the following language in order to PREVENT the commission of the above crimes by uninformed withholding agents:

After we pointed out the above IRM section, the IRS mysteriously deleted the aboev section from their website, even though technically it is still true and absolutely necessary in order to prevent the crimes indicated above.

Absent public notice in IRS publications and the IRM above, ignorant private companies hiring those who are NOT statutory public “employees” frequently coerce their workers to commit the above crimes. The IRS Form W-4 is frequently and illegally abused by private employers to recruit otherwise PRIVATE people into appointive public office. The following treatise on public officers says that all attempts to procure such appointments are immoral and illegal:

[1] Tool Co. v. Norris, 1 Wall (U.S,) 45; Gray v. Hook, 4 N.Y. 449; Gaston v. Drake, 14 Nev. 175, 33 Am.Rep. 548; Filson v. Himes, 5 Penn.St. 452; 47 Am.Dec 422; Faurie v. Morin, 4 Martin (La.), 39, 6 Am.Dec.701; Outon v. Rodes, 3 A.K. Marsh. (Ky.) 432, 13 Am.Dec. 193; Hager v. Catlin, 18 Hun (N.Y.), 448; Haas. V. Fenlon, 8 Kans. 601; Liness v. Hoeing, 44 Ill. 113, 92 Am.Dec. 153.

13.2 Reductions in Liability: Graduated Rate of Tax, Deductions, and Earned Income Credits

All attempts to reduce one’s assumed tax liability require the person filing the tax return to be engaged in the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise. This includes:

Why must you be engaged in a “trade or business” in order to reduce your liability as a “taxpayer”? Because this is a commercial “benefit” and only those who work for the government can receive any commercial benefit from the government. Otherwise, the government is abusing its taxing power to transfer wealth among private individuals:

13.3 Information Returns

Information returns include but are not limited to IRS Forms W-2, 1042-S, 1098, 1099, and 8300. Receipt of “trade or business” earnings is the basis for nearly all Information Returns processed by the IRS, which are reports documenting financial payments made to government entities or officers. The requirement to file these reports is found at 26 U.S.C. §6041. The “person” they are referring to in the article is none other than a “public officer” in the government:

In most cases, these reports are not only false, but fraudulent. The following article documents how the IRS structures the handling of these reports in order to encourage the filing of false reports so as to maximize their revenues from unlawful activities:

This “trade or business” scam is found in other titles of the U.S. Code as well. For instance, in Title 31, which is the Money and Finance title, we did a search for the word “trade or business” and were very surprised by what we found there. You may know that when you try to withdraw $10,000 or more from a bank account, banks will insist on preparing what is called a “Currency Transaction Report”, or “CTR” documenting the withdrawal. This report is sent to the United States Treasury and inputted into the FINCEN computers at the Treasury. The report is used to catch money launderers and tax evaders who are handling large amounts of cash. Well, the only circumstance under which this report can lawfully be prepared is when the subject is engaged in a “trade or business”! Here is the section:

The “trade or business” they are talking about is exactly the same one that appears in the Internal Revenue Code, folks!

Quite a scam, huh? The following memorandum of law describes this scam in detail:

The "trade or business" scam in Title 31 in the context of CTR's explains why financial institutions can demand federal ID numbers from depositors, why the federal government needs to be able to track these deposits, and many other considerations. Banks and financial institutions are simply volunteering to help the federal government keep track of its "employees" and "subcontractors". The Slave Surveillance Numbers (SSN) is the license number used to track federal subcontractors and is used by the federal government to track their "corporate" assets. If you think Microsoft as a corporation is too big for its britches, then what about the mother corporation for all other corporations, the United States government? All of the assets owned by a person engaged in a "trade or business" become "effectively connected" with the U.S. government by virtue of the fact that if a federal employee fails to deduct and withhold the proper "kickback" for which they are liable under 26 U.S.C. §1461, then their assets must be tracked so the kickback can be recovered through administrative process without the need to litigate. Being "effectively connected" means they are administratively attachable without the need for litigation by using an automated "Notice of Levy" form that isn't even signed. If you are going to engage in “commerce” or business with the government, then you have to help them make it “efficient”, right? Doesn't that come with the territory: Never look a gift horse in the mouth? Well, "Uncle" is your new "gift horse", your Master, and you are the slave. The assets of a federal subcontractor only cease to be administratively attachable at the point when the subcontractor fulfills their fiduciary duty as a "transferee" under 26 U.S.C. §6901 and 6903 and deducts the correct amount of "tax", or "kickback" to send to their new "employer", the federal government. In effect, they are "Kelly Girls" for the federal government who handle their own payroll and send payments back to the mother corporation. The compensation they receive for doing their own payroll comes in the form of a reduced tax liability, procured by taking itemized deductions, earned income credit, and applying a graduated rate of tax. Those not engaged in a “trade or business” are not allowed to avail themselves of any such “privileges”. If you don't want to continue to be treated inhumanely like a "taxpayer", then quit acting like one, quit sucking on the government tit, and quit asking for "Uncle" to take care of you by volunteering to engage in privileged activities in order to procure special incentives and favors you don't need anyway.

The "trade or business" requirement also extends to nearly all other types of payment reporting within the I.R.C. Here are just a few examples:

How does the IRS trap "nontaxpayers" who are 'non-resident non-persons" or "nonresident aliens" who refuse to get identifying numbers or fill out a W-4? IRS Publication 515 shows how they do it, which is entitled Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities. That publication capitalizes on the confusion of private employers about the meaning of "United States" and "trade or business" by saying the following:

So what they are really saying is that if you are a "nonresident alien" not engaged in the "trade or business" franchise who is receiving payments from the U.S. government in the form of Social Security, then these payments are subject to withholding of 30%, but ONLY if the party doing the withholding has explicitly been designated as a "withholding agent" by the Secretary as required under 26 U.S.C. §3501. We also know that private employers are NOT required to act as withholding agents, by the admission of the IRS' own Internal Revenue Manual:

13.4 Government Identifying Numbers: SSN and TIN

Whenever you put a government-issued identifying number on any document, you are implicitly establishing that you are engaged in the “trade or business” franchise. This fact is easily discerned by examining the following:

13.5. Domicile, residence, and Resident Tax Returns such as IRS Form 1040

The requirement to pay an income tax originates from the coincidence of one’s domicile along with the excise taxable activities they engage in within the place of domicile:

The above requirement of domicile is then found in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and is hidden within the words “citizen” and “resident”:

What “citizens” and “residents” have in common is a legal domicile in the “United States”. Collectively, persons with a legal domicile within a jurisdiction are called “inhabitants” and “U.S. persons”:

Below is a table showing the relationship between ones domicile and their statutory citizenship status:

The term “United States” is then defined as the federal territory in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and nowhere expressly extended to include states of the Union. This is the same “United States” within which EVERYTHING is presumed to be “trade or business” earnings, which implies that what they are really referring to is the “United States” federal corporation or government, and not the geographical United States:

A person who therefore is a “citizen” or “resident” within the I.R.C. and who therefore has a legal domicile in the “United States” is equivalent to either the government or a public officer representing the government. This is established in the memorandum of law below:

Therefore, whenever you file a “resident” tax form, such as form 1040, then you are indirectly admitting a legal domicile within the “United States” and all of your earnings are therefore presumed to be connected with the “trade or business” franchise pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §864(c )(3).

This is also confirmed by the IRS Form 1040 itself, because everything on the form is subject to “trade or business” deductions under 26 U.S.C. §162. Those not engaged in the “trade or business” franchise cannot lawfully take such deductions. Everything listed in the deduction against which a deduction is taken therefore effectively becomes “private property donated to a public use to procure the benefits of the trade or business franchise”. The deductions are the “benefit” or “privilege” of participating in the franchise and act essentially as employment compensation associated with the “public office”.

The only way you can avoid participating in the "trade or business” franchise is to file a nonresident tax return, such as IRS Form 1040NR. Of this form, IRS Publication 519 says the following:

In fact, it is participation in the franchise that effectively makes you a “resident” under the I.R.C. Whether a "person" is a "resident" or "nonresident" has NOTHING to do with the nationality or residence, but with whether it is engaged in a "trade or business":

The legal mechanism for becoming a “resident” by engaging in a commercial franchise with the government originates from the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2), which makes the person into a “resident” when they consensually engage in “commerce” within the exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign within its own territory:

Once you engage in commerce within the jurisdiction of the sovereign and consent to the franchise agreement:

13.6 “Electing” (consenting) to treat your earnings as “effectively connected with a trade or business”[1]

“Effectively connected income” means PRIVATE earnings DONATED to Uncle Sam. Your homework is to write this 1000 times until you get it:

"trade or business" is defined and "United States" is defined. The phrase "connected to a trade or business" is not defined, but is self-explanatory. Adding the word "effectively" obviously would not be necessary where there is an ACTUAL connection to a trade or business. Keep in mind, the custom rule for construing a definition that uses the word "includes" allows the meaning of "trade or business" to be expanded beyond the literal performance of the functions of a public office, and embraces anything in the same general class. The word "effectively" seems to be added just to make it even more clear that no ACTUAL performance of the functions of a public office is required.
"effectively connected" is used ONLY in relation to “nonresident aliens”. The term is not used with “United States persons”, because United States person itself IS a "trade or business". It still need not involve the performance of the functions of a LITERAL public office, though, if you CONSENT to CALL IT “effectively connected”.

The person who EARNED it is the ONLY one who can make it "effectively connected". That requirement would be necessary if it was voluntary. Consent is given through express or tacit consent. Therefore, “effectively connected” is just a fancy synonym for "donated to uncle".

In one of the nonresident alien provisions, it actually says "effectively connected to a trade or business" BY THE RECIPIENT

They say "by that individual" TWICE in that provision. There is NO NEED for the words "by that individual" to be there except to make it clear WHO has the power to make the gross income "effectively connected"

Note also that it says The gross income of a nonresident alien individual includes only

Why the use of the words "gross income" in the definition and not just the word "income"? We are after all defining what is "gross income" for nonresident aliens. Our guess is: they use the words "gross income" to make it abundantly clear that the Code does NOT purport to tax a nonresident alien on "everything that came in".

Contrast this with how "gross income" is defined a 26 U.S.C. §61 for anyone NOT a nonresident alien i.e. a United States person: the word "income" is used in that definition (not "gross income"). the regulations at 26 C.F.R. §1.61-2 indicate that "wages and salary...are income TO THE RECIPIENTS unless excluded by law (by the recipients). The individual is the one with the power to make an item EFFECTIVELY connected "gross income". By the same token, the recipient of a wage or salary is the one who does the EXCLUDING of that wage or salary from his income and thus from his "gross income" as an item must FIRST be income in order to qualify as "gross income". Such exclusion must be BY LAW. The recipient cannot exclude an item from income contrary to law.

Back to 26 U.S.C. §61, which lists "compensation for services" as an item of "gross income". "Compensation for services" is a statutory term created by Congress in the 1923 Classification Act and refers to GOVERNMENT service.

This is true. The NEC section is for items not connected to a trade or business but which nonetheless are included in your "gross income" under 26 U.S.C. §871(a) and 26 U.S.C. §872. It is a placeholder for everything originating from the STATUTORY GEOGRAPHICAL “United States” (DC and Territories) that you decide NOT to “Elect” to be treated as “effectively connected”.

Those who do not ELECT to treat earnings as “effectively connected” in the NEC section of form 1040NR are penalized for doing so because they are not able to take 26 U.S.C. §162 “trade or business” deductions on the amounts listed there.

The big mistake most state nationals would make if they had to fill out a CORRECT 1040NR Form instead of the INCORRECT 1040 Form is to put all their earnings NOT from the U.S. government and NOT from the geographical “United States” ANYPLACE on the return. It doesn’t belong there and is exclusively private, not reportable, not “gross income”. Once they make the mistake of putting private unreportable earnings from within a constitutional state (a “foreign state” in relation to the national government) in there, now they have to figure out how to reduce their taxable income, which then coerces them to elect to treat it as “effectively connected” so they can claim deductions to reduce taxable net income.

The W-8BEN Form makes it clear that a W-4 Form is predicated on the payee receiving "compensation for services in the United States" which is the actual meaning of "compensation for services" at 26 U.S.C. §61.

Performing STATUTORY “personal services” in the United States (federal corporation) as a STATUTORY federal “employee” is deemed a "trade or business". The statute below proves this:

Note the phrase: “includes the performance of personal services within the United States at any time within the taxable year”. The term “engaged in trade or business within the United States”....includes the performance of personal services within the United States federal corporation at any time within the taxable year.

Everything a statutory citizen fiction does, apparently, is "personal services" because it’s a franchise office or privilege. The United States is your employer you are performing services “within” the legal but not geographical United States as a federal corporation. The position of “taxpayer” or “person”, in that case, is an office within the corporation. Technically, the OFFICE is performing the services and you are volunteering to animate it by calling what you earn "effectively connected".

Everything a statutory citizen or even statutory resident (alien) fictions do, apparently, are "personal services" because they are fictions of law created by Congress and therefore function as franchise offices. More precisely, an individual "United States person" ("citizen or resident alien") has effectively elected to have ALL wages and salary TREATED as though it is "income" under 26 C.F.R. §1.61-2. By “electing” the STATUS of STATUTORY “U.S. person” they elected to treat ALL their earnings as “connected to a trade or business”. The STATUTORY “U.S. person” status is the "trade or business" and all otherwise PRIVATE earnings are therefore treated as STATUTORY “wages” and “salaries” and "income from a trade or business" and thus included by law in "gross income" for such a party.

On the other hand, when a “nonresident alien” converts his private earnings from PRIVATE to PUBLIC by “electing” to treat it as “effectively connected”, that election is made on individual sources of income one at a time, and each item so elected becomes “effectively connected”. By “private” we mean constitutionally protected and NONSTATUTORY wages or earnings.

Therefore, one’s PRIVATE earnings are converted from PRIVATE to PUBLIC by one of TWO ways:

Whatever the above method of conversion, the “election” transmutes or converts NON-INCOME to statutory “income” under 26 C.F.R. §1.61-2 to make it “reportable” under 26 U.S.C. §6041. If you didn't elect to convert it from PRIVATE to PUBLIC and thereby make it "reportable" and "trade or business", it remains PRIVATE and not "income" within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.

The conversion therefore has to occur at some point with consent, whether tacit in the case of electing (falsely claiming, in most cases under penalty of perjury no less) to be a “U.S. person” or directly by calling it “effectively connected” as a “nonresident alien”. Thus, one way or another, to earn “gross income” as a private human, you MUST consent in some form to call the earnings “gross income” and “trade or business” earnings BEFORE it becomes taxable or reportable. This is compatible with the main purpose of government itself is to ensure that conversion is always CONSENSUAL.

In that context, "United States" is the corporation, and the OFFICE is WITHIN that corporation. More simply, the act of performing services within the United States (the corporate body) even if you are nonresident alien = engaged in a trade or business. The "compensation for services" one would receive from that is "gross income" per 26 U.S.C. §61.

The NONCONSENTING NRA status connected to a REAL office/trade or business is the only real liable party. Otherwise, its private and nonreportable. But connecting to an ACTUAL federal public office = consent to the terms and conditions.

[1] Source: How to File Returns, Form #09.074, Section 9.7 entitled “Effectively connected income” means PRIVATE earnings DONATED to Uncle Sam; https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

14. Government propaganda and deception about the scam

14.1. Willful government deception in connection with a "trade or business"

It’s pretty obvious that your public servants don’t want you to know about this “trade or business” scam, because then the gravy train of plunder and their welfare check would have to stop and they would have to get a REAL job. What steps have they taken to obfuscate the truth about this very important issue? Here is a brief summary of their dishonest techniques:

Now, let’s look at some of the devious ways that the IRS creates false presumptions to deceive people living in the states of the Union into admitting under penalty of perjury on the wrong tax return, the 1040, that they are involved in a “trade or business” and that they are subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction, even though we know that neither is true. We refer you to IRS Publication 519, Year 2000 version, which says starting on p. 17:

Well, first of all, the above statement is misleading, because they never defined the word “income” and the Supreme Court said in Eisner v. Macomber that the Congress can’t define it and that ONLY the Constitution can define it, so they can’t write any law authorizing the IRS to define it either! So what “income” are they talking about here? The only thing the Supreme Court has ever defined “income” to mean was profit from a corporation involved in foreign commerce, as we pointed out earlier in section 5.6.5. Why didn’t they mention this? Because they don’t want you to know!

Secondly, the only thing that it can be talking about is earnings not connected with a “trade or business” described in 26 U.S.C. §871(a), which is the only place the 30% tax rate appears. Those earnings can only relate to payments originating from “sources within the United States” earned by “nonresident alien individuals”, because that is what 26 U.S.C. §871 says. What are the "items of income” that are subject to this 30% tax? These “items of income” are listed in 26 U.S.C. §§862(a) and 863(a) TA \l "26 U.S.C. §§862(a) and 863(a)" \s "26 U.S.C. §§862(a) and 863(a)" \c 2 . Most of these “items of income” are then elsewhere excluded, as we showed earlier in this section. We showed, for instance that

So what is left after one excludes the earnings indicated in the above requirements because the “person” being taxed is a “national” and a “non-resident non-person” who is not a "nonresident alien", "nonresident alien individual", or an alien and all of whose earnings are not “effectively connected with a trade or business” and originate outside the statutory "United States**" (federal territory)? CORPORATE PROFIT OF A FEDERAL AND NOT STATE CORPORATION INVOLVED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE! That’s what we already showed the Supreme Court said constituted “income” within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

26 C.F.R. §1.861-8(f)(1) lists all these taxable activities, and they all come under treaties or are connected with what is called a Domestic International Sales Corporation (DISC) or a Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC). These weasels are slippery, aren’t they? What they are trying to do is make an exclusively municipal excise tax that only applies to federal territory “look” like it applies to everyone in the country by encrypting and hiding the truth using “words of art”. They contradict themselves in their own publication, because elsewhere, they admit that those who have income from outside the “United States” that is not connected with “trade or business” don’t earn “gross income”:

The above claim within Publication 519 originates from 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31), which we cited at the beginning of this article. What they are saying is that only earnings from within the statutory "United States**" (federal territory) and which are not connected with a “trade or business” are subject to the 30% tax rate, and that the income must be earned by “nonresident alien individuals” whoa re aliens and not “nationals”, because citizens can’t be taxed at home and aliens and nonresident aliens are excluded. The only thing left is foreign “persons”, such as foreign corporations. If they simply commute daily to work there, they are "nonresident aliens" and therefore don't earn "gross income". Anything not connected with a “trade or business” that is earned outside of the statutory "United States**" (federal territory) is therefore not includible as “gross income” at all. Anything earned inside the District of Columbia in connection with a public office is includible in “gross income” at the graduated, instead of 30% rate. Even then, one must consent voluntarily to be a “taxpayer” because there is no statute making anyone liable in either the D.C. Code or the I.R.C. That process is done by submitting a form and assessing oneself with a liability even though there is none. Once they “volunteer” by filling out and submitting the WRONG form, the 1040 form, and become “subject to” the I.R.C., they become virtual inhabitants of the District of Columbia under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d):

If they REALLY had jurisdiction in a state of the Union to tax, do you think they would need provisions like those above? Note also that what “citizens and residents” have in common is a legal “domicile” in the statutory but not constitutional “United States**” (federal territory) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(3). When a person domiciled in a state of the Union who is rightfully a “nonresident alien” NON-individual fills out and sends in a 1040 form, rather than the correct 1040NR form, they are assumed to be a “citizen or resident of the United States” and an “individual”, meaning a “resident alien” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A). The “United States” in the context of subtitle A of the I.R.C. means federal territory that is not part of the exclusive jurisdiction of any constitutional state of the Union. It is redefined in other titles to include the 50 states, but in Subtitle A, it’s definition is limited to that found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d). Therefore, they are claiming that they are domiciled on federal territory within the statutory but not constitutional "United States**". Did you know that by submitting an IRS form 1040, you were making a "voluntary election" to be treated as a domiciliary of the federal zone? They didn't tell you THAT in the IRS publications, now did they? Why not? Because they want to manufacture your legal ignorance in the public schools and then use their incomplete and deceptive publications to "harvest" the fruits of your ignorance. A fool and his money are soon parted. The public schools are the fool factory and the 1040 is the indenture that makes you into their willing, voluntary indentured slave. Below is what the IRS Published Products Catalog, year 2003 says about the purpose of the form 1040:

Under I.R.C. §7701(a)(39) above, they then become the equivalent of “virtual inhabitants” of the District of Columbia. If we then look in the District of Columbia Code, we find that there isn’t a liability statute in that code either so the IRS still requires our consent to call us a “taxpayer” no matter which way you look at it. This is covered in much more detail in the Tax Fraud Prevention Manual , Chapter 3, section 3.5.3 if you want to investigate further. We also know that kidnapping is highly illegal under 18 U.S.C. §1201, and that making us into a “virtual inhabitant” of anything is the equivalent of kidnapping if done without our consent. Therefore, indirectly we must conclude that anyone who does not inhabit the District of Columbia must volunteer or consent to be a “taxpayer” before their “res” or legal identity can be transported to the District of Columbia. That process of volunteering is done using the IRS 1040 form and is done under the authority of 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) for those who file as “nonresident aliens”.

It gets worse, folks. Let’s look at some of the deceit in IRS Publication 519 that tries to convince people falsely that they are involved in a “trade or business”, or tricks them into admitting they are in the process of pursuing the “privilege” of having additional deductions. Below is what they say about how you can increase your deductions by claiming you are engaged in a “trade or business”, from p. 23 of the Year 2000 edition of IRS Publication 519:

Why do they do the above? Well, those who know they have no effectively connected income and therefore have a zero tax liability don’t need deductions because they don’t owe anything! The only reason to pursue a deduction is because one has “gross income”, and few Americans we have ever met living in the states even have “gross income”.

Later on, in this same IRS Publication 519, we see that the IRS tries to create a false “presumption” in their favor by trying to convince people they are usually involved in a “trade or business”. Notice that they never explicitly define what it means from the I.R.C, which is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”. As a matter of fact, if they DID explain this definition in their publication, boy would they ever have a LOT of explaining to do on their phone support line, so they conveniently leave it out. They don’t mention its real definition because that would render everything listed below as basically irrelevant and moot. The reader would simply throw Pub 519 in the trash at that point and conclude he is a “nontaxpayer”, so they instead tip toe around the definition and give examples without relating them to the legal definition in the I.R.C. Below is the IRS Publication 519, Year 2000 definition of “trade or business in the United States” from pp. 15-16:

The first thing you notice is the statement: “Whether you are engaged in a trade or business in the United States depends on the nature of your activities”. That statement is a tacit admission that the income tax is in fact an indirect excise tax on activities. They also said:

Well, let's look at the definition of "personal services" used above to see what these weasels are up to:

Notice that they used the word "means" instead of "includes" in the above definition and DID NOT confine the definition by stating "for the purposes of this section" or "for the purposes of this chapter". Instead, they provided an unambiguous universal definition of "personal services" which applies throughout the ENTIRE Internal Revenue Code and they indicated effectively that you aren't performing "personal services" UNLESS you are engaged in a "trade or business". So what they are doing when they say "If you perform personal services in the United States [federal territory] at any time during the tax year, you usually are considered engaged in a trade or business in the United States." is effectively making a circular statement that confirms itself. This is called a "tautology", which is a word that is defined using itself. It's only purpose is self-serving deception. Can you see how insidious this deception and double-speak is? It's all designed to take attention away from the nature of the taxed activity so that people will think the tax is on the money instead of the activity, isn’t it? If they admitted that the income tax was an indirect excise tax on activities, they would dig a DEEP hole for themselves that would start an avalanche of people leaving the tax rolls. That is why they never come out and said EXACTLY what a “trade or business” is or how their explanation relates to the definition of a “trade or business” found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26), which describes it as a "public office". Since when do people holding "public office" have time to do any of the above things in addition to fulfilling their office? Furthermore, under federal law, it is a conflict of interest to maintain any private business activities outside the workplace that might jeopardize one's objectivity. But then later on p. 26 of the same publication, under “Dual Status Tax Year”, they finally admit the truth:

An excellent way to confirm the conclusions of this section is to read the publications of the Joint Committee on Taxation. We would like to quote from JCT document 85-199 entitled “Explanation of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between The United States and the United Kingdom”. You can get this publication at:

Now the excerpt, from pp. 4-5 is VERY revealing. We boldface and underline the important portions to bring attention to them. We have also added bracketed material to amplify exactly what they mean based on discussion earlier in this chapter and based on the definitions of terms found in the Internal Revenue Code:

They basically admitted everything we just got through saying throughout the preceding discussion, folks! They are very cleverly hiding the taxable activity by referring to it as a “trade or business”, which is a “word of art”, and not defining which “U.S.” they are talking about or the fact that it only includes federal territory or the U.S. government. They also admitted the circumstances under which the 30% tax in 26 U.S.C. §871(a) applies. Recall that this section identified a 30% tax on nonresident alien income from sources inside the statutory "United States**" (federal territory) which is not connected with a “trade or business”. Well, they just explained that the tax is only paid by foreign corporations as an indirect tax upon income derived from a “trade or business”. Therefore, ALL income that is taxable under the I.R.C. Subtitle A derives exclusively from a “trade or business” and a “public office” in one way or another.

The first sentence of the above also tries to deceive the reader by saying that "U.S. citizens", "residents", and "corporations" are taxed on their "worldwide income" WITHOUT mentioning the requirement for being engaged in a "trade or business". We know based on our earlier analysis, however, that under Subtitle A of the I.R.C., all natural persons who are "taxpayers" under the code, whether whether married, unmarried, heads of Household, etc. MUST be engaged in a "trade or business" in order to earn "taxable income". The taxable activity for international corporations is "foreign commerce" rather than the "trade or business" under other subtitles of the code, and the above tries to lump all of them together and thereby create an absolutely false presumption in the mind of the reader. Therefore, such a claim can ONLY apply to artificial entities engaged in foreign commerce under Subtitle D of the I.R.C. The only thing we didn't cover earlier was the difference in treatment between corporations and natural persons. In that scenario, under I.R.C. Subtitle D, these corporations are taxed on their worldwide income that derives from imports, which counts as "foreign commerce" under the constitution. These conclusions are supported by the Supreme Court, which said:

14.2. Proving the government deception yourself

Another way to confirm the conclusions of this section is to look at older versions of the U.S. Code and Statutes at Large that show the definition of "gross income". Politicians of old were much more honest and direct than the weasels and thieves and traitors we have in office today, so their laws told the truth plainly. It wasn't until the socialists began to take over starting in 1913 and peaking with Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's that the I.R.C. really started to show signs of willful deceit. Below are two very old definitions of "gross income" that show the truth plainly to prove our point. These versions did not use the "trade or business" trick so they had to state the truth plainly:

You can also look at our resource on “gross income”, which includes the above, at:

14.3. False IRS presumptions that must be rebutted

How can we know if the IRS thinks we are involved in a “trade or business”? Here is how, within the context of Subtitle A of the I.R.C.:

Those who avail themselves of any of the above government “privileges” are presumed to be “taxpayers” as far as the IRS is concerned. It’s a “privilege” to have deductions and pay a usually lower graduated rate of tax on earnings that are otherwise “taxable”. This doesn’t mean they are “taxpayers” for ALL their earnings, but only for those in which the above activities are undertaken. It's a privilege to receive federal Socialist Security, Medicare, and FICA benefits, and only those who consent to be treated as federal "employees" can receive them. In effect, the government is exploiting people's ignorance and greed in the pursuit of exemptions or tax reductions or benefits they don’t need in order to transform "nontaxpayers" into "taxpayers". Here is how one Congressman described this kind of very devious exploitation:

Those “taxpayers” in receipt of taxable privileges or “nontaxpayers” who are too stupid to know that they don’t need to become a “taxpayer” in order to receive a “privilege” they don’t need should definitely pay for the “privilege” they are taking advantage of. Therefore, if you are a nonresident alien not engaged in a “trade or business” and any one of the above conditions applies to you, then the IRS is ASSUMING, usually wrongfully, that you are engaged in a “trade or business” or have income under 26 U.S.C. §871(a) originating from the statutory but not constitutional "United States**" (federal territory) that is not connected with a “trade or business”. The great irony of this whole fraudulent federal “scheme” is that those who were otherwise “nontaxpayers” and never had any “gross income” to begin with, in effect were fooled by deceptive IRS publications and phone advice into:

14.4. Why the IRS and the Courts WON'T Talk about what a "trade or business" or "public office" is and collude to Cover Up the Scam

The government perpetuates the “trade or business” FRAUD and scam by the following means:

There are many very good reasons why they try to deflect attention away from the scam. Some of the reasons are as follows:

1. The IRS would have to admit that they aren’t part of the government and are a private corporation, which in fact they are. Remember: A “public officer” is someone who has no supervisor other than the law and the courts and who exercises a sovereign function of the government INDEPENDENTLY of oversight other than the law and the courts. The IRS cannot lawfully “supervise” such a sovereign, because they are not in these two groups::

If the IRS was an administrative part of the government and ESPECIALLY if it were in the Executive Branch as they want you to deceive you into believing, then they couldn’t have any enforcement authority at all without admitting that the people they are enforcing against in fact ARE NOT “public officers” as legally defined because they are being supervised by other than ONLY the courts and the law alone. These considerations explain why:

1.2. Historical Treasury Organization Charts do not show the IRS as being in the Dept. of the Treasury. See:

1.3. Title 31 of the U.S. Code does not list the Internal Revenue Service as being within the Dept. of the Treasury, even though their letterhead FRAUDULENTLY says they are. See:

1.4. The Dept. of Justice has admitted under oath during legal discovery that the IRS is not an agency of the Federal Government. See:

For further details on the absolute FRAUD to cover up the above information, read the evidence for yourself:

2. All “public officers” have a fiduciary duty to the people they serve, which means they have a fiduciary duty to YOU to act in YOUR best interest as a human being protected by the Constitution. If you can prove your oppressors are “taxpayers” and therefore “public officers”, then their omissions that injure you would become actionable and a tort.

3. Any officer of the state government, including a state judge, who is also a federal “taxpayer” would have to admit that he is violating the Constitution of his state by simultaneously being a “public officer” in the federal government and a public officer in the state government at the same time. Most state constitutions and/or state statutes forbid public officers within the state government from also being public officers in the federal government. This is done to prevent a violation of the separation of powers doctrine between the state and federal governments as well as to prevent conflicts of interest and allegiance by public servants. Why, then, do state courts have federal Employer Identification Numbers (EINs)? Shouldn’t they be exempt from such requirement to preserve the separation of powers? Here is an example within the California Constitution:

For more information about the systematic destruction of the separation of powers by malicious public servants aimed squarely and undermining the enforcement of your constitutional rights, see:

4. “Taxpayer” attorneys representing clients in state court would have to recuse themselves from the practice of law for violating the state constitutional prohibition against serving simultaneously in both a public office in the federal government and a public office in the state government. All attorneys are officers of the court they are licensed to practice in. If that court is a state court, they are public officers of the state government and therefore cannot also serve as public officers of the federal government called “taxpayers”:

[1] Curtis v Richards, 4 Idaho 434, 40 P 57; Herfurth v Horine, 266 Ky 19, 98 SW2d 21; J. A. Utley Co. v Borchard, 372 Mich 367, 126 NW2d 696 (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Davis v O'Brien, 152 Mich App 495, 393 NW2d 914); Hoppe v Klapperich, 224 Minn 224, 28 NW2d 780, 173 ALR 819.

[2] In re Bergeron, 220 Mass 472, 107 NE 1007.

[3] National Sav. Bank v Ward, 100 US 195, 100 Otto 195, 25 L Ed 621 (not followed on other grounds as stated in Flaherty v Weinberg, 303 Md 116, 492 A2d 618, 61 ALR4th 443); In re Thomas, 16 Colo 441, 27 P 707; State v Rush, 46 NJ 399, 217 A2d 441, 21 ALR3d 804 (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Guardianship of G.S., III, 137 NJ 168, 644 A2d 1088).

The North Dakota Constitution specifically provides that the office of attorney-at-law is a public office. Menz v Coyle (ND) 117 NW2d 290 (criticized on other grounds by Gange v Clerk of Burleigh County Dist. Court (ND) 429 NW2d 429).

[4] Hoppe v Klapperich, 224 Minn 224, 28 NW2d 780, 173 ALR 819; State v Hudson, 55 RI 141, 179 A 130, 100 ALR 313; Stern v Thompson & Coates, 185 Wis 2d 221, 517 NW2d 658, reconsideration den (Wis) 525 NW2d 736.

[5] Powell v Alabama, 287 US 45, 77 L Ed 158, 53 S Ct 55, 84 ALR 527; In re Durant, 80 Conn 140, 67 A 497; Gould v State, 99 Fla 662, 127 So 309, 69 ALR 699; Sams v Olah, 225 Ga 497, 169 SE2d 790, cert den 397 US 914, 25 L Ed 2d 94, 90 S Ct 916; People ex rel. Attorney Gen. v Beattie, 137 Ill 553, 27 NE 1096; Martin v Davis, 187 Kan 473, 357 P2d 782, app dismd 368 US 25, 7 L Ed 2d 5, 82 S Ct 1, reh den 368 US 945, 7 L Ed 2d 341, 82 S Ct 376; In re Keenan, 287 Mass 577, 192 NE 65, 96 ALR 679; Lynde v Lynde, 64 NJ Eq 736, 52 A 694; Dow Chemical Co. v Benton, 163 Tex 477, 357 SW2d 565.

5. You as a "taxpayer" and a "public officer" could assert sovereign immunity against other agencies of the government on the basis that it violates the separation of powers doctrine for any agency of the federal government to interfere with the activities of any other agency or office. Taxation is a “legislative” and not a judicial function.[1] This situation is precisely the reason, for instance, why:

5.1. The Anti Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421, prohibits courts from interfering with the LAWFUL assessment or collection of income taxes from “public officers” in the Legislative Branch who consent.

5.2. The Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201(a) prohibits courts from making declaratory judgments in the case of federal “taxes”. This prohibition also precludes the courts from identifying anyone as a “taxpayer” who says under penalty of perjury that they aren’t.

6. It is ILLEGAL for an "alien" to be a "public officer" and you aren't an alien if you were born in this country. The I.R.C. Subtitle A tax is an excise tax upon a “trade or business”, which is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”. All “taxpayers” in the I.R.C. are aliens engaged in a public office and it is ILLEGAL for aliens to hold public office! See 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c )(3) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) for proof that all "individuals" and "taxpayers" are "aliens" engaged in a "trade or business".

7. Courts would have to admit your evidence just as readily as that of any other government officer or employee involved in the action, or else they would be guilty of denying you equal protection of the law and all the “benefits” of the very office that they MUST impute to you in order to treat you as a “taxpayer”. This would make them look hypocritical and juries would throw the book at the government for doing this. The Federal Rules of Evidence permit those engaged in a “public office” to receive preferential treatment in getting their evidence admitted in federal court, including evidence without signature and without foundational testimony. The government doesn’t want to confer this advantage upon pro per litigants or those opposing the government tax scam. Fed.Rul.Ev. 803(8) permits a “public records” exception to the Hearsay Rule, which means that any tax record, any evidence you gathered in the course of complying with your alleged “duties” as a “public officer” would not be excludible by the judges of federal district courts, which would severely undermine the government’s civil or criminal tax case against you. The IRS and DOJ win in federal court primarily by getting federal judges to unlawfully exclude evidence of persons who are litigating against them in order to prejudice the case in favor of the government. Below is what the appropriate section of the Hearsay Rule, Fed.Rul.Ev. 803 says on this subject, noting that “activities of the office or agency”, such as a “public office” fall within the protections of this rule:

8. Financial institutions could no longer file Currency Transaction Reports on human beings who are “taxpayers” using IRS Form 8300 or Treasury Forms 103 and 104 . This is because 31 U.S.C. §5313(d)(1)(C) specifically exempts “Any entity established under the laws of the United States, any State, or any political subdivision of any State, or under an interstate compact between 2 or more States, which exercises governmental authority on behalf of the United States or any such State or political subdivision.”. Statutory “taxpayers” are in fact such entities.

Statutory “taxpayers” are public officers and the “agency” or instrumentality they operate WITHIN is the Internal Revenue Service, which is under the Supervision and Control of the Treasury Department in the Executive Branch. In effect, the only thing that CTR reporting can then apply to are foreigners not protected by the Constitution and therefore who do not have the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment. Even for those entities engaged in a “nonfinancial trade or business” identified in 31 U.S.C. §5331, those transactions occurring outside of the STATUTORY “United States”, meaning with people OUTSIDE of the U.S. government, are not reportable:

They don’t say WHICH of the two main “United States” they mean in the above, meaning the United States corporation in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) or the geographcial United States in the District of Columbia at 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), 4 U.S.C. §110(d), 31 U.S.C. §103, 31 U.S.C. §5112(t)(1)(C), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 64 Stat. 873, Section 3(a)(3), but both are essentially synonymous, because of what the Supreme Court said was taxable in Downes v. Bidwell below. Note the language “It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends” because it Is in fact an excise tax UPON the government and its officers, and not private humans protected by the Constitution.

8.2 Demand for Verified Evidence of “Trade or Business” Activity: Currency Transaction Report (CTR), Form #04.008
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

9. Once the government truthfully admits that the income tax described in I.R.C. Subtitles A and C is an “excise tax” upon “public offices” within the United States government, those facing IRS enforcement actions would naturally introduce some very compromising questions that would put the IRS into a very tight spot that they could never get out of:

9.1. How can you force me to act as a “public officer” without my consent? Where is the evidence that I consented to act in this capacity?

9.2. Where is the constitutionally required oath of office for me to act as a “public officer”.

9.3. Where is the act of Congress that authorizes the specific “public office” that you allege that I am engaged in as required by 4 U.S.C. §72?

9.4. Where is the compensation to act as a “public officer”, because I don’t work for free and the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude?

9.5. What if I don’t think the compensation to act as a “public office” offered by I.R.C. Sections 1, 32, and 162 is adequate? How can I quit this form of federal agency and/or employment? Show me the forms to do this permanently?

9.6. How can people who submit false information returns that connect me to a “public office” have any lawful authority at all to donate or convert my private labor and property to a “public use” and a “public office” without my express written consent? If disinterested third parties can do that, it never was my property to begin with, now was it?

9.7. Shouldn’t my word as a “public officer” be taken over that of the private third parties who submit the false information returns that connect me to the alleged “office” to begin with, based on the Hearsay Rule, Fed.Rul.Ev. 803(8)? Why are you not granting to an alleged fellow “public officer” such as yourself this privilege or benefit of the office?

9.8 Are information returns filed against those not lawfully engaged in public offices being used as “federal election forms” to in effect “vote” people into public office, and is this a lawful use for such a form? Does withholding connected with these information returns then become bribery to procure an appointed or elected public office in the case of a person who was not otherwise lawfully engaged in such an office, in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §201?

On the subject of the Hearsay Rule, Fed.Rul.Ev. 803(8) above, below is what the Rutter Group, Federal Civil Trials and Evidence says on the Public Records exception to the Hearsay Rule:

15. Defenses

15.1. How nonresidents in states of the Union are deceived and coerced to enlist in the scam

What about those who are smart enough to avoid the “trade or business” scam by properly declaring their status as:

How does the IRS trap them? The IRS tricks them into volunteering into their jurisdiction using the IRS form W-4. The regulations say that those who submit an IRS form W-4:

Remember, however, that no law or court or government has the power to interfere with your right to contract. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court says on this subject:

Neither states of the Union nor the federal government can therefore use their jurisdiction to protect you if you abuse your power to contract by signing a W-4 that gives away all your rights or sovereignty. Under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the federal government has jurisdiction over its own employees and property wherever they may be found, including in places where it otherwise has no legislative jurisdiction. Consequently, it has exclusive jurisdiction over all those who sign a W-4 wherever they may be found. The jurisdiction is “in rem” over all such “property”.

In law, all rights are property. Anything that conveys rights is also property. Contracts convey rights and therefore are property. All franchises are contracts and therefore also are “property”. A “trade or business”/”public office” is a franchise and therefore is also “property” within the meaning of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. These facts are the ONLY reason why the United States District Courts, which were established pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution are even able to hear income tax cases: because they relate to federal franchises.

Sneaky, huh? That is why we repeatedly say DO NOT file form W-4’s to stop withholding with your private employer: because you are signing a contract to elect yourself into a public office ILLEGALLY. God also warned us not to submit the W-4 agreement or contract when He said:

Instead of submitting the form W-4, use ONLY the modified form W-8BEN, or you are asking for BIG trouble and walking right into their trap, folks! Below is a link that will show you how to fill out the W-8BEN properly, if you choose to use it.

Additional information beyond that above about how to handle tax withholding paperwork is also available in the following free book:

A human domiciled in a state of the Union who has identified him or herself properly with their private employer as a "non-resident non-person" by filing the amended W-8BEN as we suggest, and who has had his earnings involuntarily withheld by his private employer is put into the unfortunate position of having to file a return to get the wrongfully withheld earnings back. Usually, they will incorrectly file the wrong form, the 1040, instead of the proper form 1040NR, and thereby make themselves effectively into a "resident alien". This gives the IRS jurisdiction over them because they are then treated as maintaining a domicile in the statutory but not constitutional "United States**" (federal territory). The IRS will then drag their feet refunding the wrongfully withhold earnings, forcing the NRA to take deductions and apply a graduated rate to reduce the withholding, which effectively forces them into perjuring themselves on a tax form just to get back the earnings that always were theirs to begin with.

15.2. How to prevent being involuntarily or fraudulently connected with the "trade or business" franchise

Based on all the foregoing, if you are a “nonresident alien” not engaged in a “trade or business” under 26 U.S.C. §871(b) with no income from the U.S. Government or federal territory under 26 U.S.C. §871(a), then you aren’t even mentioned in the I.R.C. as a subject for any Internal Revenue tax and your estate is a “foreign estate” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31). Great IRS Hoax starting in section 4.11 proves that nearly all Americans living in states of the Union are “non-resident non-persons” and so the above provision must apply to you, folks. Therefore, you are a “non-resident non-person” with no “sources of income” connected with a public office in the District of Columbia. If you want to prevent being involuntarily connected with the “trade or business” franchise, then you:

Keep all of the above fresh in your mind at all times as you decide how you are going to file in order to get all your ILLEGALLY STOLEN, I mean “withheld”, money back from an ignorant employer or financial institution who refuses to read and obey the “code” (not “law”, but “code”). Also keep in mind that most of this section is entirely “academic masturbation”, as tax attorney Donald MacPherson colorfully calls it, because the Internal Revenue Code isn’t law for “nontaxpayers” anyway and can’t become law unless and until it is enacted into positive law. Therefore, the only people it pertains to are those who volunteer, and all these people are directly associated with the government as a federal “instrumentality” in some way.

15.3 Administrative Remedies to Prevent Identity Theft on Government Forms

We have prepared an entire short presentation showing you all the “traps” on government forms and how to avoid them:

All of the so-called “traps” described in the above presentation center around the following abuses and FRAUDS:

There are many forms on our site you can attach to standard forms provided by the IRS, state revenue agencies, financial institutions, and employers that satisfy the above to ensure that your correct status is reflected in their records. Below are the most important ones.

________________________________________________
AFFIDVAVIT REGARDING ESTATE OF
DECEDENT: ________________________

I certify that the following facts are true under penalty of perjury under the criminal perjury laws of the state I am in but NOT under any OTHER of the civil statutory codes. I am not under any other civil codes as a civil non-resident non-person. The content of this form defines all geographical, citizenship, and domicile terms used on any and all forms to which this estate settlement relates for all parties concerned.

_____________

FOOTNOTES:

De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 21 S.Ct. 743, 45 L.Ed. 1041 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222, 21 S.Ct. 762, 45 L.Ed. 1074 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243, 21 S.Ct. 827, 45 L.Ed. 1086 (1901); and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 S.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901).

Congress, under the Act of February 21, 1871, ch. 62, § 34, 16 Stat. 419, 426, expressly extended the Constitution and federal laws to the District of Columbia. See Downes, 182 U.S. at 261, 21 S.Ct. at 777 (stating that the "mere cession of the District of Columbia" from portions of Virginia and Maryland did not "take [the District of Columbia] out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution.").

16. Rebutted Arguments Against this Memorandum

16.1. Argument is “frivolous”

ARGUMENT:

Stating that our arguments are “frivolous” without justifying such a determination with:

. . .amounts to little more than accusing us of being “heretics” because we refuse to participate in the state-sponsored civil religion being run out of churches called “courts”. Similar arguments apply to any other pejorative adjective label the courts might attempt to use that do not deal directly and completely with ALL the facts and arguments made herein on any given subject, such as:

All such adjectives do is prove that the judge is not acting in a judicial capacity as a neutral finder of facts and who reveals only facts, but who rather is:

Thank you for telling us that our arguments are truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law and that we are right.

For more information on what DOES constitute a reasonable belief about one’s tax liabilities, see:

Even if the government tried to define what the word “frivolous” means, we aren’t allowed by their own statements and publications to trust their definition. Consequently, we are compelled to provide a definition for every word we hear from the government in order to avoid the Christian sin of presumption, and our definition is that the word “frivolous” means truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law. Our definition is required to appear in all of the following forms of communication with the government as a mandatory part of our Member Agreement, Form #01.001:

The very purpose of law is to give reasonable notice to all parties concerned the conduct expected of them. Simply calling something “frivolous” without defining why it is defective using civil law deriving ONLY from the domicile of the accused party per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b):

16.2 "trade or business” includes lots of activities other than simply a public office

“Trade or business” includes lots of activities OTHER than simply a “public office”. Look at U.S. v. American Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105, 106 S.Ct. 2426 (1986).

There is no limit to the NUMBER of activities or actions that a lawfully serving “public officer” can execute ON BEHALF of the government as an AGENT or INSTRUMENTALITY of the government, and the actions described above are certainly included. HOWEVER, none of those actions can or do fall within the purview of a statutory “trade or business” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)) or are subject to the government jurisdiction unless and until:

The American Bar Endowment consented to be a public officer and therefore “taxpayer” by invoking the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitles A through C franchise and availing themselves of its “benefits”, or by being a federal and not state corporation and creation and instrumentality of the national government.

To simply PRESUME that otherwise PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights are connected with a PUBLIC OFFICE without the consent of the owner and without just compensation is an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

17. Other important implications of the scam

Now that we completely understand how Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code works as an excise tax upon a voluntary and avoidable taxable activity called a "trade or business" within the statutory but not constitutional "United States**" (federal territory), this explains the reason why proponents of the 861 Position described starting in the next section have been so vehemently hated and attacked by the government and the IRS. What they are doing, in most cases without even realizing it, is using the regulation at 26 C.F.R. §1.861-8(f)(1) to draw attention to the fact that the federal income tax is in fact an excise tax, and that the "taxable activities" are all enumerated individually in this regulation and nowhere else in either the I.R.C. or the Treasury Regulations. This regulation also happens to be the only regulation that describes exactly how to apply earnings from each enumerated "taxable activity" to the process of computing one's tax liability. Is it any surprise that the government doesn't want evidence like this in the hands of people? This interferes with their "voluntary compliance" efforts and exposes their willful and malicious fraud for what it is, and this is why they don't like it. This observation is the reason why most of the helpful examples contained within this regulation have been systematically removed over the years: to prevent people from correctly concluding that they aren’t engaged in foreign commerce or public office and therefore don’t owe the government any money.

Unfortunately, proponents of the 861 Position such as Larken Rose and those before him such as Thurston Bell fail to fully comprehend how they fit into this carefully crafted legal deception, fail to understand the nature of federal jurisdiction, and fail to fully understand that a "code" which only applies to those who volunteer to become engaged in a "trade or business" doesn't apply to them if they choose not to volunteer. They have spent so much time looking at the trees that they forgot about the forest and are being maliciously persecuted by the IRS mainly because of this monumental oversight. They don't understand that the I.R.C. was not enacted into positive law and in fact constitutes essentially a voluntary contract. This is not intended as a personal criticism by any means, but simply a realistic observation intended to help keep you out of trouble. Those who choose not to "sign" or consent to the contract by submitting the W-4 or filing a 1040 form with a nonzero "income" can have no legal liabilities under the code and cannot be described as "taxpayers" who are subject to it. Larken Rose thinks the “code” is “law” or "public law" for everyone, but in fact it is "private law" that is only "law" for "taxpayers", all of whom have consented to it in one way or another at some point in time. See the following free memorandum of law which proves this point:

18. Conclusions and summary

This section summarizes everything we learned in this article and also ties this information in with everything else found on this website:

19. Resources for Further Study and Rebuttal

Understanding the "trade or business" scam fits together all the pieces of the puzzle scattered throughout this chapter and explains them in such a cohesive way that it is impossible to argue with. It is far more than simply a "theory", but a fact you can verify yourself by reading the IRS Publications, the code, the Constitution, and the Treasury Regulations. All of them agree with the content of this section. If you would like to learn more about the “trade of business” scam, the following resources may be helpful:

[1] See Treatise on the Law of Taxation, Thomas M. Cooley, Second Edition, 1886, p. 47-48 available at:

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