Citizenship Status V. Tax Status: Table of Contents

5/4/22, 7:48 AM Citizenship Status v.
Tax Status
CITIZENSHIP STATUS V. TAX STATUS

PDF Web Capture of this Article
Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003 (OFFSITE LINK)-Memorandum format of this page useful for filing in court.
Table of Contents:
1. The Four "United States"

2. Statutory v. Constitutional Contexts
3. Statutory v. Constitutional Citizens
4. Summary of Citizenship Status v. Tax Status
5. Effect of Domicile on Citizenship Status
6. Meaning of Geographical Words of Art
7. Citizenship and Domicile Options and Relationships
8. Four Types of American Nationals
9. Federal Statutory Citizenship Statuses Diagram
10. Citizenship Status on Government Forms
11. Capitalization within Statutes and Regulations
12. How Human Beings Become "Individuals" and "Persons" Under the Revenue Statutes
12.1 How alien nonresidents visiting the geographical United States** become statutory “individuals” whether or not they consent
12.2 "U.S. Persons"
12.3 The Three Types of "Persons"
12.4 Why a "U.S. Person" who is a "citizen"
is NOT a statutory "person" or "individual" in the Internal Revenue Code
12.5 "U.S. Persons" who are ALSO "persons"
13. Four withholding and reporting statuses compared
14. Withholding and Reporting by Geography
15. Income Taxation is a Proprietorial Power Limited to Federal Property
16. Rebuttal of Those Who FRAUDULENTLY Challenge or try to Expand the STATUTORY Definitions In This Article
WARNING ABOUT USE OF LABELS OR CIVIL STATUTORY STATUSES TO DESCRIBE YOURSELF:
Our ministry, requires that all Members of this website and readers of our materials ARE NOT allowed to call themselves "sovereign
citizens", STATUTORY "citizens", or "citizens" and they may not use or ANY OTHER name, label, or stereotype (other than
AMERICAN NATIONAL but not STATUTORY "citizen" as described in Form #05.006) to describe themselves, and certainly not in a
court of law, on a legal pleading, or on a government form (Form #12.023). God's example in the Bible apples here. The only thing He
called HIMSELF was "I Am" (Exodus 3:14), and if you are truly a Christian serving and representing Him 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week and thereby PRACTICING your faith, THAT is the only thing you can truthfully call YOURSELF when interacting with any state
officer. Anyone who interferes with that in the government is interfering with your First Amendment right to practice your religion in
violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21B. See also TANZIN et al.
v. TANVIR et al. No. 19–71, Decided Dec. 10, 2020, U.S. Supreme Court.
These considerations are the true significance of what it means to have "separation of church and state" and "sanctification" in a
theological sense. Your body is God's temple (1 Cor. 6:19-20) and you can't worship (meaning serve or obey or accept CIVIL
"obligations" (Form #12.040) in a legal sense as anyone other than a voluntary government employee) of Caesar in or with your
Temple without violating the First Commandment of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. That is the only way we know of in a legal
sense that Christians can truthfully be described as "IN the world but not OF the world" in John 15:19. You are an ambassador and
agent of God (2 Cor. 5:20) and can act in no other capacity or you will surrender the CIVIL protections of God's law (Form #13.001) in
so doing. The Bible is your DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY ORDER (Form #13.007) as a Christian and Trustee over His property,
which is the entire Earth and all the Heavens (Psalm 89:11). If in fact you are Trustees and the trust indenture (the Bible) says you
can't interact with any government as anything OTHER than a Merchant under U.C.C. §2-104(1), then it is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE to
consent (Form #05.003) to alienate or give up rights or property that belong to the trust and come from God and are GRANTED or
LOANED to you temporarily as a Christian. Anyone from the de facto government (Form #05.024) who attempts to deceive or
defraud you through sophistry (Form #12.042) to give up property or rights (Form #12.025) to them in that scenario cannot claim to
have lawfully acquired such rights or property. This is because it is literally OUTSIDE of your delegation of authority order (the Bible)
to convert them to public use or from the status of PRIVATE (owned by God) to PUBLIC (owned by Caesar) to do so as documented
in Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025). Further, converting private property to public property without
consent violates the organic law and is a usurpation because anything done without your LAWFUL consent is unjust (Declaration of
Independence). This is the SAME defense they use when THEY are sued for doing or refusing to do something and you can use it
too! God is the only Sovereign, and we exercise sovereignty only when we are representing Him. On this subject, Jesus, our
example, said about us being an agent of the Father who we represent as Christians the following:
"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him [God] who sent Me."
[Matt. 10:40, Bible, NKJV]
"He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him [God]
who sent Me.”
[Luke 10:16, Bible, NKJV]
Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him [God] who sent Me, and to finish His work."
[John 4:34, Bible, NKJV]
"And he who sees Me sees Him [God] who sent Me."

[John 12:45, Bible, NKJV]
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm 1/44
5/4/22, 7:48 AM Citizenship Status v. Tax Status
An important purpose of this website is to disassociate and disconnect from all domicile (a civil statutory protection franchise, Form
#05.002), privileges, franchises (Form #05.030), "benefits", and civil statutory jurisdiction. This cannot be done WITHOUT
abandoning all civil statuses (Form #13.008), labels, and stereotypes to which CIVIL legal obligations (Form #12.040), "benefits",
privileges, exemptions, or rights might attach. The Apostle Paul warned of this by saying: "You were bought at a price. Do not
become slaves of men" in 1 Cor. 6:20 and 1 Cor. 7:23. In a legal sense, the ONLY thing he can mean is that you can NEVER use any
CIVIL status, name, label, or stereotype to describe yourself that DOES in fact infer or imply a legally enforceable CIVIL statutory
obligation (Form #05.037) against you in the context of any government. This is confirmed by the following case of the Supreme
Court of New Hampshire, in which they define a PUBLIC OFFICE (within the government) as someone owing a civil statutory
obligation to the government in some form.
"The term office' has no legal or technical meaning attached to it, distinct from its ordinary acceptations. An
office is a public charge or employment; but, as every employment is not an office, it is sometimes difficult to
distinguish between employments which are and those which are not offices…. A public officer is one who
has some duty to perform concerning the public; and he is not the less a public officer when his duty is
confined to narrow limits, because it is the duty, and the nature of that duty, which makes him a public officer,
and not the extent of his authority.' 7 Bac. Abr. 280; Carth. 479…. Where an employment or duty is a
continuing [***65] one, which is defined by rules prescribed by law and not by contract, such a charge or
employment is an office, and the person who performs it is an officer…. The powers vested in the
government of the state of Mississippi are either legislative, judicial, or executive; and these respective
branches of power have been committed to separate bodies of magistracy…. Whether an office has been
created by the constitution itself, or by statute,… the incumbent, as a component member of one of the
bodies of the magistracy, is vested with a portion of the power of the government…. The words civil office
under the state'… import an office in which is reposed some portion of the sovereign power of the state, and
of necessity having some connection with the legislative, judicial, or executive departments of the
government…. The local and limited power and duties of the levee commissioner can have no effect in
determining the question whether his office is not an office under the state. A member of the board of county
police, or a justice of the peace, is as much an officer under the state as the executive, the heads of
department, or a member of the judiciary. The powers attached [***66] to the office of levee commissioner
evidently pertain to the executive branch of the government. Clothed with a portion of the power vested in
that department, the commissioner, in the discharge of his proper functions, exercises as clearly sovereign
power as the governor or a sheriff." Shelby v. Alcorn, 36 Miss. 273, 288-290, 292. The constitution provided
that "no senator [*233] or representative" should, during his term, "be appointed to any civil office of profit
under this state," which had been created during his legislative term. The object of the clause was manifest,
and the office of levee commissioner was held to be within the mischief which the prohibition was intended to
prevent.
[Ricker's Petition, 66 N.H. 207 (1890)]
Keep in mind that if you owe a civil statutory obligation to someone OTHER than the government (who you usually FALSELY believe
is PRIVATE) enforceable in civil court who is in receipt of the "benefit" or "privilege" of civil statutory protection (called "publici juris"),
then the duty that you owe to THAT person is ALSO a public office. This is so because the civil statutory protected "person" is in
receipt, custody, "benefit", or control of government property (the civil statutory status, a PUBLIC right) created and owned by the
government. A public officer, after all, is legally defined as someone in charge of the PROPERTY (including civil privileges/RIGHTS)
of the Public. The civil statutory "code" are the "rules" under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, for handling and using and benefitting from
public property called
"civil statuses" (Form #13.008). More on this in
Form #05.037. According to President Obama in his Farewell
Address, "citizen" is a public office, and he is absolutely right!
SEDM Exhibit #01.018. A civil duty owed to a public office is a duty
owed to THE GOVERNMENT and NOT to the human being
CONSENSUALLY (Form #05.003) FILLING said office. This is a VERY
important point! If there ever was a "Matrix" within government, then this would HAVE to be it! Click here for how that matrix works.
Anyone who CONSENSUALLY violates these requirements absent provable duress and in connection with administrative
correspondence or litigation is clearly using our materials in an unauthorized manner in violation of our Member Agreement, Form
#01.001. For a clarification on THIS and other abuses of the term "sovereign", please read and heed: Policy Document: Rebutted
False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018. The reason we have to do this is that invoking a civil status that comes with
CIVIL STATUTORY obligations makes you a borrower of government property. In law, all rights or privileges are property, and being a
borrower makes you servant to the GOVERNMENT grantor or lender per Prov. 22:7 and literally a GOVERNMENT SLAVE (Form
#05.030). That slavery comes with the following curse:
“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]
To put this biblical prohibition and relationship with governments in commercial terms, the government grantor or "lender" of their
property is called a "Merchant" in U.C.C. §2-104(1) and the debtor or borrower or renter is called a "Buyer" under U.C.C. §2-103(1)
(a). God ONLY permits Christians to be "Merchants" and NEVER "Buyers" in relation to any and all governments. That way, they will
always work for you and you can NEVER work for or "serve" them, since the First Four commandments of the Ten Commandments in
Exodus 20 prohibit such "worship" and/or servitude and the superior or supernatural LEGAL powers on the part of government that is
used to COMPEL or ENFORCE (Form #05.032) it. This biblically mandated status of being a "Merchant" ONLY is explained Path to
Freedom, Form #09.015, Sections 5.6 and 5.7. The biblical Hierarchy of Sovereignty can be viewed by clicking here. Below are the
commands of Jesus (God) Himself on this subject:
“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 called "the State" from BELOW as public SERVANTS 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]
Lastly, note that this biblical approach is NOT anarchist in any fashion. Members are subject to the criminal laws, the common law,
and biblical law. They can't be members WITHOUT being subject to the laws of their religion. The biblical mandate is that Christians
cannot consent to anything government offers and thus contract with them. The only systems of law that do NOT depend on consent
in some form to acquire "the force of law" are the criminal law, the common law, and biblical law. Everything else is essentially
government contracting in one form or another under a contract called "the social compact", as Rousseau called it. The Social
Security Number is, in fact, what the FTC calls a "franchise mark" evidencing your status AS a government contractor, as we describe
in About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012. Welcome to the government farm/plantation, I
mean "franchise", amigo!. These distinctions are further described in:
1. What is "law"?, Form #05.048

2. Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018, Sections 5.5 and 6.5
3. Problems with Atheistic Anarchism, Form #08.020
Video
Slides
4. Four Law Systems Course, Form #12.039
5. Rebutted False Arguments About the Common Law, Form #08.025
Related articles:
Tax Return History-Citizenship -complete history about how state nationals were deceived into filing the WRONG tax form: the 1040. The
correct form is the 1040NR
Geographical Definitions and Conventions, Form #11.215 (OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM
What is Federal Land? (federal enclave) (OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM explanation of Congress' exclusive jurisdiction over federal land
Foundations of Freedom, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda -explains the main "words of art" abused to deceive
the public about citizenship terms.
President Obama Admits in His Farewall Address that "citizen" is a Public Office, Exhibit #01.018-THIS is the CIVIL "straw man" that
government legislatives for.
President Obama Recognizes separate POLITICAL and LEGAL components of citizenship, Exhibit #01.013 - Even the president
recognizes the distinctions made on this page!
What is the United States? A United Nations Member-Nation Corporation (OFFSITE LINK)
An Introduction to Sophistry (OFFSITE LINK) -Stefan Molyneux. How language is used to kidnap your identity to a foreign jurisdiction to
STEAL from you
How You are Illegally Deceived or Compelled to Transition from Being a Constitutional Citizen/Resident to a Statutory Citizen/Resident: By
Confusing the Two Contexts -Family Guardian Fellowship
Citizenship and Sovereignty Course, Form #12.001 -basics of citizenship and sovereignty.
Slides
Video
Citizenship and Domicile as Verified by President Obama, Exhibit #01.017
Slides
Video
Why You are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory "Citizen"-Detailed research on citizenship to back up this
page
Why Domicile and Becoming a "Taxpayer" Require Your Consent
Citizenship Diagrams -helps graphically explain the distinctions between nationality and domicile
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship (OFFSITE LINK) -Stefan Molyneux
Citizenship Playlist (OFFSITE LINK) -Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)
Income Tax Predicated Upon Citizenship, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 8, June 1925, pp. 607-627, Abert Levitt-Clarifies the
significance of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47, 44 Sup.Ct. 444 (1924)
PDF
Original article (OFFSITE LINK)
An Investigation Into the Meaning of the Term "United States" - statutory definitions of geographical tax terms
You're not a STATUTORY "citizen" under the Internal Revenue Code
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites By Topic (OFFSITE LINK)- Family Guardian Fellowship
Citizen
Citizenship
National (citizenship)
Nationality
State
United States
U.S. citizen
U.S. national
US v. USA: According to the Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (OFFSITE LINK)- Family Guardian Fellowship
The "United States" Isn't a Country, Its a Corporation (OFFSITE LINK)- Family Guardian Fellowship
8 U.S.C.A. §1101 - annotated version of 8 U.S.C. §1101 containing EXHAUSTIVE legal authorities on all definitions within Title 8: Aliens
and Nationality. Dated 2006.
26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1: Requirements for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons, Form #04.225- The
foundation of all income tax withholding
Musicians for Freedom (OFFSITE LINKS)- They link to this site.
U.S. Citizens and the New World Order -Excellent.
People v. Citizen: Two Political Jurisdictions- Excellent.
Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015 (OFFSITE LINK) -explains and rebut THE MOST
prevalent flawed argument we hear from freedom advocates.
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008 (OFFSITE LINK)-proves that the First Amendment and
your right to contract ensure that no one but you can determine your civil and statutory status.
STATUTORY Citizens v. STATUTORY Nationals-which one are you?
Tax Deposition Questions, Section 14: Citizenship
Great IRS Hoax, section 4.11 through 4.11.11 on CitizenshipSo
Related remedies
How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024 (OFFSITE LINK)-how you volunteered to pay income tax so you
UNvolunteer
Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003 (OFFSITE LINK)-use this form in response to legal discovery, and attach
to your civil pleadings in court to protect your status.
Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025 (OFFSITE LINK)- SEDM. Identifies how these legal terms are used to convert
your PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights without your consent. Describes how to stay private and challenge attempts to make you public.
Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046 -how governments abuse language to CRIMINALLY kidnap your civil legal identity to a
legislatively foreign jurisdiction and make you into a compelled SLAVE, and how to stop them.
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020 (OFFSITE LINK) -Describes and defends the Non-Resident Non-Person Position that
is the foundation of this website.
"U.S. Person" Position, Form #05.053 (OFFSITE LINK)-Describes statutory exemptions from income tax withholding and reporting for
those domiciled on federal territory or representing offices that are domiciled there.
Getting a USA Passport as a "state national" -how to apply for and obtain a passport as an exclusively private human who is neither
domiciled nor resident on of federal territory, and is therefore not a federal statutory "person", "individual", or "U.S. person".
HTML. SEDM Form #10.012 (OFFSITE LINK.)
PDF. SEDM Form #10.013 (OFFSITE LINK.)
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001 (OFFSITE LINK)-Attach to administrative correspondence with the
government to protect and explain your citizenship and domicile and tax status and prevent being victimized by the usually false
presumptions of others.
Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201 (OFFSITE LINK)-Attach this to all tax forms you are compelled to fill out in order to correctly
document your tax status and the obligations that attach to it on the part of all.
Legal Notice of Change in Domicile/Citizenship Records and Divorce From the United States, Form #10.001 (OFFSITE LINK)-How to
correct the government's records to perpetually reflect your true domcile, nationality, citizenship, and tax status and permanently remove
yourself from federal jurisdiction. Mandatory for all members and a part of our Path To Freedom, Form #09.015, Section 2, process.
USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007 (OFFSITE LINK)- develops evidence of your correct citizenship status AND rebuts
LIES on the passport application instructions.
Related offsite articles
Proof: A "citizen" or "national" in the Internal Revenue Code is a STATUTORY PUBLIC RIGHT and FICTION OF LAW and not a
PHYSICAL/GEOGRAPHICAL Human Being - SEDM
Wikidiff: "Alien" v. "Foreign" (OFFSITE LINK)-state nationals are "foreign" in respect to national government jurisdiction. They ALSO
become "alien" in respect to national government jurisdiction with either a domicile or a physical presence on federal territory. Without a
domicile or physical presence on federal territory, they remain what the U.S. Supreme Court calls "stateles persons" or what we call "Non-
resident non-persons" as documented in Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020 in relation to national government jurisdiction.
This is covered in the SEDM article entitled "Civil Status (important)"
Proof that “United States” in the Internal Revenue Code and in Relation to any Alleged Civil Tax Obligation is the CORPORATION, and not
the GEOGRAPHY (OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM
Tax Status Presentation, Form #12.043 (OFFSITE LINK)-SEDM. Microsoft Powerpoint format
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History (OFFSITE LINK)-Library of Congress
Democrats Advocate that You Should be a "Nonresident Alien" (OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM
Meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Fourteenth Amendment -it means EXCLUSIVE allegiance and "national" status, not subject to
the "legislative jurisdiction".
Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015, pp. 40-46
Tucker Carlson Tonight 20181030 Birthright Citizenship Debate, SEDM Exhibit #01.019 (OFFSITE LINK) -Fox News
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship, SEDM Exhibit #01.020 (OFFSITE LINK) -Stefan Molyneux
The Case Against Birthright Citizenship, SEDM Exhibit #01.021 (OFFSITE LINK) -Heritage Foundation
Does the Fourteenth Amendment Require Birthright Citizenship? (OFFSITE LINK) -Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Citizenship, Heritage Foundation
Family Guardian Forum 7.1.1: Meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Fourteenth Amendment
Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Sections 4.9.2 and 5.4.8.11.8
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004, Section 4.2.5
Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001, Section 13.11.8
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006, Section 2.3
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Section 11.8
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 7.2.5
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 12.3.5
Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046, Section 8.6.5
Resolved: The Supreme Court Should Revisit the Privileges or Immunities Clause (OFFSITE LINK) -Heritage Foundation
The Dying Citizen (OFFSITE LINK) -Hoover Institution, Victor Davis Hanson
How Judges Unconstitutionally "Make Law", Litigation Tool #01.009 -This form documents common tactics by which judges
unconstitutionally, injuriously, and even criminally "make law". It is useful as a preemptive tool to prevent judicial abuse and also as a way to
prosecute and punish it.
Statutory Interpretation (OFFSITE LINK) -Justice Antonin Scalia. How judges twist language to unconstitutionally "make law".
FATCA: Citizenship-Based Taxation, Foreign Asset Reporting Requirements and American Citizens Abroad (OFFSITE LINK) -New York
University Law School
The Tax Code as Nationality Law (OFFSITE LINK)- Notre Dame Law Review
The Rights of Noncitizens (OFFSITE LINK)-Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Local Copy
UN Office of the United Nations Site
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OFFSITE LINK) -United Nations
Sovereign World Citizen Garry Davis Crosses Canada-USA Border With World Passport (OFFSITE LINK) -you don't need a us passport
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 - how judges and prosecutors and the IRS abuse language to commit
constructive FRAUD
How Judges Unconstitutionally "Make Law", Litigation Tool #01.009 -This form documents common tactics by which judges
unconstitutionally, injuriously, and even criminally "make law". It is useful as a preemptive tool to prevent judicial abuse and also as a way to
prosecute and punish it.
Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015 -explains and rebuts THE MOST prevalent flawed
argument we hear from freedom advocates.
Why You are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory "Citizen", Form #05.006-detailed research on citizenship
to back up this page.
Why Domicile and Becoming a "Taxpayer" Require Your Consent, Form #05.002-how domicile affects statutory citizenship.
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008 -proves that the First Amendment and your right to contract
ensure that no one but you can determine your civil and statutory status.
Our Non-Citizen Nationals, Who Are They?; Cal Law Review, Vol. XIII, Sept. 1935, #6, p. 593-635, SEDM Exhibit #01.010 - Describes
the basis for being a "non-citizen national of the United States**"
Social Security Admin FOIA for CSP Code Values, Exhibit #01.011 - how Social Security made your citizenship status CLASSIFIED in
their records so that they can protect their FRAUDULENT presumption that you are a statutory "U.S. citizen" and thereby STEAL from you
State passports-Youtube offsite links
State Citizen Passport Application
State citizen passport application..Easy to do
"state" Citizen/national 8 USC 1101 (a)(21) Level 1 Passport Training
SOURCE:
Great IRS Hoax, section 5.1.4, version 3.26
"Dolosus versatur generalibus. A deceiver deals in generals. 2 Co. 34."
"Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions."
Generale nihil certum implicat. A general expression implies nothing certain. 2 Co. 34.
Ubi quid generaliter conceditur, in est haec exceptio, si non aliquid sit contra jus fasque. Where a thing is concealed
generally, this exception arises, that there shall be nothing contrary to law and right. 10 Co. 78.
[Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856]
“General expressions”, and especially those relating to geographical terms, franchise statuses, or citizenship, are the biggest source of FRAUD in
courtrooms across the country. By “general expressions”, we mean those which:
1. The speaker is either not accountable or REFUSES to be accountable for the accuracy or truthfulness or definition of the word or expression.
2. Fail to recognize that there are multiple contexts in which the word could be used.
2.1 CONSTITUTIONAL (States of the Union).
2.2 STATUTORY (federal territory).
3. Are susceptible to two or more CONTEXTS or interpretations, one of which the government representative interpreting the context stands to
benefit from handsomely. Thus, “equivocation” is undertaken, in which they TELL you they mean the CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation but
after receiving your form or pleading, interpret it to mean the STATUTORY context.
equivocation
EQUIVOCA'TION, n. Ambiguity of speech; the use of words or expressions that are susceptible of a double
signification. Hypocrites are often guilty of equivocation, and by this means lose the confidence of their fellow men.
Equivocation is incompatible with the christian character and profession.
[SOURCE: https://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,equivocation]
___________________________________________________________
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more
than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with
polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs
when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have
the same meaning throughout.
It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn't make the meaning of the word
or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to
punctuation or syntax.
[Wikipedia topic: Equivocation, Downloaded 9/15/2015; SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation]
4. PRESUME that all contexts are equivalent, meaning that CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY are equivalent.
5. Fail to identify the specific context implied on the form.
6. Fail to provide an actionable definition for the term that is useful as evidence in court.
7. Government representatives actively interfere with or even penalize efforts by the applicant to define the context of the terms so that they can
protect their right to make injurious presumptions about their meaning.
8. The Bible calls people who engage in equivocation or who try to create confusion “double minded”. They are also equated with “hypocrites”.
Here is what God says about double minded people:
“I hate the double-minded, But I love Your law.”

[Psalm 119:113, Bible, NKJV]
“Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”
[James 4:8, Bible, NKJV]
1. THE FOUR "UNITED STATES"

It is very important to understand that there are THREE separate and distinct CONTEXTS in which the term "United States" can be used, and each
has a mutually exclusive and different meaning. These three definitions of “United States” were described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven and
Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945):
Table 1: Geographical terms used throughout this page
Term # in Meaning
diagrams
United States* 1 The country “United States” in the family of nations throughout the world.
United States** 2 The “federal zone”.
United States*** 3 Collective states of the Union mentioned throughout the Constitution.
In addition to the above GEOGRAPHICAL context, there is also a legal, non-geographical context in which the term "United States" can be used,
which is the GOVERNMENT as a legal entity. Throughout this page and this website, we identify THIS context as "United States****" or "United
States4". The only types of "persons" within THIS context are public offices within the national and not state government. It is THIS context in
which "sources within the United States" is used for the purposes of "income" and "gross income" within the Internal Revenue Code, as proven by:
Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Sections 4 and 5

FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf
The reason these contexts are not expressly distinguished in the statutes by the Legislative Branch or on government forms crafted by the Executive
Branch is that they are the KEY mechanism by which:
1. Federal jurisdiction is unlawfully enlarged by abusing presumption, which is a violation of due process of law. See:
Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.007
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Presumption.pdf
2. The separation of powers between the states and the national government is destroyed, in violation of the legislative intent of the Constitution.
See:
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
3. A "society of law" is transformed into a "society of men" in violation of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will
certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."
[Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803)]
4. Exclusively PRIVATE rights are transformed into public rights in a process we call "invisible eminent domain using presumption and words of
art".
5. Judges are unconstitutionally delegated undue discretion and "arbitrary power" to unlawfully enlarge federal jurisdiction. See:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
The way a corrupted Executive Branch or judge accomplish the above is to unconstitutionally:
1. PRESUME that ALL of the four contexts for "United States" are equivalent.
2. PRESUME that CONSTITUTIONAL citizens and STATUTORY citizens are EQUIVALENT under federal law. They are NOT. A
CONSTITUTIONAL citizen is a "non-resident" under federal law and NOT a STATUTORY "national and citizen of the United States** at birth"
under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
Why You are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf
3. PRESUME that "nationality" and "domicile" are equivalent. They are NOT. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a "taxpayer" Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
4. Use the word "citizenship" in place of "nationality" OR "domicile", and refuse to disclose WHICH of the two they mean in EVERY context.
5. Confuse the POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL meaning of words with the civil STATUTORY context. For instance, asking on government forms
whether you are a POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL citizen and then FALSELY PRESUMING that you are a STATUTORY citizen under 8 U.S.C.
§1401.
6. Confuse the words "domicile" and "residence" or impute either to you without satisfying the burden of proving that you EXPRESSLY
CONSENTED to it and thereby illegally kidnap your civil legal identity against your will. One can have only one "domicile" but many
"residences" and BOTH require your consent. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a "taxpayer" Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
7. Add things or classes of things to the meaning of statutory terms that do not EXPRESSLY appear in their definitions, in violation of the rules of
statutory construction. See:
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf
8. PRESUME that STATUTORY diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332 and CONSTITUTIONAL diversity of citizenship under Article III,
Section 2 of the United States Constitution are equivalent.
8.1 STATUTORY and CONSTITUTIONAL diversity are NOT equal and in fact are mutually exclusive.
8.2 The STATUTORY definition of “State” in 28 U.S.C. §1332(e) is a federal territory. The definition of “State” in the CONSTITUTION is a State
of the Union and NOT federal territory.
8.3 They try to increase this confusion by dismissing diversity cases where only diversity of RESIDENCE (domicile) is implied, instead insisting
on “diversity of CITIZENSHIP” and yet REFUSING to define whether they mean DOMICILE or NATIONALITY when the term “CITIZENSHIP” is
invoked. See Lamm v. Bekins Van Lines, Co, 139 F.Supp.2d. 1300, 1314 (M.D. Ala. 2001)(“To invoke removal jurisdiction on the basis of
diversity, a notice of removal must distinctly and affirmatively allege each party’s citizenship.”, “[a]verments of residence are wholly insufficient
for purposes of removal.”, “[a]lthough ‘citizenship’ and ‘residence’ may be interchangeable terms in common parlance, the existence of
citizenship cannot be inferred from allegations of residence alone.”).
9. Refuse to allow the jury to read the definitions in the law and then give them a definition that is in conflict with the statutory definition. This
substitutes the JUDGES will for what the law expressly says and thereby substitutes PUBLIC POLICY for the written law.
10. Publish deceptive government publications that are in deliberate conflict with what the statutes define "United States" as and then tell the public
that they CANNOT rely on the publication. The IRS does this with ALL of their publications and it is FRAUD. See:
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
This kind of arbitrary discretion is PROHIBITED by the Constitution, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court:
'When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed
to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave
room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.'
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. 1064, 1071]
Thomas Jefferson, our most revered founding father, precisely predicted the above abuses when he said:
"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal
Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-
crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its
noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the
government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed."
[Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331]
"Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an
anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and
miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the
hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate."
[Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121]
"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine
the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and
special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well
versed in English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.'"
[Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297]
"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center
of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal
and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
[Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332]
"What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building ["trade or business" scam] and office-
hunting would be produced by an assumption [PRESUMPTION] of all the State powers into the hands of the General
Government!"
[Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168]
For further details on the meaning of "United States" in its TWO separate and distinct contexts, CONSTITUTIONAL, and STATUTORY, and how they
are deliberately confused and abused to unlawfully create jurisdiction that does not otherwise lawfully exist, see:
1. Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Sections 12.5 and 15
2. Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 4
3. A Detailed Study into the Meaning of the term "United States" found in the Internal Revenue Code-Family Guardian Fellowship
HTML Version-Large, 282Kbytes
Acrobat Version-(1.7 Mbytes)
Zipped version-small, 90 Kbytes
4. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: "United States"
2. STATUTORY V. CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXTS

It is very important to understand that there are TWO separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive contexts in which geographical "words of art" can be
used at the federal or national level:
1. Constitutional.
2. Statutory.
The purpose of providing a statutory definition of a legal "term" is to supersede and not enlarge the ordinary, common law, constitutional, or common
meaning of a term. Geographical words of art include:
1. "State"
2. "United States"
3. "alien"
4. "citizen"
5. "resident"
6. "U.S. person"
The terms "State" and "United States" within the Constitution implies the constitutional states of the Union and excludes federal territory, statutory
"States" (federal territories), or the statutory "United States" (the collection of all federal territory). This is an outcome of the separation of powers
doctrine. See:
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023

DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
The U.S. Constitution creates a public trust which is the delegation of authority order that the U.S. Government uses to manage federal territory and
property. That property includes franchises, such as the "trade or business" franchise. All statutory civil law it creates can and does regulate only
THAT property and not the constitutional States, which are foreign, sovereign, and statutory "non-resident non-persons " (Form #05.020) for the
purposes of federal legislative jurisdiction.
It is very important to realize the consequences of this constitutional separation of powers between the states and national government. Some of
these consequences include the following:
1. Statutory "States" as indicated in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and "States" in nearly all federal statutes are in fact federal territories and the definition
does NOT include constitutional states of the Union.
2. The statutory "United States" defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d) includes federal territory and excludes any
land within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union.
3. Terms on government forms assume the statutory context and NOT the constitutional context.
4. Domicile is the origin of civil legislative jurisdiction over human beings. This jurisdiction is called "in personam jurisdiction".
5. Since the separation of powers doctrine creates two separate jurisdictions that are legislatively "foreign" in relation to each other, then there are
TWO types of political communities, two types of "citizens", and two types of jurisdictions exercised by the national government.
“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its
objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of
Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the
law in question passed?”
[Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]
6. A human being domiciled in a Constitutional state and born or naturalized anywhere in the Union is:
6.1. A state national pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).
6.2. A statutory “non-resident non-person” if exclusively PRIVATE and not engaged in a public office.
6.3. A statutory "nonresident alien" (26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)) in relation to the national government if they lawfully serve in a public office.
7. You can be a statutory "nonresident alien" pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) and a constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment "Citizen" AT
THE SAME TIME. Why? Because the Supreme Court ruled in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), that there are THREE
different and mutually exclusive "United States", and therefore THREE types of "citizens of the United States". Here is an example:
“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens
with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such
definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of
Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the
public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except
as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and
resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories [STATUTORY citizens], though within the
United States[*], were not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394(1873)]
The "citizen of the United States" mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment is a constitutional "citizen of the United States", and the term
"United States" in that context includes states of the Union and excludes federal territory. Hence, you would NOT be a "citizen of the United
States" within any federal statute, because all such statutes define "United States" to mean federal territory and EXCLUDE states of the
Union. For more details, see:
Why You are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf
8. Your job, if you say you are a "citizen of the United States" or "U.S. citizen" on a government form ( a VERY DANGEROUS undertaking!) is to
understand that all government forms presume the statutory and not constitutional context, and to ensure that you define precisely WHICH one
of the three "United States" you are a "citizen" of, and do so in a way that excludes you from the civil jurisdiction of the national government
because domiciled in a "foreign state". Both foreign countries and states of the Union are legislatively "foreign" and therefore "foreign states" in
relation to the national government of the United States. The following form does that very carefully:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/02-Affidavits/AffCitDomTax.pdf
9. Even the IRS says you CANNOT trust or rely on ANYTHING on any of their forms and publications. We cover this in our Reasonable Belief
About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007. Hence, if you are compelled to fill out a government form, you have an OBLIGATION to ensure that
you define all "words of art" used on the form in such a way that there is no room for presumption, no judicial or government discretion to
"interpret" the form to their benefit, and no injury to your rights or status by filling out the government form. This includes attaching the
following forms to all tax forms you submit:
9.1. Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/02-Affidavits/AffCitDomTax.pdf
9.2. Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201

DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf
We started off this document with maxims of law proving that "a deceiver deals in generals". Anyone who refuses to identify the precise context,
statutory or constitutional, for EVERY "term of art" they are using in the legal field ABSOLUTELY IS A DECEIVER.
For further details on the TWO separate and distinct contexts for geographical terms, being CONSTITUTIONAL, and STATUTORY, see:
Why You are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory "Citizen", Form #05.006, Sections 4 and 5
3. STATUTORY v. CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENS

“When words lose their meaning [or their CONTEXT WHICH ESTABLISHES THEIR MEANING], people lose their
freedom.”
[Confucius (551 BCE - 479 BCE) Chinese thinker and social philosopher]
Statutory citizenship is a legal status that designates a person’s domicile while constitutional citizenship is a political status that designates a person’s
nationality. Understanding the distinction between nationality and domicile is absolutely critical.
1. Nationality:
1.1. Is not necessarily consensual or discretionary. For instance, acquiring nationality by birth in a specific place was not a matter of choice
whereas acquiring it by naturalization is.
1.2. Is a political status.
1.3. Is defined by the Constitution, which is a political document.
1.4. Is synonymous with being a “national” within statutory law.
1.5. Is associated with a specific COUNTRY.
1.6. Is called a “political citizen” or a “citizen of the United States in a political sense” by the courts to distinguish it from a STATUTORY citizen.
See Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (1940).
2. Domicile:
2.1. Always requires your consent and therefore is discretionary. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
HTML: https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm
PDF DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
2.2. Is a civil status.
2.3. Is not even addressed in the constitution.
2.4. Is defined by civil statutory law RATHER than the constitution.
2.5. Is in NO WAY connected with one’s nationality.
2.6. Is usually connected with the word “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, or “inhabitant” in statutory law.
2.7. Is associated with a specific COUNTY and a STATE rather than a COUNTRY.
2.8. Implies one is a “SUBJECT” of a SPECIFIC MUNICIPAL but not NATIONAL government.
Nationality and domicile, TOGETHER determine the political/CONSTITUTIONAL AND civil/STATUTORY status of a human being respectively.
These important distinctions are recognized in Black’s Law Dictionary:
“nationality – That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality
determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his
civil [statutory] status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization.“
[Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990), p. 1025]
President Barrack Obama affirmed our assertions that there are TWO components to your citizenship status at the end of his State of the Union
address given on 2/12/2013:
SEDM Exhibit #01.013: President Obama Recognizes separate POLITICAL and LEGAL components of citizenship. (OFFSITE LINKS)
Youtube
SEDM
The U.S. Supreme Court also confirmed the above when they held the following. Note the key phrase “political jurisdiction”, which is NOT the same
as legislative/statutory jurisdiction. One can have a political status of “citizen” under the constitution while NOT being a “citizen” under federal
statutory law because not domiciled on federal territory. To have the status of “citizen” under federal statutory law, one must have a domicile on
federal territory:
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared
to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the
United States
, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The
evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,
but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and
owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the
one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either
individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign
territory is acquired.”
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
“This right to protect persons having a domicile, though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm foundation
of justice, and the claim to be protected is earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at liberty to
disregard. Such domiciled citizen pays the same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens pay for
theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same
penalties. He owes the same obedience to the civil laws. His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as
theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government. In nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties
and burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”
[Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]
Notice in the last quote above that they referred to a foreign national born in another country as a “citizen”. THIS is the REAL “citizen” (a domiciled
foreign national) that judges and even tax withholding documents are really talking about, rather than the “national” described in the constitution.
CONSTITUTIONAL “Citizens” or “citizens of the United States***” in the Fourteenth Amendment rely on the CONSTITUTIONAL context for the
geographical term “United States”, which means states of the Union and EXCLUDES federal territory.
“. . .the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases [1] provides authoritative guidance on the territorial scope of the term
"the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Insular Cases were a series of Supreme Court decisions that
addressed challenges to duties on goods transported from Puerto Rico to the continental United States. Puerto Rico, like
the Philippines, had been recently ceded to the United States. The Court considered the territorial scope of the term
"the United States" in the Constitution and held that this term as used in the uniformity clause of the Constitution
was territorially limited to the states of the Union. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 ("[A]ll Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States." (emphasis added)); see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251, 21 S.Ct. 770, 773, 45
L.Ed. 1088 (1901) ("[I]t can nowhere be inferred that the territories were considered a part of the United States. The
Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of States, to be governed solely by
representatives of the States; ... In short, the Constitution deals with States, their people, and their
representatives."); Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. Puerto Rico was merely a territory "appurtenant and belonging to the
United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution." Downes, 182 U.S.
at 287, 21 S.Ct. at 787.
The Court's conclusion in Downes was derived in part by analyzing the territorial scope of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude "within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction." U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 (emphasis added). The Fourteenth Amendment states that
persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside." U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). The disjunctive "or" in the
Thirteenth Amendment demonstrates that "there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are
no[t] part of the Union" to which the Thirteenth Amendment would apply. Downes, 182 U.S. at 251, 21 S.Ct. at 773.
Citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, however, "is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to
[the United States '] jurisdiction,' " but is limited to persons born or naturalized in the states of the Union. Downes,
182 U.S. at 251, 21 S.Ct. at 773 (emphasis added); see also id. at 263, 21 S.Ct. at 777 ("[I]n dealing with foreign
sovereignties, the term 'United States' has a broader meaning than when used in the Constitution, and includes all
territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government, wherever located."). [2]
[Valmonte v. I.N.S., 136 F.3d. 914 (C.A.2, 1998)]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] 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).
[2] 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.").
STATUTORY citizens under 8 U.S.C. §1401, on the other hand, rely on the STATUTORY context for the geographical term “United States”, which
means federal territory and EXCLUDES states of the Union:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701. [Internal Revenue Code]
Sec. 7701. – Definitions
(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(9) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
provisions of this title.
______________
TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 4 - THE STATES
Sec. 110. Same; definitions
(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
One CANNOT simultaneously be BOTH a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen AND a STATUTORY citizen at the same time, because the term “United States”
has a different, mutually exclusive meaning in each specific context.
“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a
definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was
previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been
the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said
by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the
states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia
or in the territories, though within the United States[*], were not citizens. Whether this proposition was sound or not
had never been judicially decided.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]
________________________________________________________________________________________
The Court today holds that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to Bellei [an 8
U.S.C. §1401 STATUTORY citizen]. The Court first notes that Afroyim was essentially a case construing the Citizenship
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the Citizenship Clause declares that: 'All persons born or naturalized in the
United States * * * are citizens of the United States * * *.' the Court reasons that the protections against involuntary
expatriation declared in Afroyim do not protect all American citizens, but only those 'born or naturalized in the United
States.' Afroyim, the argument runs, was naturalized in this country so he was protected by the Citizenship Clause, but
Bellei, since he acquired his American citizenship at birth in Italy as a foreignborn child of an American citizen, was neither
born nor naturalized in the United States and, hence, falls outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees
declared in Afroyim. One could hardly call this a generous reading of the great purposes the Fourteenth Amendment was
adopted to bring about. While conceding that Bellei is an American citizen, the majority states: 'He simply is not a
Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence citizen.' Therefore, the majority reasons, the congressional revocation of his
citizenship is not barred by the Constitution. I cannot accept the Court's conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment
protects the citizenship of some Americans and not others. [. . .]
The Court today puts aside the Fourteenth Amendment as a standard by which to measure congressional action
with respect to citizenship, and substitutes in its place the majority's own vague notions of 'fairness.' The majority
takes a new step with the recurring theme that the test of constitutionality is the Court's own view of what is 'fair,
reasonable, and right.' Despite the concession that Bellei was admittedly an American citizen, and despite the
holding in Afroyim that the Fourteenth Amendment has put citizenship, once conferred, beyond the power of
Congress to revoke, the majority today upholds the revocation of Bellei's citizenship on the ground that the
congressional action was not 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair.' The majority applies the 'shock-the-conscience' test
to uphold, rather than strike, a federal statute. It is a dangerous concept of constitutional law that allows the
majority to conclude that, because it cannot say the statute is 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair,' the statute must be
constitutional.
[. . .]
Since the Court this Term has already downgraded citizens receiving public welfare, Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 91
S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d. 408 (1971), and citizens having the misfortune to be illegitimate, Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, 91
S.Ct. 1917, 28 L.Ed.2d. 288, I suppose today's decision downgrading citizens born outside the United States should have
been expected. Once again, as in James and Labine, the Court's opinion makes evident that its holding is contrary to
earlier decisions. Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a
federal statute.
[Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)]
STATUTORY citizens are the ONLY type of “citizens” mentioned in the entire Internal Revenue Code, and therefore, the income tax under Subtitles A
and C does not apply to the states of the Union.
Title 26: Internal Revenue

PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Normal Taxes and Surtaxes
§ 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(c) Who is a citizen.
Every person [“person” as used in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343, which both collectively are officers or
employees of a corporation or a partnership with the United States governmnet] born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of
title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections
349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481–1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70–506,
C.B. 1970–2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American
Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost
citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of
intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is
an alien.
[SOURCE: https://law.justia.com/cfr/title26/26-1.0.1.1.1.0.1.2.html]
If you look in 8 U.S.C. §§1401-1459,. the ONLY type of “citizen” is the one mentioned in 8 U.S.C. §1401, which is a human born in a federal territory
not part of a state of the Union. Anyone who claims a state citizen or CONSTITUTIONAL citizen is also a a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” subject to the
income tax is engaging in criminal identity theft as documented in the following. They are also criminally impersonating a “U.S. citizen” in violation of
18 U.S.C. §911:
Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046

DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovernmentIdentityTheft.pdf
Domicile and NOT nationality is what imputes a status under the tax code and a liability for tax. Tax liability is a civil liability that attaches to civil
statutory law, which in turn attaches to the person through their choice of domicile. When you CHOOSE a domicile, you elect or nominate a protector,
which in turn gives rise to an obligation to pay for the civil protection demanded. The method of providing that protection is the civil laws of the
municipal (as in COUNTY) jurisdiction that you chose a domicile within.
"domicile. A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal
establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310,
213 A.2d. 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of
establishing a "domicile" therein. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even
though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal
domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the
taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and
privileges."
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]
Later versions of Black’s Law Dictionary attempt to cloud this important distinction between nationality and domicile in order to unlawfully and
unconstitutionally expand federal power into the states of the Union and to give federal judges unnecessary and unwarranted discretion to kidnap
people into their jurisdiction using false presumptions. They do this by trying to make you believe that domicile and nationality are equivalent, when
they are EMPHATICALLY NOT. Here is an example:
“nationality – The relationship between a citizen of a nation and the nation itself, customarily involving allegiance by the
citizen and protection by the state; membership in a nation. This term is often used synonymously with citizenship. “
[Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)]
Federal courts regard the term “citizenship” as equivalent to domicile, meaning domicile on federal territory.
“The words "citizen" and citizenship," however, usually include the idea of domicile,
Delaware, L.&W.R.Co. v.
Petrowsky, C.C.A.N.Y., 250 F. 554, 557"
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 310]
Hence:
1. The term “citizenship” is being stealthily used by government officials as a magic word that allows them to hide their presumptions about your
status. Sometimes they use it to mean NATIONALITY, and sometimes they use it to mean DOMICILE.
2. The use of the word “citizenship” should therefore be AVOIDED when dealing with the government because its meaning is unclear and leaves
too much discretion to judges and prosecutors.
3. When someone from any government uses the word “citizenship”, you should:
3.1. Tell them NOT to use the word, and instead to use “nationality” or “domicile”.
3.2. Ask them whether they mean “nationality” or “domicile”.
3.3. Ask them WHICH political subdivision they imply a domicile within: federal territory or a constitutional state of the Union.
A failure to either understand or apply the above concepts can literally mean the difference between being a government pet in a legal cage called a
franchise, and being a free and sovereign man or woman.
4. SUMMARY OF CITIZENSHIP STATUS v. TAX STATUS

Below is a table that maps the various “Citizenship status” options in Title 8 of the U.S. Code to a “Income tax status” found in the Internal Revenue
Code, which is Title 26 of the U.S. Code. If a column contains the word “yes”, then the citizenship status row and the corresponding tax status
column are equivalent to each other from a legal perspective.
Table 2: “Citizenship status” vs. “Income tax status”
# Citizenship Place of birth Domicile Accepting Defined Tax Status under 26 U.S.C./Internal Revenue Code
status tax treaty in “Citizen” “Resident “Nonresident “Non-
benefits? (defined in alien” alien resident
26 C.F.R. 1.1- (defined in INDIVIDUAL” NON-person”
1) 26 U.S.C. (defined in (not defined)
§7701(b)(1) 26 C.F.R.
(A), §1.1441-1(c )
26 C.F.R. (3)
§1.1441-1(c ) and 26 U.S.C.
(3)(i) §7701(b)(1)(B))
and 26 C.F.R.
§1.1-1(a)(2)
(ii))
1 "national and Statutory District of NA 8 U.S.C. Yes No No No
citizen of the “United Columbia, §1401 (only pay
United States** States” Puerto Rico, 8 U.S.C. income
at birth" or pursuant to 8 Guam, Virgin §1101(a) tax abroad
“U.S.** citizen” U.S.C. Islands (22)(A) with
or “Statutory §1101(a)(38), IRS Forms
U.S. citizen” (a)(36) and 8 1040/2555.
C.F.R. See Cook v.
§215.1(f) or in Tait,
the “outlying 265 U.S. 47
possessions (1924))
of the United
States”
pursuant to 8
U.S.C.
§1101(a)(29)
2 "non-citizen Statutory American NA 8 U.S.C. No No Yes No
national of the “United Samoa; Swains §1408; (see 26 (see IRS
United States** States” Island; or 8 U.S.C. U.S.C. Form 1040NR
at birth" or pursuant to 8 abroad to U.S. §1101(a) §7701(b)(1) for proof)
“U.S.** U.S.C. national parents (22)(B); (B) )
national" §1101(a)(38), under 8 U.S.C. 8 U.S.C.
(a)(36) and 8 §1408(2) §1452
C.F.R.
§215.1(f) or in
the “outlying
possessions
of the United
States”
pursuant to 8
U.S.C.
§1101(a)(29)
3.1 “USA*** Constitutional State of the NA 8 U.S.C. No No No Yes
national” or Union state Union (ACTA §1101(a)
“state national” agreement) (21);
or 14th
“Constitutional Amend.,
but not Sect. 1
statutory
citizen”
3.2 “USA*** Constitutional Foreign country Yes 8 U.S.C. No No Yes No
national” or Union state §1101(a)
“state national” (21);
or 14th
but not Sect. 1
statutory
citizen”
3.3 “USA*** Constitutional Foreign country No 8 U.S.C. No No No Yes
national” or Union state §1101(a)
“state national” (21);
or 14th
but not Sect. 1
statutory
citizen”
3.4 Statutory Constitutional Puerto Rico, No 8 U.S.C. Yes No No No
"citizen of the Union state Guam, Virgin §1101(a)
United Islands, (21);
States**" or Commonwealth 14th
Statutory of Northern Amend.,
"U.S.** citizen" Mariana Islands Sect. 1;
8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)
(22)(A)
# Citizenship Place of birth Domicile Accepting Defined Tax Status under 26 U.S.C./Internal Revenue Code
status tax treaty in “Citizen” “Resident “Nonresident “Non-
benefits? (defined in alien” alien resident
26 C.F.R. 1.1- (defined in INDIVIDUAL” NON-person”
1) 26 U.S.C. (defined in (not defined)
§7701(b)(1) 26 C.F.R.
(A), §1.1441-1(c )
26 C.F.R. (3)
§1.1441-1(c ) and 26 U.S.C.
(3)(i) §7701(b)(1)(B))
and 26 C.F.R.
§1.1-1(a)(2)
(ii))
4.1 “alien” or Foreign Puerto Rico, NA 8 U.S.C. No Yes No No
“Foreign country Guam, Virgin §1101(a)
national” Islands, (21);
Commonwealth 8 U.S.C.
of Northern §1101(a)
Mariana Islands (3)
4.2 “alien” or Foreign State of the Yes 8 U.S.C. No No Yes No
“Foreign country Union §1101(a)
national” (21);
8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)
(3)
4.3 “alien” or Foreign State of the No 8 U.S.C. No No No Yes
“Foreign country Union §1101(a)
national” (21)
4.4 “alien” or Foreign Foreign country Yes 8 U.S.C. No No Yes No
“Foreign country §1101(a)
national” (21)
4.5 “alien” or Foreign Foreign country No 8 U.S.C. No No No Yes
“Foreign country §1101(a)
national” (21)
NOTES:
1. Domicile is a prerequisite to having any civil status per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. One therefore cannot be a statutory "alien" under 8
U.S.C. §1101(a)(3) without a domicile on federal territory. Without such a domicile, you are a transient foreigner and neither an "alien" nor a
"nonresident alien".
2. ”United States” is described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(38), (a)(36) and 8 C.F.R. §215.1(f) and includes only federal territory and possessions and
excludes all Constitutional Union states. This is a product of the separation of powers doctrine that is the heart of the United States
Constitution.
3. A “nonresident alien individual” who has made an election under 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) and (h) to be treated as a “resident alien” is treated as a
“nonresident alien” for the purposes of withholding under I.R.C. Subtitle C but retains their status as a “resident alien” under I.R.C. Subtitle A.
See 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) for the definition of “individual”, which means “alien”..
4. A "non-person" is really just a transient foreigner who is not "purposefully availing themselves" of commerce within the legislative jurisdiction of
the United States on federal territory under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97. The real transition from a "NON-
person" to an "individual" occurs when one:
4.1. "Purposefully avails themself" of commerce on federal territory and thus waives sovereign immunity. Examples of such purposeful
availment are the next three items.
4.2. Lawfully and consensually occupying a public office in the U.S. government and thereby being an “officer and individual” as identified in 5
U.S.C. §2105(a). Otherwise, you are PRIVATE and therefore beyond the civil legislative jurisdiction of the national government.
4.3. Voluntarily files an IRS Form 1040 as a citizen or resident abroad and takes the foreign tax deduction under 26 U.S.C. §911. This too is
essentially an act of "purposeful availment". Nonresidents are not mentioned in section 911. The upper left corner of the form identifies the filer
as a “U.S. individual”. You cannot be an “U.S. individual” without ALSO being an “individual”. All the "trade or business" deductions on the form
presume the applicant is a public officer, and therefore the "individual" on the form is REALLY a public officer in the government and would be
committing FRAUD if he or she was NOT.
4.4. VOLUNTARILY fills out an IRS Form W-7 ITIN Application (IRS identifies the applicant as an "individual") AND only uses the assigned
number in connection with their compensation as an elected or appointed public officer. Using it in connection with PRIVATE earnings is
FRAUD.
5. What turns a “non-resident NON-person” into a “nonresident alien individual” is meeting one or more of the following two criteria:
5.1. Residence/domicile in a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-7(a)(1).
5.2. Residence/domicile as an alien in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or
American Samoa as determined under 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1(d).
6. All “taxpayers” are STATUTORY “aliens”. The definition of “individual” found in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) does NOT include “citizens”. The only
occasion where a “citizen” can also be an “individual” is when they are abroad under 26 U.S.C. §911 and interface to the I.R.C. under a tax
treaty with a foreign country as an alien pursuant to 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-7(a)(1)
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do
the kings [governments] of the earth [lawfully] take customs or taxes, from their sons [citizens and subjects] or from
strangers ["aliens", which are synonymous with "residents" in the tax code, and exclude "citizens"]?”
Peter said to Him, "From strangers ["aliens"/"residents" ONLY. See 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-
1(c)(3)]."
Jesus said to him, "Then the sons ["citizens" of the Republic, who are all sovereign "nationals" and "non-resident
non-persons" under federal law] are free [sovereign over their own person and labor. e.g. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY].
"
5. EFFECT OF DOMICILE ON CITIZENSHIP STATUS

Table 3: Effect of Domicile on Citizenship Status
CONDITION
Description Domicile WITHIN Domicile WITHIN Domicile WITHOUT the
the FEDERAL ZONE and the FEDERAL ZONE FEDERAL ZONE and located
located in FEDERAL ZONE and temporarily located WITHOUT the FEDERAL ZONE
abroad in foreign country
Location of domicile “United States” per “United States” per Without the “United States” per 26
26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a) 26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a) U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a)(10),
(10) , 7701(a)(39), 7408(d), and 4 (10) , 7701(a)(39), 7408(d), and 4 7701(a)(39), 7408(d), and 4
U.S.C. §110(d) U.S.C. §110(d) U.S.C. §110(d)
Physical location Federal territories, possessions, Foreign nations ONLY Foreign nations
and the District of Columbia (NOT states of the Union) states of the Union
Federal possessions
Tax Status “U.S. Person” “U.S. Person” “Nonresident alien individual” if a
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) public officer in the U.S.
government. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-
1(c)(3)) for a definition of
"individual".
"non-resident NON-person" if NOT
a public officer in the U.S.
government.
Tax form(s) to file IRS Form 1040 IRS Form 1040 plus 2555 IRS Form 1040NR: “alien
individuals”, “nonresident alien
individuals”
No filing requirement: “non-
resident NON-person”
Status if DOMESTIC “national of "national and citizen of the United Citizen abroad “non-resident” if born in a state of
the United States*” States** at birth" per 8 U.S.C. 26 U.S.C. §911 the Union.
§1401 and "citizen of the United (Meets presence test) 8 U.S.C. §1408, 8 U.S.C. §1452,
States**" per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a) and 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(B) if
(22)(A) if born in a federal territory born in a possession
(Not required to file if physically
present in the “United States”
because no statute requires it)
Status if FOREIGN pursuant to 8 “Resident alien” “Resident alien abroad” “Nonresident alien individual” if a
U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) 26 U.S.C. §911 public officer in the U.S.
(Meets presence test) government. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-
1(c)(3) for a definition of
"individual".
"non-resident NON-person" if NOT
a public officer in the U.S.
government.
NOTES:
1. “United States” is statutorily defined as federal territory within 26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), 7701(a)(39), and 7408(d), and 4 U.S.C.
§110(d). It does not expressly include any Constitutional state of the Union and therefore, by the rules of statutory construction, they are
purposefully excluded.
2. The “District of Columbia” is defined as a federal corporation but not a physical place, a “body politic”, or a de jure “government” within the
District of Columbia Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34. See: Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024;
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.
3. American nationals who are domiciled outside of federal jurisdiction, either in a state of the Union or a foreign country, are “nationals” but not
“citizens” under federal law. They also qualify as "nonresident aliens" under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) if occupying a public office or "non-
resident NON-persons" if not occupying a public office. See sections 4.11.2 of the Great IRS Hoax for details.
4. Temporary domicile in the middle column on the right must meet the requirements of the “Presence test” documented in IRS publications.
5. "FEDERAL ZONE"=District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States in the above table.
6. The term “individual” as used on the IRS form 1040 means an “alien” engaged in a “trade or business”. All “taxpayers” are “aliens” engaged in
a “trade or business”. This is confirmed by 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c )(3), 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii), and 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2). Statutory “U.S.
citizens” as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401 are not “individuals” unless temporarily abroad pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §911 and subject to an income
tax treaty with a foreign country. In that capacity, statutory “U.S. citizens” interface to the I.R.C. as “aliens” rather than “U.S. citizens” through
the tax treaty.
6. MEANING OF GEOGRAPHICAL WORDS OF ART

A very frequent point of confusion and misunderstanding even within the legal profession is the definition of geographical terms in the various
contexts in which they are used. The table below is provided to clear up this confusion in order that people do not misinterpret geographical terms by
applying them outside their intended context. Using this page is VERY important for those who will be reading and researching state and federal law.
The differences in meaning within the various contexts are primarily a consequence of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
Table 4: Meaning of geographic "words of art"
Law Federal Federal statutes Federal State State statutes State regulations
constitution regulations constitutions
Author Union States/ Federal Government “We The People”
”We The People” State Government
Law Federal Federal statutes Federal State State statutes State regulations
constitution regulations constitutions
Author Union States/ Federal Government “We The People”
”We The People” State Government
“state” Foreign country Union state or Union state or Other Union state Other Union state Other Union state
foreign country foreign country or federal or federal or federal
government government government
“State” Union state Federal state Federal state Union state Union state Union state
“in this State” or NA NA NA NA Federal enclave Federal enclave
“in the State”[1] within state within state
“State”[2](State NA NA NA NA Federal enclave Federal enclave
Revenue and within state within state
taxation code
only)
“several States” Union states Federal “States” Federal “States” Federal “States” Federal “States” Federal “States”
collectively[3] collectively collectively collectively collectively collectively
“United States” states of the Federal United Federal United United States* the Federal United Federal United
Union collectively States** States** country States** States**
What the above table clearly shows is that the word “State” in the context of federal statutes and regulations means (not includes!) federal States only
under Title 48 of the U.S. Code[4], and these areas do not include any of the 50 Union States. This is true in most cases and especially in the
Internal Revenue Code. The lower case word “state” in the context of federal statutes and regulations means one of the 50 union states, which are
“foreign states”, and “foreign countries” with respect to the federal government as clearly explained in section 5.2.11 of the Great IRS Hoax, Form
#11.302 (OFFSITE LINK) book. In the context of the above, a “Union State” means one of the 50 Union states of the United States* (the country, not
the federal United States**) mentioned in the Constitution for the United States of America.
If you would like to know all the implications of the separation of powers reflected in the above table, as well as a history of unconstitutional efforts to
destroy this separation, see the following references:
1. Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023

2. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: "Separation of Powers" (OFFSITE LINK)
FOOTNOTES:
[1]See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 6017.

[2]See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 17018.
[3]See, for instance, U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 2.
[4]See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/48/
7. CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE OPTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS

Figure 1: Citizenship and Domicile Options and Relationships
8. FOUR TYPES OF AMERICAN NATIONALS

There are four types of American nationals recognized under federal law :
1. STATUTORY "national and citizen of the [federal] United States** at birth” (statutory "U.S.** citizen")
1.1. A CIVIL status because it uses the word "citizen" and is therefore tied to a geographical place.
1.2. A statutory privileged status defined and found in 8 U.S.C. §1401 and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(A), in the implementing regulations of the
Internal Revenue Code at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c ), and in most other federal statutes.
1.3. Born in the federal zone. Most inhabit the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions of the United States identified in Title 48 of
the U.S. Code.
1.4. Subject to the “police power” of the federal government and all “acts of Congress”.
1.5. Treated as a citizen of the municipal government of the District of Columbia (see 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39))
1.6. Have no common law rights, because there is no federal common law. See Jones v. Mayer, 392 U.S. 409 (1798).
1.7. Also called “federal U.S. citizens”.
1.8 Owe allegiance to the GOVERNMENT of the United States and NOT the PEOPLE of the States of the Union, who are called United
States***.
2. STATUTORY “nationals but not citizens of the United States**" at birth (where “United States” or “U.S.” means the federal United States)
2.1. A CIVIL status because it uses the word "citizen" and is therefore tied to a geographical place..
2.2. Defined in 8 U.S.C. §1408, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B), and 8 U.S.C. §1452.
2.3. Born anywhere in American Samoa or Swains Island.
2.4. May not participate politically in federal elections or as federal jurists.
2.5. Owe allegaince to the GOVERNMENT of the United States** and NOT the PEOPLE of the States of the Union, who are called United
States***.
3. STATUTORY "national of the United States**"
3.1. A POLITICAL status not tied to a geographical place. Allegiance can exist independent of geography.
3.2. Defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22).
3.3. Includes STATUTORY "citizens of the United States**" defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(A).
3.4. Includes "a person who, though not a citizen of the United States[**], owes permanent allegiance to the United States*" defined in 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)(B). The use of the term "person" is suspicious because only HUMANS can owe allegiance and not creations of Congress called
"persons", all of whom are offices in the government. If it means a CONSTITUTIONAL "person" then it is OK, because all constitutional
"persons" are humans.
4. CONSTITUTIONAL “nationals of the United States***", "State nationals", or "nationals of the United States*** of America"
4.1. A POLITICAL status not tied to a geographical place. Allegiance can exist independent of geography.
4.2. Defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21), under the Law of Nations, under state laws, and under USA Constitution.
4.3. Is equivalent to the term “state citizen”.
4.4. In general, born in any one of the several states of the Union but not in a federal territory, possession, or the District of Columbia. Not
domiciled in the federal zone.
4.5. Not subject to the “police power” of the federal government or most “acts of Congress”.
4.6. Owes Allegiance to the sovereign people, collectively and individually, within the body politic of the constitutional state residing in.
4.7. May serve as a state jurist or grand jurist involving only parties with his same citizenship and domicile status.
4.8. May vote in state elections.
4.9. At this time, all “state nationals” are also a “USA National”. But not all “USA nationals” are a “state national” (for example, a USA national
not residing nor domiciled in a state of the Union).
4.10. Is a man or woman whose unalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his state constitution against state
actions and against federal intrusion by the Constitution for the United States of America.
4.11. Includes state nationals, because you cannot get a USA passport without this status per 22 U.S.C. §212 and 22 C.F.R. §51.2.
Statutory “U.S. citizens” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401 have civil rights under federal law that are similar but inferior to the natural rights of state
nationals in state courts. We say almost because "civil rights" are statutory creations of Congress that may be taken away at any time and therefore
are really privileges and franchises disguised to "look" like rights. “U.S. citizens” are privileged subjects/servants of Congress, under their protection
as a "resident" and “ward” of a federal State, a person enfranchised to the federal government (the incorporated United States defined in Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution). The individual Union states may not deny to these persons any federal privileges or immunities that
Congress has granted them within “acts of Congress” or federal statutes. Federal citizens come under admiralty law (International Law) when
litigating in federal courts. As such they do not have inalienable common rights recognized, secured and protected in federal courts by the
Constitutions of the States, or of the Constitution for the United States of America, such as "allodial" (absolute) rights to property, the rights to
inheritance, the rights to work and contract, and the right to travel among others.
Another important element of citizenship is that artificial entities like corporations are citizens for the purposes of taxation but cannot be citizens for
any other purpose.
“A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens of
each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.”
[Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L.Ed 357 (1868)]
9. FEDERAL STATUTORY CITIZENSHIP STATUSES DIAGRAM

We have prepared a venn diagram showing all of the various types of citizens so that you can properly distinguish them. The important thing to notice
about this diagram is that there are multiple types of “citizens of the United States” and “nationals of the United States” because there are multiple
definitions of “United States” according to the Supreme Court, as we showed in section 1 earlier.
Figure 2: Federal Statutory Citizenship Statuses
10. CITIZENSHIP STATUS ON GOVERNMENT FORMS

Table 5: Citizenship status on government forms
# Citizenship Place of Domicile Accepting Defined Social Status on Specific Government Forms
status birth tax treaty in Security Social IRS Form W- Department E-Verify
benefits? NUMIDENT Security 8 Block 3 of State I-9 System
Status SS-5 block Section 1
5
5
1 "national and Statutory District of NA 8 U.S.C. CSP=A ”U.S. Can’t use ”A citizen of See Note
citizen of the “United Columbia, §1401 Citizen” Form W-8 the United 2.
United States” Puerto Rico, 8 U.S.C. States”
States** at pursuant to 8 Guam, Virgin §1101(a)
birth" or U.S.C. Islands (22)(A)
“U.S.** §1101(a)(38),
citizen” or (a)(36) and 8
“Statutory C.F.R.
U.S.** citizen” §215.1(f) or
in the
“outlying
possessions
of the United
States”
pursuant to 8
U.S.C.
§1101(a)(29)
2 "non-citizen Statutory American NA 8 U.S.C. CSP=B ”Legal alien “Non- ”A noncitizen See Note
national of the “United Samoa; Swains §1408; authorized resident national of 2.
United States” Island; or 8 U.S.C. to work. NON-person the United
States** at pursuant to 8 abroad to U.S. §1101(a) (statutory)” Nontaxpayer” States”
birth" or U.S.C. national (22)(B); if PRIVATE
“U.S.** §1101(a)(38), parents under 8 U.S.C. "Individual" if
national (a)(36) and 8 8 U.S.C. §1452 PUBLIC
C.F.R. §1408(2) officer
§215.1(f) or
in the
“outlying
possessions
of the United
States”
pursuant to 8
U.S.C.
§1101(a)(29)
3.1 “USA*** Constitutional State of the NA 8 U.S.C. CSP=D ”Other (8 “Non- ”A citizen See Note
national” or Union state Union (ACTA §1101(a) U.S.C. resident United 2.
“state agreement) (21); §1101(a) NON-person States***.
national” or 14th (21))” Nontaxpayer” Not a
“Constitutional Amend., "citizen of
but not Sect. 1 the United
statutory States**"
citizen” under 8
U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)
(A) or 8
U.S.C.
§1401”
3.2 “USA*** Constitutional Foreign country Yes 8 U.S.C. CSP=D ”Other (8 “Non- ”A citizen See Note
national” or Union state §1101(a) U.S.C. resident United 2.
“state (21); §1101(a) NON-person States***.
statutory States**"
citizen” under 8
U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)
(A) or 8
U.S.C.
§1401”
3.3 “USA*** Constitutional Foreign country Yes 8 U.S.C. CSP=D ”Other (8 “Non- ”A citizen See Note
national” or Union state §1101(a) U.S.C. resident United 2.
“state (21); §1101(a) NON-person States***.
statutory States**"
citizen” under 8
U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)
(A) or 8
U.S.C.
§1401”
5
3.4 Statutory Constitutional Puerto Rico, No 8 U.S.C. CSP=A ”U.S.** Can't Use ”A citizen of See Note
"citizen of the Union state Guam, Virgin §1101(a) Citizen” Form W-8 the United 2.
United Islands, (21); States**”
States**" or American 14th
Statutory Samoa, Amend.,
"U.S.** Commonwealth Sect. 1;
citizen" of Northern 8 U.S.C.
Mariana §1101(a)
Islands (22)(A)
4.1 “alien” or Foreign Puerto Rico, NA 8 U.S.C. CSP=B "Legal alien “Non- ”A lawful See Note
“Foreign country Guam, Virgin §1101(a) authorized resident permanent 2.
national” Islands, (21); to work. NON-person resident” OR
American 8 U.S.C. (statutory)” Nontaxpayer” “An alien
Samoa, §1101(a) if PRIVATE authorized to
Commonwealth (3) "Individual" if work”
of Northern PUBLIC
Mariana officer
Islands
4.2 “alien” or Foreign State of the Yes 8 U.S.C. CSP=B ”Legal alien “Non- ”A lawful See Note
“Foreign country Union §1101(a) authorized resident permanent 2.
national” (21); to work. NON-person resident” OR
8 U.S.C. (statutory)” Nontaxpayer” “An alien
§1101(a) authorized to
(3) work”
4.3 “alien” or Foreign State of the No 8 U.S.C. CSP=B ”Legal alien “Non- ”A lawful See Note
“Foreign country Union §1101(a) authorized resident permanent 2.
national” (21) to work. NON-person resident” OR
(statutory)” Nontaxpayer” “An alien
authorized to
work”
4.4 “alien” or Foreign Foreign country Yes 8 U.S.C. CSP=B ”Legal alien “Non- ”A lawful See Note
“Foreign country §1101(a) authorized resident permanent 2.
authorized to
work”
4.5 “alien” or Foreign Foreign country No 8 U.S.C. CSP=B ”Legal alien “Non- ”A lawful See Note
“Foreign country §1101(a) authorized resident permanent 2.
authorized to
work”
NOTES:
1. ”United States” is described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(38), (a)(36) and 8 C.F.R. §215.1(f) and includes only federal territory and possessions and
excludes all Constitutional Union states. This is a product of the separation of powers doctrine that is the heart of the United States
Constitution.
2. E-Verify CANNOT be used by those who are a NOT lawfully engaged in a public office in the U.S. government at the time of making
application. Its use is VOLUNTARY and cannot be compelled. Those who use it MUST have a Social Security Number or Taxpayer
Identification Number and it is ILLEGAL to apply for, use, or disclose said number for those not lawfully engaged in a public office in the U.S.
government at the time of application. See:
Why It Is Illegal for Me to Request or Use a "Taxpayer Identification Number", Form #04.205
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/WhyTINIllegal.pdf
3. For instructions useful in filling out the forms mentioned in the above table, see the following OFFSITE LINKS:
2.1. Social Security Form SS-5:
Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf
2.2. IRS Form W-8:
About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.202
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8BEN/AboutIRSFormW-8BEN.htm
2.3. Department of State Form I-9:
I-9 Form Amended, Form #06.028
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/i-9Amended.pdf
2.4. E-Verify:
About E-Verify, Form #04.107
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/1-Procedure/E-Verify/E-Verify.htm
11. CAPITALIZATION WITHIN STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

Whenever you are reading a particular law, including the U.S. Constitution, or a statute, the Sovereign referenced in that law, who is usually the
author of the law, is referenced in the law with the first letter of its name capitalized. For instance, in the U.S. Constitution the phrase “We the
People”, “State”, and “Citizen” are all capitalized, because these were the sovereign entities who were writing the document residing in the States.
This document formed the federal government and gave it its authority. Subsequently, the federal government wrote statutes to implement the intent
of the Constitution, and it became the Sovereign, but only in the context of those territories and lands ceded to it by the union states. When that
federal government then refers in statutes to federal “States”, for instance in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) or 4 U.S.C. §110(d), then these federal “States”
are Sovereigns because they are part of the territory controlled by the Sovereign who wrote the statute, so they are capitalized. Foreign states
referenced in the federal statutes then must be in lower case. The sovereign 50 union states, for example, must be in lower case in federal statutes
because of this convention because they are foreign states. Capitalization is therefore always relative to who is writing the document, which is
usually the Sovereign and is therefore capitalized. The exact same convention is used in the Bible, where all appellations of God are capitalized
because they are sovereigns: “Jesus" ”, “God”, “Him”, “His”, “Father”. These words aren’t capitalized because they are proper names, but because
the entity described is a sovereign or an agent or part of the sovereign. The only exception to this capitalization rule is in state revenue laws, where
the state legislators use the same capitalization as the Internal Revenue Code for “State” in referring to federal enclaves within their territory because
they want to scam money out of you. In state revenue laws, for instance in the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) sections 17018 and
6017, “State” means a federal State within the boundaries of California and described as part of the Buck Act of 1940 found in 4 U.S.C. §§105-113.
12. HOW HUMAN BEINGS BECOME "INDIVIDUALS" AND "PERSONS" UNDER THE REVENUE STATUTES
It might surprise most people to learn that human beings most often are NEITHER “individuals” nor “persons” under ordinary acts of Congress, and
especially revenue acts. The reasons for this are many and include the following:
1. All civil statutes are law exclusively for government and not private humans:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Person, Form #05.037
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf
2. Civil statutes cannot impair PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights.
"Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a
constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. "
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]
3. Civil statutes are privileges and franchises created by the government which convert PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property. They cannot
lawfully convert PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property without the express consent of the owner. See:
Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025

DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
4. You have an inalienable PRIVATE right to choose your civil status, including “person”.
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
5. All civil statuses, including “person” or “individual” are a product of a VOLUNTARY choice of domicile protected by the First Amendment right of
freedom from compelled association. If you don’t volunteer and choose to be a nonresident or transient foreigner, then you cannot be
punished for that choice and cannot have a civil status. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
6. As the absolute owner of your private property, you have the absolute right of depriving any and all others, INCLUDING governments, of the
use or benefit of that property, including your body and all of your property. The main method of exercising that control is to control the civil and
legal status of the property, who protects it, and HOW it is protected.
“In all domestic concerns each state of the Union is to be deemed an independent sovereignty. As such, it is its
province and its duty to forbid interference by another state as well as by any foreign power with the status of its own
citizens. Unless at least one of the spouses is a resident thereof in good faith, the courts of such sister state or of
such foreign power cannot acquire jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of those who have an established domicile in
the state which resents such interference with matters which disturb its social serenity or affect the morals of its
inhabitants.”
[Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d. 871, 879 (1947);
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13809397457737233441]
The following subsections will examine the above assertions and prove they are substantially true with evidence from a high level. If you need further
evidence, we recommend reading the documents referenced above.
12.1 How alien nonresidents visiting the geographical United States** become statutory “individuals” whether or
not they consent
The U.S. Supreme Court defined how alien nonresidents visiting the United States** become statutory “individuals” below:
The reasons for not allowing to other aliens exemption 'from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found' were
stated as follows: 'When private individuals of one nation [states of the Unions are “nations” under the law of
nations] spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the
inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously
inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to
degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable
to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His
subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits.
Consequently, there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in
which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter, can
never be construed to grant such exemption.' 7 Cranch, 144.
In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every
nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself;
that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that
upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction, rest the exemptions from that
jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and
public ships of war; and that the implied license, under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory
and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants, for purposes of business or pleasure, can never be construed to
grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See, also, Carlisle v. U.S.
(1872) 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877) 95 U.S. 210; Wildenhus' Case (1887) 120 U.S. 1, 7 Sup.Ct. 385; Chae
Chan Ping v. U.S. (1889) 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604, 9 Sup.Ct. 623.
[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
Therefore, alien nonresidents visiting or doing business within a country are presumed to be party to an “implied license” while there. All licenses are
franchises, and all give rise to a public civil franchise status. In the case of nonresident aliens, that status is “individual” and it is a public office in the
government, just like every other franchise status. We prove this in:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, form #05.030

DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
All “aliens” are presumed to be “nonresident aliens” but this may be overcome upon presentation of proof:

nonresident alien individuals
§ 1.871-4 Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence shall govern in determining whether or not an alien within the United
States has acquired residence therein for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien by reason of his alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
(c) Presumption rebutted—
(1) Departing alien.
In the case of an alien who presents himself for determination of tax liability before departure from the United States, the
presumption as to the alien's nonresidence may be overcome by proof--
Aliens, while physically in the United States**, are presumed to be “resident” here, REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONSENT or
INTENT. “residence” is the word used to characterize an alien as being subject to the CIVIL and/or TAXING franchise
codes of the place he or she is in:

§1.871-2 Determining residence of alien individuals.
(a) General.
The term nonresident alien individual means an individual whose residence is not within the United States, and who is not a
citizen of the United States. The term includes a nonresident alien fiduciary. For such purpose the term fiduciary shall have
the meaning assigned to it by section 7701(a)(6) and the regulations in part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure
and Administration). For presumption as to an alien's nonresidence, see paragraph (b) of §1.871–4.
(b) Residence defined.
An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United
States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the
length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not
sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay,
he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly
accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its
accomplishment, and to that end the alien makes his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a
resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he
came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period
by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of
exceptional circumstances.
Once aliens seek the privilege of permanent resident status, then they cease to be nonresident aliens and become “resident aliens” under 26 U.S.C.
§7701(b)(1)(A):
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) Resident alien
(b) Definition of resident alien and nonresident alien
(1) In general
For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B) -
(A) Resident alien
An alien individual shall be treated as a resident of the United States with respect to any calendar year if (and only if) such
individual meets the requirements of clause (i), (ii), or (iii):
(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence
Such individual is a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time during such calendar year.
(ii) Substantial presence test
Such individual meets the substantial presence test of paragraph (3).
(iii) First year election
Such individual makes the election provided in paragraph (4).
_______________________________________________________________________________________
“Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the
country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they
remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens.
They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have
been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a less privileged character, and are subject to the
society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given
them by the State passes to their children.”
[The Law of Nations, Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 213, p. 87]
Therefore, once aliens apply for and receive “permanent resident” status, they get the same exemption from income taxation as citizens and thereby
CEASE to be civil “persons” under the Internal Revenue Code as described in the following sections. In that sense, their “implied license” is revoked
and they thereby cease to be civil “persons”. The license returns if they abandon their “permanent resident” civil status:

§1.871-5 Loss of residence by an alien.
An alien who has acquired residence in the United States retains his status as a resident until he abandons the same and
actually departs from the United States. An intention to change his residence does not change his status as a resident alien
to that of a nonresident alien. Thus, an alien who has acquired a residence in the United States is taxable as a resident for
the remainder of his stay in the United States.
We should also point out that:
1. There are literally BILLIONS of aliens throughout the world.

2. Unless and until an alien either physically sets foot within our country or conducts commerce or business with a foreign state such as the
United States**, they:
1. Would NOT be classified as civil STATUTORY “persons” or “individuals”, but rather “transient foreigners” or “stateless persons”.
Domicile in a place is MANDATORY in order for the civil statutes to be enforceable per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, and they
have a foreign domicile while temporarily here.
2. Would NOT be classified as “persons” under the Constitution. The constitution attaches to and protects LAND, and not the status of
people ON the land.
3. Would NOT be classified as “persons” under the CRIMINAL law.
4. Would NOT be classified as “persons” under the common law and equity.
3. If the alien then physically comes to the United States** (federal zone or STATUTORY “United States**”), then they:
1. Would NOT become “persons” under the Constitution, because the constitution does not attach to federal territory.
2. Would become “persons” under the CRIMINAL laws of Congress, because the criminal law attaches to physical territory.
3. Would become “persons” under the common law and equity of the national government and not the states, because common law
attaches to physical land.
4. If the alien then physically moves to a constitutional state, then their status would change as follows:
1. Would become “persons” under the Constitution, because the constitution attaches to land within constitutional states.
2. Would become “persons” under the CRIMINAL laws of states of the Union, because the criminal law attaches to physical territory.
3. Would cease to be “persons” under the CRIMINAL laws of Congress, because they are not on federal territory.
4. Would become “persons” under the common law and equity of the state they visited and not the national government, because common
law attaches to physical land.
5. If the aliens are statutory “citizens” of their state of origin, they are “agents of the state” they came from. If they do not consent to be statutory
“citizens” and do not have a domicile in the state of their birth, then they are “non-residents” in relation to their state of birth. The STATUTORY
“citizen” is the agent of the state, not the human being filling the public office of “citizen”.
"Under our own systems of polity, the term 'citizen', implying the same or similar relations to the government and to
society which appertain to the term, 'subject' in England, is familiar to all. Under either system, the term used is
designed to apply to man in his individual character and to his natural capacities -- to a being or agent
[PUBLIC OFFICER!] possessing social and political rights and sustaining social, political, and moral
obligations. It is in this acceptation only, therefore, that the term 'citizen', in the article of the Constitution,
can be received and understood. When distributing the judicial power, that article extends it to controversies
between 'citizens' of different states. This must mean the natural physical beings composing those separate
communities, and can by no violence of interpretation be made to signify artificial, incorporeal, theoretical,
and invisible creations. A corporation, therefore, being not a natural person, but a mere creature of the mind,
invisible and intangible, cannot be a citizen of a state, or of the United States, and cannot fall within the
terms or the power of the above mentioned article, and can therefore neither plead nor be impleaded in the
courts of the United States."
[Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Company, 55 U.S. 80, 99 (1852) from dissenting opinion by Justice Daniel]
6. When aliens are STATUTORY citizens of the country of their birth and origin who are doing business in the United States** as a “foreign state”,
they are treated as AGENTS and OFFICERS of the country they are from, hence they are “state actors”.
The Law of Nations, Book II: Of a Nation Considered in Her Relation to Other States
§ 81. The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.
Even the property of the individuals is, in the aggregate, to be considered as the property of the nation, with
respect to other states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her
citizens, because it constitutes a part of the sum total of her riches, and augments her power. She is interested in that
property by her obligation to protect all her members. In short, it cannot be otherwise, since nations act and treat
together as bodies in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who
form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only one whole, one single person, — all
their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person. And this is to true, that each political
society may, if it pleases, establish within itself a community of goods, as Campanella did in his republic of the sun.
Others will not inquire what it does in this respect: its domestic regulations make no change in its rights with respect
to foreigners nor in the manner in which they ought to consider the aggregate of its property, in what way soever it is
possessed.
[The Law of Nations, Book II, Section 81, Vattel;
SOURCE: https://famguardian.org/Publications/LawOfNations/vattel_02.htm#§ 81. The property of the citizens is the
property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.]
7. As agents of the state they were born within and are domiciled within while they are here, they are part of a “foreign state” in relation to the
United States**..
These principles are a product of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97:
Title 28 › Part IV › Chapter 97 › § 1605

28 U.S. Code § 1605 - General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—
(1) in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of
the waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver;
(2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or
upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere;
or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign
state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States;
(3) in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property
exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in
the United States by the foreign state; or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or
operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a
commercial activity in the United States;
(4) in which rights in property in the United States acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable property situated in
the United States are in issue;
(5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above, in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for
personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or
omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or
employment; except this paragraph shall not apply to—
(A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function
regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or
(B) any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or
interference with contract rights; or
(6) in which the action is brought, either to enforce an agreement made by the foreign state with or for the benefit of a
private party to submit to arbitration all or any differences which have arisen or which may arise between the parties with
respect to a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by
arbitration under the laws of the United States, or to confirm an award made pursuant to such an agreement to arbitrate, if
(A) the arbitration takes place or is intended to take place in the United States, (B) the agreement or award is or may be
governed by a treaty or other international agreement in force for the United States calling for the recognition and
enforcement of arbitral awards, (C) the underlying claim, save for the agreement to arbitrate, could have been brought in a
United States court under this section or section 1607, or (D) paragraph (1) of this subsection is otherwise applicable.
Lastly, we also wish to emphasize that those who are physically in the country they were born in are NOT under any such “implied license” and
therefore, unlike aliens, are not AUTOMATICALLY “individuals” or “persons” and cannot consent to become “individuals” or “persons” under any
revenue statute. These people would be called “nationals of the United States*** OF AMERICA”. Their rights are UNALIENABLE and therefore they
cannot lawfully consent to give them away by agreeing to ANY civil status, including “person” or “individual”.
12.2 “U.S. Persons”
The statutory definition of “U.S. person” within the Internal Revenue Code is as follows:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701.

Sec. 7701. - Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(30) United States person
The term ''United States[**] person'' means -
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States[**],

(B) a domestic partnership,
(C) a domestic corporation,
(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E) any trust if -
(i) a court within the United States[**] is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii) one or more United States[**] persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.
________________________________________________________________________________
(9) United States
The term ''United States'[**]' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
________________________________________________________________________________
(10)State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
provisions of this title.
NOTICE the following important fact: The definition of “person” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1) does NOT include “U.S. person”, and therefore indicating
this status on a withholding form does not make you a STATUTORY “person” within the Internal Revenue Code!
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701

§ 7701. Definitions
(1)Person
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company
or corporation.
There is some overlap between “U.S. Persons” and “persons” in the I.R.C., but only in the case of estates and trusts, and partnerships. NOWHERE
in the case of individuals is there overlap.
There is also no tax imposed directly on a U.S. Person anywhere in the internal revenue code. All taxes relating to humans are imposed upon
“persons” and “individuals” rather than “U.S. Persons”. Nowhere in the definition of “U.S. person” is included “individuals”, and you must be an
“individual” to be a “person” as a human being under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1). Furthermore, nowhere are “citizens or residents of the United States”
mentioned in the definition of “U.S. Person” defined to be “individuals”. Hence, they can only be fictions of law and NOT humans. To be more
precise, they are not only “fictions of law” but public offices in the government. See:
Proof That There is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.042

DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf
There is a natural tendency to PRESUME that a statutory “U.S. person” is a “person”, but in fact it is not. That tendency begins with the use of
“person” in the NAME “U.S. person”. However, the rules for interpreting the Internal Revenue Code forbid such a presumption:
U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 80 › Subchapter A › § 7806

26 U.S. Code § 7806 - Construction of title
(b)Arrangement and classification
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the
location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table
of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal
effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act
before its enactment into law.
Portions of a specific section, such as 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) is a “grouping” as referred to above. The following case also affirms this concept:
“Factors of this type have led to the wise rule that the title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain
meaning of the text. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386; Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U.S. 418, 430; Strathearn S.S. Co. v.
Dillon, 252 U.S. 348, 354. For interpretative purposes, they are of use only when they shed light on some ambiguous word
or phrase. They are but tools available for the resolution of a doubt. But they cannot undo or limit that which the text makes
plain.”
[Railroad Trainmen v. B. & O.R. Co. 331 U.S. 519 (1947)]
Therefore, we must discern the meaning of “U.S. person” from what is included UNDER the heading, and not within the heading “U.S. Person”. The
following subsections will attempt to do this.
12.3. The Three Types of “Persons”
The meaning of “person” depends entirely upon the context in which it is used. There are three main contexts, defined by the system of law in which
they may be invoked:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL “person”: Means a human being and excludes artificial entities or corporations or even governments.
“Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial
persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.14
_______________________
14 Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed.Cas. 67 (C.C.D.La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States,
corporations accordingly have been declared unable "to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or
impairment by the law of a State." Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (1869) . This conclusion was in
harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869), to the effect that corporations were
not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in Article IV, Sect. 2. See also
Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (1912) ; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908) ; Liberty
Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 U.S. 71, 89 (1928) ; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244
(1936) .
[Annotated Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Research Service.
SOURCE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14a_user.html#amdt14a_hd1]
2. STATUTORY “person”: Depends entirely upon the definition within the statutes and EXCLUDES CONSTITUTIONAL “persons”. This would
NOT INCLUDE STATUTORY “U.S. Persons”.
3. COMMON LAW “person”: A private human who is litigating in equity under the common law in defense of his absolutely owned private
property.
The above systems of law are described in:
Four Law Systems, Form #12.039

DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/LibertyU/FourLawSystems.pdf
Which of the above statuses you have depends on the law system you voluntarily invoke when dealing with the government. That law system
determines what is called the “choice of law” in your interactions with the government. For more on “choice of law” rules, see:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Section 3

DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
If you invoke a specific choice of law in the action you file in court, and the judge or government changes it to one of the others, then they are
engaged in CRIMINAL IDENTITY THEFT:

Identity theft can also be attempted by the government by deceiving or confusing you with legal “words of art”:

12.4 Why a “U.S. Person” who is a “citizen” is NOT a statutory “person” or “individual” in the Internal Revenue Code
The definition of person is found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1) as follows:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701

§7701. Definitions
(1)Person
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company
or corporation.
The term “individual” is then defined as:
26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.
(c ) Definitions
(3) Individual.
(i) Alien individual.
The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-
1(c).
26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1T Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.
(c ) Definitions
(3) Individual.
(ii) Nonresident alien individual.
The term nonresident alien individual means persons described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), alien individuals who are treated

as nonresident aliens pursuant to § 301.7701(b)-7 of this chapter for purposes of computing their U.S. tax liability, or an
alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, or American Samoa as determined under § 301.7701(b)-1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made
an election under section 6013(g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as
a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.
Did you also notice that the definitions were not qualified to only apply to a specific chapter or section? That means that they apply generally
throughout the Internal Revenue Code and implementing regulations. Therefore, we must conclude that the REAL “individual” in the phrase “U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return” (IRS Form 1040) that Congress and the IRS are referring to can only mean “nonresident alien INDIVIDUALS” and
“alien INDIVIDUALS”. That is why they don’t just come out and say “U.S. Citizen Tax Return” on the 1040 form. If you aren’t a STATUTORY
“individual”, then obviously you are filing the WRONG form to file the 1040, which is a RESIDENT form for those DOMICILED on federal territory.
This is covered in the following:
Why It’s a Crime for a State Citizen to File a 1040 Income Tax Return, Form #08.021
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Therefore, all STATUTORY “individuals” are STATUTORY “aliens”. Hence, the ONLY people under Title 26 of the U.S. Code who are BOTH “persons”
and “individuals” are ALIENS. Under the rules of statutory construction “citizens” of every description are EXCLUDED from being STATUTORY
“persons”.
"It is apparent that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption
any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from
constitutional restrictions."
[Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911)]
“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is
the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d. 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40
P.2d. 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a
law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if
statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or
effects are excluded.”
"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's
ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term
excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, à definition which
declares what a term "means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'"); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323
U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer,
Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to
say, the statute, read "as a whole," post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition.
That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction -- "the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial
portion," indicate the contrary."
[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]
Who might these STATUTORY “persons” be who are also “individuals”? They must meet all the following conditions simultaneously to be “taxpayers”
and “persons”:
1. STATUTORY “U.S. citizens” or STATUTORY “U.S. residents” domiciled in the geographical “United States” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and
(a)(10) and/or 4 U.S.C. §110(d).
2. Temporarily abroad on travel under 26 U.S.C. §911.
3. Availing themselves of a tax treaty benefit (franchises) and therefore liable to PAY for said “benefit”.
4. Interface to the Internal Revenue Code as “aliens” in relation to the foreign country they are physically in but not domiciled in at the time.
5. Called a “qualified individual” in 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(1).
Some older versions of the code call the confluence of conditions above a “nonresident citizen”. The above are confirmed by the words of
Jesus Himself!
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the
kings [governments] of the earth [lawfully] take customs or taxes, from their sons [citizens and subjects] or from
strangers [statutory "aliens", which are synonymous with "residents" in the tax code, and exclude "citizens"]?”
Peter said to Him, "From strangers [statutory "aliens"/"residents" ONLY. See 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) and 26 C.F.R.
§1.1441-1(c)(3)]."
Jesus said to him, "Then the sons [of the King, Constitutional but not statutory "citizens" of the Republic, who are all
sovereign "nationals" and "non-resident non-persons"] are free [sovereign over their own person and labor. e.g.
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY]. "
Note some other very important things that distinguish STATUTORY “U.S. Persons” from STATUTORY “persons”:
1. The term “U.S.” in the phrase “U.S. Person” as used in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) is never defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code, and
therefore does NOT mean the same as “United States” in its geographical sense as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). It is a
violation of due process to PRESUME that the two are equivalent.
2. The definition of “person” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1) does not include statutory “citizens” or “residents”.
3. The definition of “U.S. person” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) does not include statutory “individuals”.
4. Nowhere in the code are “individuals” ever expressly defined to include statutory “citizens” or “residents”. Hence, under the rules of statutory
construction, they are purposefully excluded.
5. Based on the previous items, there is no overlap between the definitions of “person” and “U.S. Person” in the case of human beings who are
ALSO “citizens” or “residents”.
6. The only occasion when a human being can ALSO be a statutory “person” is when they are neither a “citizen” nor a “resident” and are a
statutory “individual”.
7. The only “person” who is neither a statutory “citizen” nor a statutory “resident” and is ALSO an “individual” is a “nonresident alien individual”:
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) Nonresident alien
An individual is a nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the
United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A)).
8. The previous item explains why nonresident aliens are the ONLY type of “individual” subject to tax withholding in 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A, Chapter
3, Subchapter A and who can earn taxable income under the I.R.C.: The only “individuals” listed are “nonresident aliens”:
26 U.S. Code Subchapter A - Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations
§ 1441 - Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens

§ 1442 - Withholding of tax on foreign corporations
§ 1443 - Foreign tax-exempt organizations
§ 1444 - Withholding on Virgin Islands source income
§ 1445 - Withholding of tax on dispositions of United States real property interests
§ 1446 - Withholding tax on foreign partners’ share of effectively connected income
9. There is overlap between “U.S. Person” and “person” in the case of trusts, corporations, and estates, but NOT “individuals”. All such entities
are artificial and fictions of law. Even they can in some cases be “citizens” or “residents” and therefore nontaxpayers:
"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 (C.J.S.), Corporations, §886 (2003)]
10. Corporations can also be individuals instead of merely and only corporations:
At common law, a "corporation" was an "artificial perso[n] endowed with the legal capacity of perpetual
succession" consisting either of a single individual (termed a "corporation sole") or of a collection of several
individuals (a "corporation aggregate"). 3 H. Stephen, Commentaries on the Laws of England 166, 168 (1st Am.
ed. 1845). The sovereign was considered a corporation. See id., at 170; see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries
*467. Under the definitions supplied by contemporary law dictionaries, Territories would have been classified as
"corporations" (and hence as "persons") at the time that 1983 was enacted and the Dictionary Act recodified. See W.
Anderson, A Dictionary of Law 261 (1893) ("All corporations were originally modeled upon a state or nation"); 1 J.
Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America 318-319 (11th ed.
1866) ("In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation"); Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117
U.S. 151, 154 (1886) ("`The United States is a . . . great corporation . . . ordained and established by the American
people'") (quoting United [495 U.S. 182, 202] States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1216 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823)
(Marshall, C. J.)); Cotton v. United States, 11 How. 229, 231 (1851) (United States is "a corporation"). See generally
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 561-562 (1819) (explaining history of term "corporation").
[Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182 (1990)]
We have therefore come full circle in forcefully concluding that “persons” and “U.S. persons” are not equivalent and non-overlapping in the case of
“citizens” and “residents”, and that the only type of entity a human being can be if they are a STATUTORY “citizen” or “resident” is a statutory “U.S.
person” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) and NOT a statutory “person” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1).
None of the following could therefore TRUTHFULLY be said about a STATUTORY “U.S. Person” who are human beings that are “citizens” or
“residents”:
1. They are "individuals" as described in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i).

2. That they are a SUBSET of all “persons” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1).
3. That they are ALSO statutory “persons” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1).
Lastly, we wish to emphasize that it constitutes a CRIME and perjury for someone who is in fact and in deed a “citizen” to misrepresent themselves as
a STATUTORY “individual” (alien) by performing any of the following acts:
1. Declaring yourself to be a "payee" by submitting an IRS form W-8 or W-9 to an alleged "withholding agent" while physically located in the
statutory “United States**” (federal zone) or in a state of the Union. All human being "payees" are "persons" and therefore "individuals". "U.S.
persons" who are not aliens are NOT "persons". Statutory citizens or residents must be ABROAD to be a “payee” because only then can they
be both “individuals” and “qualified individuals” under 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(1).
Title 26 › Chapter I › Subchapter A › Part 1 › Section 1.1441-1

26 CFR 1.1441-1 - Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.
§ 1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.
(b) General rules of withholding-
(2) Determination of payee and payee's status-
(i) In general.
[. . .] “a payee is the person to whom a payment is made, regardless of whether such person is the beneficial
owner of the amount (as defined in paragraph (c)(6) of this section).”
2. Filing an IRS Form 1040. The form in the upper left corner says “U.S. Individual” and “citizens” are NOT STATUTORY “individuals”. See:
Why It’s a Crime for a State Citizen to File a 1040 Income Tax Return, Form #08.021
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhyCrimefileReturn.pdf
3. To apply for or receive an “INDIVIDUAL Taxpayer Identification Number” using an IRS Form W-7. See:
Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, Internal Revenue Service
FORMS PAGE: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/individual-taxpayer-identification-number
The ONLY provision within the Internal Revenue Code that permits those who are STATUTORY “citizens” to claim the status of either “individual” or
“alien” is found in 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(1) , in which the citizen is physically abroad in a foreign country, in which case he or she is called a “qualified
individual”.
U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 1 › Subchapter N › Part III › Subpart B › § 911
26 U.S. Code § 911 - Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad
(d) Definitions and special rules
For purposes of this section—
(1) Qualified individual
The term “qualified individual” means an individual whose tax home is in a foreign country and who is—
(A) a citizen of the United States and establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that he has been a bona fide resident
of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year, or
(B) a citizen or resident of the United States and who, during any period of 12 consecutive months, is present in a foreign
country or countries during at least 330 full days in such period.
The above provisions SUPERSEDE the definitions within 26 U.S.C. §7701 only within section 911 for the specific case of citizens when abroad
ONLY. Those who are not physically “abroad” or in a foreign country CANNOT truthfully claim to be “individuals” and would be committing perjury
under penalty of perjury if they signed any tax form, INCLUDING a 1040 form, identifying themselves as either an “individual” or a “U.S. individual” as
it says in the upper left corner of the 1040 form. If this limitation of the income tax ALONE were observed, then most of the fraud and crime that
plagues the system would instantly cease to exist.
12.5 “U.S. Persons” who are ALSO “persons”
26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(8) identifies “U.S. Persons” who are also “persons” under the Internal Revenue Code:
(8)Person.
For purposes of the regulations under chapter 3 of the Code, the term person shall mean a person described in section
7701(a)(1) and the regulations under that section and a U.S. branch to the extent treated as a U.S. person under
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section. For purposes of the regulations under chapter 3 of the Code, the term person does not
include a wholly-owned entity that is disregarded for federal tax purposes under § 301.7701-2(c)(2) of this chapter as an
entity separate from its owner. See paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section for procedures applicable to payments to such
entities.
[26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(8)]
The ONLY way that a human being who is a “U.S. person” physically located within the statutory “United States**” (federal zone) or states of the
Union can become a STATUTORY “person” is to:
1. Be treated wrongfully AS IF they are a “payee” by an ignorant “withholding agent” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441.
2. Be falsely PRESUMED to be a statutory “individual” or statutory “person”. All such conclusive presumptions which impair constitutional rights
are unconstititutional and impermissible as we prove in the following:
Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017
All such presumption should be FORCEFULLY CHALLENGED. Anyone making such a presumption should be DEMANDED to satisfy their
burden of proof and produce a statutory definition that expressly includes those who are either STATUTORY “citizens” or statutory “residents”.
In the absence of such a presumption, you as the victim of such an unconstitutional presumption must be presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty, which means a “non-person” and a “non-taxpayer” unless and until proven otherwise WITH COURT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE SIGNED
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE MOVING PARTY, which is the withholding agent.
3. Volunteer to fill out an unmodified or not amended IRS Form W-8 or W-9. Both forms PRESUPPOSE that the submitter is a “payee” and
therefore a “person” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(b)(2)(i). A withholding agent asserting usually falsely that you have to fill out this form MUST
make a false presumption that you are a “person” but he CANNOT make that determination without forcing you to contract or associate in
violation of law. ONLY YOU as the submitter can lawfully do that. If you say under penalty of perjury that you are NOT a statutory “person” or
“individual”, then he has to take your word for it and NOT enforce the provisions of 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 against you. If he refuses you this
right, he is committing criminal witness tampering, since the form is signed under penalty of perjury and he compelling a specific type of
testimony from you. See:
4. Fill out an IRS Form W-8. Block 1 for the name of the submitter calls the submitter an “individual”. You are NOT an “individual” since
individuals are aliens as required by 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3). Only STATUTORY “U.S. citizens” abroad can be “individuals” and you aren’t
abroad if you are either on federal territory or within a constitutional state..
The result of ALL of the above is CRIMINAL IDENTIFY THEFT at worst as described in Form #05.046, and impersonating a public officer called a
“person” and “individual” at best in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912 as described in Form #05.008.
There is also much overlap between the definition of “person” and “U.S. person”. The main LACK of overlap occurs with “individuals”. The main
reason for this difference in overlap is the fact that HUMAN BEINGS have constitutional rights while artificial entities DO NOT. Below is a table
comparing the two, keeping in mind that the above regulation refers to the items listed that both say “Yes”, but not to “individuals”:
Table 5: Comparison of "person" to "U.S. Person"
#
Type of entity “person”? “U.S. Person”
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1) 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)
1 Individual Yes No (replaced with “citizen or resident of the

United States**”)
2 Trust Yes Yes
3 Estate Yes Yes
4 Partnership Yes Yes
5 Association Yes Not listed
6 Company Yes Not listed
7 Corporation Yes (federal corporation domiciled on Yes (all corporations, including state
federal territory only) corporations)
We believe that the “citizen or resident of the United States**” listed in item 1 above and in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A) is a territorial citizen or
resident. Those domiciled in states of the Union would be NEITHER, and therefore would NOT be classified as “individuals”, even if they otherwise
satisfied the definition of “individual” found in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3). This results from the geographical definition of “United States” found in 26
U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). Below is an example of why we believe this:
26 C.F.R. §31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen
(b)…The term 'citizen of the United States' includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands,
and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
13. FOUR WITHHOLDING AND REPORTING STATUSES COMPARED
Albert Einstein is famous for saying:
“The essence of genius is simplicity”.
This section tries to simplify most of what you need to know about withholding and reporting forms and statuses into the shortest possible tabular list
that we can think of.
First we will start off by comparing the four different withholding and reporting statuses in tabular form. For each, we will compare the withholding,
reporting, and SSN/TIN requirements and where those requirements appear in the code or regulations. For details on how the statuses described
relate, refer earlier to section 12.
Jesus summarized the withholding and reporting requirements in the holy bible, and he was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Here is what He said they are:
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the
kings [governments] of the earth [lawfully] take customs or taxes, from their sons [citizens and subjects] or from strangers
["aliens", which are synonymous with "residents" in the tax code, and exclude "citizens"]?”
Peter said to Him, "From strangers ["aliens"/"residents" ONLY. See 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)
(3)]."
Jesus said to him, "Then the sons ["citizens" of the Republic, who are all sovereign "nationals" and "non-resident non-
persons" under federal law] are free [sovereign over their own person and labor. e.g. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY]. "
The table in the following pages PROVES He was absolutely right. To put it simply, the only people who don’t have rights are those whose rights are
“alienated” because they are “aliens” or what Jesus called “strangers”.
Table 6: Withholding, reporting, and SSN requirements of various civil statuses
# “Employee” “Foreign Person” “U.S. Person” “Non-Resident Non-Person”

Characteristic (see Form #05.020)
1 Defined in 26 U.S.C. See IRS website: 26 U.S.C. §7701(a) Not directly defined in code. 26
§3401(c) https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international- (30) U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) comes
taxpayers/foreign-persons closest.
2 Presumption All “aliens” are presumed to be “nonresident Payments supplied None
rule(s) aliens” by default. 26 C.F.R. §1.871-4(b). without
documentation are
presumed to be
made to a “U.S.
person” under 26
C.F.R. §1.1441-1(b)
(3)(iii).
3 Withholding Form W-4 Form W-8 1. Form W-9 1. Custom form
form(s) 2. FORM 9 2. Modified or amended Form
3. Allowed to make W-8 or Form W-9
your own Substitute 3. FORM 10
Form W-9. See 4. FORM 13
Note 10 below.
4 Withholding 26 U.S.C. §3402 Only if engaged in a “trade or business”. 26 None if mark None. All earnings are a
requirements U.S.C. §3406: Backup Withholding. “OTHER” on Form “foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C.
Withholding ONLY on “reportable W-9 and invoke 26 §7701(a)(31)
payments”, which means “trade or C.F.R. §1.1441-1(d)
business”/public office under 26 U.S.C. (1) and TD8734 (62
§6041(a).
F.R. 53391, SEDM
Exhibit #09.038)
5 Reporting form(s) Form W-2 Form 1042 Form 1099 None. Any information returns
that are filed MUST be rebutted
and corrected. See Form
#04.001
6 Reporting Only if not engaged in a “trade or None if mark None.
requirements business”/public office. See 26 U.S.C. “OTHER” on Form
[Footnote 1] §6041. 26 U.S.C. §3406 lists types of W-9 and invoke 26
“trade or business” payments that are C.F.R. §1.1441-1(d)
“reportable”. (1) and TD8734 (62
F.R. 53391, SEDM
Exhibit #09.038).
7 SSN/TIN Only if not engaged in a “trade or Yes, if eligible. Most None
Requirement business”/public office. See 26 C.F.R. are NOT under 26
[Footnote 2] §301.6109-1(b)(2), 31 C.F.R. §306.10, Note U.S.C. §6109 or the
2, and 31 C.F.R. §1020.410(b)(3)(x). Use Social Security Act.
an “INDIVIDUAL Taxpayer Identification [See Footnote 3]
Number (ITIN)”. 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(d) See 26 C.F.R.
(3) §301.6109-1(b)(1)
8 Civil status in top Any PRIVATE 1. Resident Aliens (26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1) Anyone who files the A private human being domiciled
row of this PARTY who files (A)) Form W-4 (don’t do in a constitutional state who:
column includes and thereby 2. Nonresident aliens (26 U.S.C. §7701(b) it, it’s a CRIME if you 1. Absolutely owns all of their
commits the crime (1)(B)) aren’t an elected or property; 2. Is outside the
of impersonating a appointed public statutory jurisdiction of the
public officer, 18 officer of the U.S. federal courts; 3. Owes NO
U.S.C. §912. Inc., 18 U.S.C. DUTY to any government under
§912) 26 U.S.C.. Also called a
“transient foreigner” or “stateless
person” by the courts.
9 Includes Only when abroad Yes, if you: Only when abroad No
STATUTORY under 26 U.S.C. 1. Check “individual” in block 3 of the Form under 26 U.S.C.
“individuals” as §911(d) W-8 or §911(d)
defined in 26 2. Use an “INDIVIDUAL Taxpayer
C.F.R. §1.1441- Identification Number (ITIN)”. 26 C.F.R.
1(c)(3)? §301.6109-1(d)(3).
10 Statutory Yes (because Yes, if you: Yes: No
“person” under “employees” under 1. Check “individual” in block 3 of the Form 1. “person” is
26 U.S.C. 5 U.S.C. W-8 or defined in 26 U.S.C.
§7701(a)(1)? §2105(a) are 2. Use an “INDIVIDUAL Taxpayer §7701(a)(1) to
“individuals”) Identification Number (ITIN)”. 26 C.F.R. include “individuals”
§301.6109-1(d)(3). (aliens).
2. Statutory
“citizens of the
United States**”
under 8 U.S.C.
§1401 or 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)
(A) become
“individuals” only
when abroad and
accepting tax treaty
benefits under 26
U.S.C. §911(d)
11 Citizenship NA 1. “Resident alien” 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1) 1. “citizen or 1. Fourteenth
status [Footnote (A). resident of the Amendment CONSTITUTIONAL
4] 2. “alien” 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(3). United States[**]” 26 citizen.
U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) 2. “a person who, though not a
(A) citizen of the United States,
2. “national and owes permanent allegiance to
citizen of the United the United States” 8 U.S.C.
States[**] at birth” 8 §1101(a)(22)(B).
U.S.C. §1401 3. “nationals but not citizens of
3. “citizen of the the United States[**] at birth” 8
“united States[**]” 8 U.S.C. §1408.
U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)
(A).
12 Domiciled on “Employee” office 1. No. Yes. You can’t be a No
federal territory under 5 U.S.C. 2. If you apply for an “INDIVIDUAL statutory “U.S.**
in the “United §2105(a) is Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN)” and citizen” under 8
States**” (federal domiciled in the don’t define “individual” as “non-resident U.S.C. §1401 or
zone)? District of non-person nontaxpayer” and private, you statutory “U.S.**
Columbia under 4 will be PRESUMED to consent to represent resident” under 26
U.S.C. §72 the office of statutory “individual” which is U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)
domiciled on federal territory. (A) without a
domicile on federal
territory.
13 Source of Representing an office that is domiciled in the “United States**”/federal zone under 4 Domiciled outside the federal
domicile on U.S.C. §72 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) zone and not subject. Not
federal territory representing a federal office.
14 Earnings are Yes. See Note No No No
STATUTORY 16 below for
“wages”? statutory definition
of “wages”.
15 Can “elect” to NA Yes, by accepting tax treaty benefits when Yes, by accepting Yes, by accepting tax treaty
become a abroad. 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-7. tax treaty benefits benefits when abroad. 26 C.F.R.
STATUTORY when abroad. 26 §301.7701(b)-7.
“individual”? U.S.C. §911(d) and
26 C.F.R.
§301.7701(b)-7.
NOTES:
1. All statutory “individuals” are aliens under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3). They hid this deep in the regulations instead of the code, hoping you
wouldn’t notice it. For more information on who are “persons” and “individuals” under the Internal Revenue Code, see Federal and State Tax
Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001, Section 4.12.
2. You CANNOT be a “nonresident alien” as a human being under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) WITHOUT also being a statutory “individual”,
meaning an ALIEN under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3).
3. “Civil status” means any status under any civil statute, such as “individual”, “person”, “taxpayer”, “spouse”, “driver”, etc.
4. One CANNOT have a civil status under the civil statutes of a place without EITHER:
4.1 A consensual physical domicile in that geographical place.
4.2 A consensual CONTRACT with the government of that place.
For proof of the above, see: Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002;
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm. The U.S. Supreme Court has admitted as much:
“All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public(Form #05.032)]
must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts
made with [private] individuals.”
[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]
5. Any attempt to associate or enforce a NON-CONSENSUAL civil status or obligation against a human being protected by the Constitution
because physically situated in a Constitutional state is an act of criminal identity theft, as described in:
6. The civil status of “taxpayer” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) PRESUMES the party is also a statutory “person” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1).
7. “Reportable payments” earned by “foreign persons” under 26 U.S.C. §3406 are those which satisfy ALL of the following requirements:
7.1 Connected with a “trade or business” and public office under 26 U.S.C. §6041(a).
7.2 Satisfy the requirements found in 26 U.S.C. §3406.
7.3 Earned by a statutory “employee” under 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c)-1, meaning an elected or appointed public officer of the United States
government. Note that 26 U.S.C. §3406 is in Subtitle C, which is “employment taxes” and within 26 U.S.C. Chapter 24, which is
“collection of income tax at source of wages”. Private humans don’t earn statutory “wages”.
8. Backup withholding under 26 U.S.C. §3406 is only applicable to “foreign persons” who are ALSO statutory “employees” and earning “trade or
business” or public office earnings on “reportable payments”. It is NOT applicable to those who are ANY of the following:
8.1 Not an elected or appointed public officer.
8.2 Not engaged in a “trade or business” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) and therefore not receiving “reportable payments” under 26
U.S.C. §6041(a).
9. Payments supplied without documentation are presumed to be made to a “U.S. person” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(b)(3)(iii).
10. You are allowed to make your own Substitute W-9 per 26 C.F.R. §31.3406(h)-3(c)(2). The form must include the payees name, address, and
TIN (if they have one). The form is still valid even if they DO NOT have an identifying number. See FORM 9 in section 25.9 of Federal and
State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001.
11. IRS hides the exempt status on the Form W-9 identified in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(d)(1) and TD8734 (62 F.R. 53391, SEDM Exhibit #09.038).
"As a general matter, a withholding agent (whether U.S. or foreign) must ascertain whether the payee is a U.S. or a
foreign person. If the payee is a U.S. person, the withholding provisions under chapter 3 of the Code do not apply;
however, information reporting under chapter 61 of the Code may apply; further, if a TIN is not furnished in the
manner required under section 3406, backup withholding may also apply. If the payee is a foreign person, however,
the withholding provisions under chapter 3 of the Code apply instead. To the extent withholding is required under
chapter 3 of the Code, or is excused based on documentation that must be provided, none of the information
reporting provisions under chapter 61 of the Code apply, nor do the provisions under section 3406."
[Treasury Decision 8734, 62 F.R. 53391, (October 14, 1997); SEDM Exhibit #09.038]
It appeared on the Form W-9 up to year 2011 and mysteriously disappeared from the form after that. It still applies, but invoking it is more
complicated. You have to check “Other” on the current Form W-9 and cite 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(d)(1) and TD8734 (62 F.R. 53391, SEDM
Exhibit #09.038) in the write-in block next to it.
12. Those who only want to learn the “code” and who are attorneys worried about being disbarred by a judge in cases against the government
prefer the “U.S. person” position, even in the case of state nationals. It’s a way of criminally bribing the judge to buy his favor and make the
case easier for him, even though technically it doesn’t apply to state nationals.
13. “U.S. person” should be avoided because of the following liabilities associated with such a status:
13.1 Must provide SSN/TIN pursuant to 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b)(1).
13.2 Must report foreign bank accounts.
13.3 Subject to FATCA foreign account limitations because a “taxpayer”. See:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca
14. The ONLY civil status you can have that carries NO OBLIGATION of any kind is that of a “non-resident non-person”. It is the most desirable
but the most difficult to explain and document to payors. The IRS is NEVER going to make it easy to document that you are “not subject” but
not statutorily “exempt” and therefore not a “taxpayer”. This is explained in Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers,
Form #09.001, Section 19.7.
15. Form numbers such as "FORM XX" where "XX" is the number and which are listed above derive from: Federal and State Tax Withholding
Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001, Section 25
16. Statutory “wages” are defined in:
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “wages”
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/wages.htm
FOOTNOTES:
[1] For detailed background on reporting requirements, see: Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001;
[2] See Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001, Section 19.2 for details.
[3] See: 1. Why It is Illegal for Me to Request or Use a “Taxpayer Identification Number”, Form #04.205, ; https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm; 2.
Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001, https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.
[4] For further details on citizenship, see: Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006;
14. WITHHOLDING AND REPORTING BY GEOGRAPHY

Next, we will summarize withholding and reporting statuses by geography.
Table 2: Income Tax Withholding and Reporting by Geography
Characteristic Everywhere Federal territory Federal possession States of the Union Abroad
#
1 Location Anywhere were “United States**” per Possessions listed in “United States***” as Foreign country
public offices are 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) 48 U.S.C. used in the USA
expressly authorized and (a)(10) Constitution
per 4 U.S.C. §72.
[Footnote 1]
2 Example location(s) NA District of ColumbiaAmerican Samoa California China
Swain’s Island
3 Citizenship status of NA “national and citizen of “nationals but not Fourteenth Foreign national
those born here the United States** at citizens of the United Amendment “citizen
birth” per 8 U.S.C. States** at birth” per of the United States”
§1401 8 U.S.C. §1408
4 Tax status(es) subject “Employee” per 26 1. Foreign persons 1. Foreign persons None 1. Statutory citizens
to taxation U.S.C. §3401(c) and 2. “U.S. persons” who 2. “U.S. persons” (8 U.S.C. §1401)
5 U.S.C. §2105(a) do NOT select who do NOT select domiciled in federal
“exempt” per 26 C.F.R. “exempt” per 26 zone and temporarily
§1.1441-1(d)(1) and C.F.R. §1.1441-1(d) abroad
TD8734 (62 F.R. (1) and TD8734 (62 2. Resident aliens (26
53391, SEDM Exhibit F.R. 53391, SEDM U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)
#09.038) Exhibit #09.038) (A)) domiciled in the
federal zone and
temporarily abroad.
5 Authority for taxation 26 U.S.C. Subtitle C 26 U.S.C. §1. See 26 U.S.C. §1. See None 1. 26 U.S.C. §1. See
of those subject to Note 1 below. Note 1 below. Note 1 below.
taxation 2. 26 U.S.C. §911
3. 26 C.F.R.
§301.7701(b)-7
6 Taxability of “foreign NA The main “taxpayers” The main “taxpayers” The main “taxpayers” None
persons” here
7 Taxability of “U.S. NA Only if STUPID Only if STUPID Not taxable
persons” here enough not to take the enough not to take
26 C.F.R. §1.1441- the 26 C.F.R.
1(d)(1) and TD8734 §1.1441-1(d)(1) and
(62 F.R. 53391, SEDM TD8734 (62 F.R.
Exhibit #09.038) 53391, SEDM Exhibit
exemption #09.038) exemption
8 Taxability of “Non- None. You can’t be a None None None None
Resident Non- “non-resident non-
Persons” here person” and an
“employee” at the
same time
9 SSN/TIN Always 1. Yes for “U.S. 1. Yes for “U.S. Only for present or Only for present or
Requirement[Footnote persons”, 26 C.F.R. persons”, 26 C.F.R. former public officers former public officers
2] §301.6109-1(b)(1). §301.6109-1(b)(1). of the national of the national
2. No for “nonresident 2. No for government engaged government engaged
aliens” not engaged in “nonresident aliens” in federal franchises. in federal franchises.
a “trade or business”, not engaged in a The SSN/TIN is what The SSN/TIN is what
31 C.F.R. §306.10, “trade or business”, the Federal Trade the Federal Trade
Note 2, 31 C.F.R. 31 C.F.R. §306.10, Commission calls a Commission calls a
§1020.410(b)(3)(x), Note 2, 31 C.F.R. “franchise mark”. “franchise mark”.
and 26 C.F.R. §1020.410(b)(3)(x),
§301.6109-1(b)(2). and 26 C.F.R.
3. Yes for §301.6109-1(b)(2).
“nonresident aliens” 3. Yes for
with “reportable “nonresident aliens”
payments” connected with “reportable
to “trade or business”. payments” connected
26 U.S.C. §3406. to “trade or
business”. 26 U.S.C.
§3406.
10 Withholding form(s) Form W-4 1. “U.S. Person”: Form 1. “U.S. Person”: None 1. “U.S. Person”:
W-9 Form W-9 Form W-9
2. “Nonresident Alien”: 2. “Nonresident 2. “Nonresident
Form W-8 Alien”: Form W-8 Alien”: Form W-8
11 Withholding 26 U.S.C. §3401 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 1. None for private 1. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-
Requirements people or companies 1 for U.S.
2. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441- government and
1 for U.S. government federal corporations.
instrumentalities. 2. None for private
companies that are
not federal
corporations.
12 Reporting form(s) Form W-2 1. “U.S. Person”: Form 1. “U.S. Person”: 1. None for private 1. None for private
See Note 1099 Form 1099 people or companies people or companies
2. “Nonresident Alien”: 2. “Nonresident 2. “U.S. Person”: 2. “U.S. Person”:
Form 1042 Alien”: Form 1042 Form 1099 for U.S. Form 1099 for U.S.
government government
instrumentalities. instrumentalities.
3. “Nonresident 3. “Nonresident
Alien”: Form 1042 for Alien”: Form 1042 for
U.S. government U.S. government
instrumentalities. instrumentalities.
13 Reporting 26 U.S.C. §6041 26 U.S.C. §6041 26 U.S.C. §6041 26 U.S.C. §6041 26 U.S.C. §6041
Requirements
NOTES:
1. The term “wherever resident” used in 26 U.S.C. §1 means wherever the entity referred to has the CIVIL STATUS of “resident” as defined in 26
U.S.C. §7701(b)(1). It DOES NOT mean wherever the entity is physically located. The civil status “resident” and “resident alien”, in turn, are
synonymous. PRESUMING that “wherever resident” is a physical presence is an abuse of equivocation to engage in criminal identity theft of
“nontaxpayers”. See:
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004, Section 8.20
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FlawedArgsToAvoid.pdf
2. “United States” as used in the Internal Revenue Code is defined as follows:
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof
—
(9) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry
out provisions of this title.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 4 - THE STATES
Sec. 110. Same; definitions
(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
3. Limitations on Geographical definitions:

3.1. It is a violation of the rules of statutory construction and interpretation and a violation of the separation of powers for any judge or
government worker to ADD anything to the above geographical definitions.
“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of
one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d. 321, 325; Newblock v.
Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d. 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain
persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its
operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes
to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that
term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory
definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n.
10 ("As a rule, à definition which declares what a term "means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'");
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S.
87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction §
47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read "as a whole," post at
998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include
the Attorney General's restriction -- "the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial portion," indicate the
contrary."
3.2. Comity or consent of either states of the Union or people in them to consent to “include” constitutional states of the Union within the
geographical definitions is NOT ALLOWED, per the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law enacted into law on the first page
of the Statutes At Large.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, -“
[Declaration of Independence]
“Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.”
3.3. Here is what the designer of our three branch system of government said about allowing judges to become legislators in the process
of ADDING things not in the statutes to the meaning of any term used in the statutes:
“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of
magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or
senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive.
Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for
the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with
violence and oppression [sound familiar?].
There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or
of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public
resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”
[. . .]
In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are
possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of
legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the
judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”
[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, 1758, Book XI, Section 6;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]
4. Congress is forbidden by the U.S. Supreme Court to offer or enforce any taxable franchise within the borders of a constitutional state. This
case has never been overruled.
“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with
the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the
same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses
may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.
But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this
commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs
exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State
is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly
granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive
power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is
given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it
must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and
thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects.
Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.”
[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]
5. For an exhaustive catalog of all the word games played by government workers to unconstitutionally usurp jurisdiction they do not have in
criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455, see:
6. The Income tax described in 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A is an excise and a franchise tax upon public offices in the national government. Hence, it is
only enforceable upon elected or appointed officers or public officers (contractors) of the national government. See:
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
7. It is a CRIME to either file or use as evidence in any tax enforcement proceeding any information return that was filed against someone who is
NOT engaged in a public office. Most information returns are false and therefore the filers should be prosecuted for crime by the Department
of Justice. The reason they aren’t is because they are BRIBED by the proceeds resulting from these false returns to SHUT UP about the
crime. See:
Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001
DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/0-CorrErrInfoRtns/CorrErrInfoRtns.pdf
8. The Internal Revenue Code only regulates PUBLIC conduct of PUBLIC officers on official business. The ability to regulate PRIVATE rights and
PRIVATE property is prohibited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a
constitution. 194 B.R. at 925. "
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]
“A private person cannot make constitutions or laws, nor can he with authority construe them, nor can he administer
or execute them.”
[United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883); The word “execute” includes either obeying
or being subject to]
“All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public (Form #05.032)]
must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts
made with [private] individuals.”
[Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824)]
“A defendant sued as a wrong-doer, who seeks to substitute the state in his place, or to justify by the authority of the
state, or to defend on the ground that the state has adopted his act and exonerated him, cannot rest on the bare
assertion of his defense. He is bound to establish it. The state is a political corporate body, can act only through
agents, and can command only by laws. It is necessary, therefore, for such a defendant, in order to complete his
defense, to produce a law of the state which constitutes his commission as its agent, and a warrant for his act.”
[Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)]
“The power to "legislate generally upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of
redress" against offensive state action, was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v.
Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127,
139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g.,
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), their
treatment of Congress' §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.”
[City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]
9. You can’t simultaneously be a “taxpayer” who is “subject” to the Internal Revenue Code AND someone who is protected by the Constitution
and especially the Bill of Rights. The two conditions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Below are the only documented techniques by which the
protections of the Constitutions can be forfeited:
9.1. Standing on a place not protected by the Constitution, such as federal territory or abroad.
9.2. Invoking the “benefits”, “privileges”, or “immunities” offered by any statute. The cite below is called the “Brandeis Rules”:
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)]
10. Constitutional protections such as the Bill of Rights attach to LAND, and NOT to the civil status of the people ON the land. The protections of
the Bill of Rights do not attach to you because you are a statutory “person”, “individual”, or “taxpayer”, but because of the PLACE YOU ARE
STANDING at the time you receive an injury from a transgressing government agent.
“It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not
the status of the people who live in it.”
[Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)]
You can only lose the protections of the Constitutions by changing your LOCATION, not by consenting to give up constitutional protections.
We prove this in:
Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038

DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See: Secretary's Authority in the Several States Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. 72, Family Guardian Fellowship;
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/BriefRegardingSecretary-4usc72.pdf.
[2] See About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012; https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.
15. 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” 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 someone 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.
The I.R.C. Subtitles A and C therefore constitute the terms of the 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:
1. 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
2. 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, and therefore are not property granted or LOANED or
rented to the inhabitants therein as a privilege.
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)]
Because federal enclaves within the constitutional states are government property, they are subject to income taxation as an excise among those
consensually domiciled therein.
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:
1. A physical presence in that place. The status would be under the COMMON law.
2. CONSENSUALLY doing business in that place. The status would be under the common law.
3. A domicile in that place. This would be a status under the civil statutes of that place.
4. CONSENSUALLY representing an artificial entity (a legal fiction) that has a domicile in that place. This would be a status under the civil
statutes of that place.
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:
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
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.
16. REBUTTAL OF THOSE WHO FRAUDULENTLY CHALLENGE OR TRY TO EXPAND THE STATUTORY
DEFINITIONS IN THIS ARTICLE
The main purpose of law is to limit government power. The foundation of what it means to have a "society of law and not men" is law that limits government
powers. We cover this in Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 5. Government cannot have limited powers without DEFINITIONS
in the written law that are limiting and which define and declare ALL THINGS that are included and implicitly exclude all things not expressly identified. The
rules of statutory construction and interpretation recognize this critical function of law with the following maxims:
“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the
exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d. 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d. 1097,
1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or
will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception
to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary
meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated
meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, à definition which declares what a term
"means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'"); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v.
Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory
Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read "as a whole," post at 998
[530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's
restriction -- "the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial portion," indicate the contrary."
The ability to define terms or ADD to the EXISTING statutory definition of terms is a LEGISLATIVE function that can lawfully and constitutionally be exercised
ONLY by the Legislative Branch of the government. The power to define or expand the definition of statutory terms:
1. CANNOT lawfully be exercised by either a judge or a government prosecutor or the Internal Revenue Service.
2. CANNOT be exercised by making PRESUMPTIONS about what a term means or by enforcing the COMMON meaning of the term that is already
defined in a statute. See Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017:
“It is apparent,' this court said in the Bailey Case ( 219 U.S. 239 , 31 S.Ct. 145, 151) 'that a constitutional prohibition
cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by
direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.”
[Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)]
A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or
otherwise established in the action. A presumption is not evidence. A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable.
Every rebuttable presumption is either (a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or (b) a presumption
affecting the burden of proof. Calif.Evid.Code, §600.
In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a
presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the
presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains
throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. Federal Evidence Rule 301.
See also Disputable presumption; inference; Juris et de jure; Presumptive evidence; Prima facie; Raise a presumption.
3. Unlawfully and unconstitutionally violates the separation of powers when it IS exercised by a judge or government prosecutor. See Government
Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023.
4. Produces the following consequences when it IS exercised by a judge or government prosecutor or administrative agency. The statement below was
written by the man who DESIGNED our three branch system of government. He also described in his design how it can be subverted, and corrupt
government actors have implemented his techniques for subversion to unlawfully and unconstitutionally expand their power:
“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there
can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws,
to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined
with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the
legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound
familiar?].
There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people,
to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the
causes of individuals.”
[. . .]
In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as
executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the
state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private
citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.”
[The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, Book XI, Section 6, 1758;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]
Any judge, prosecutor, or clerk in an administrative agency who tries to EXPAND or ADD to statutory definitions is violating all the above. Likewise, anyone
who tries to QUOTE a judicial opinion that adds to a statutory definition is violating the separation of powers, usurping authority, and STEALING your property
and rights. It is absolutely POINTLESS and an act of ANARCHY, lawlessness, and a usurpation to try to add to statutory definitions.
The most prevalent means to UNLAWFULLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY add to statutory definitions is through the abuse of the words "includes" or
"including". That tactic is thoroughly described and rebutted in:
Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 15.2

Government falsely accuses sovereignty advocates of practicing anarchy, but THEY, by trying to unlawfully expand statutory definitions through either the
abuse of the word "includes" or through PRESUMPTION, are the REAL anarchists. That anarchy is described in Disclaimer, section 4 as follows:
Family Guardian Disclaimer
Section 4: Meaning of Words
The term "anarchy" implies any one or more of the following, and especially as regards so-called "governments". An important goal
of this site it to eliminate all such "anarchy":
1. Are superior in any way to the people they govern UNDER THE LAW.
2. Are not directly accountable to the people or the law. They prohibit the PEOPLE from criminally prosecuting their own
crimes, reserving the right to prosecute to their own fellow criminals. Who polices the police? THE CRIMINALS.
3. Enact laws that exempt themselves. This is a violation of the Constitutional requirement for equal protection and equal
treatment and constitutes an unconstitutional Title of Nobility in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States
Constitution.
4. Only enforce the law against others and NOT themselves, as a way to protect their own criminal activities by persecuting
dissidents. This is called “selective enforcement”. In the legal field it is also called “professional courtesy”. Never kill the
goose that lays the STOLEN golden eggs.
5. Break the laws with impunity. This happens most frequently when corrupt people in government engage in “selective
enforcement”, whereby they refuse to prosecute or interfere with the prosecution of anyone in government. The Department
of Justice (D.O.J.) or the District Attorney are the most frequent perpetrators of this type of crime.
6. Are able to choose which laws they want to be subject to, and thus refuse to enforce laws against themselves. The most
frequent method for this type of abuse is to assert sovereign, official, or judicial immunity as a defense in order to protect the
wrongdoers in government when they are acting outside their delegated authority, or outside what the definitions in the
statutes EXPRESSLY allow.
7. Impute to themselves more rights or methods of acquiring rights than the people themselves have. In other words, who are
the object of PAGAN IDOL WORSHIP because they possess “supernatural” powers. By “supernatural”, we mean that which
is superior to the “natural”, which is ordinary human beings.
8. Claim and protect their own sovereign immunity, but refuse to recognize the same EQUAL immunity of the people from whom
that power was delegated to begin with. Hypocrites.
9. Abuse sovereign immunity to exclude either the government or anyone working in the government from being subject to the
laws they pass to regulate everyone ELSE’S behavior. In other words, they can choose WHEN they want to be a statutory
“person” who is subject, and when they aren’t. Anyone who has this kind of choice will ALWAYS corruptly exclude
themselves and include everyone else, and thereby enforce and implement an unconstitutional “Title of Nobility” towards
themself. On this subject, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the following:
"No man in this country [including legislators of the government as a legal person] is so high that he is
above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the
government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the
only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its
functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it
imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives," 106 U.S., at 220. "Shall it be said... that the courts
cannot give remedy when the Citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and
converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and
without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be
the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor
in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal
rights," 106 U.S., at 220, 221.
[United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S. Ct. 240 (1882)]
10. Have a monopoly on anything, INCLUDING “protection”, and who turn that monopoly into a mechanism to force EVERYONE
illegally to be treated as uncompensated public officers in exchange for the “privilege” of being able to even exist or earn a
living to support oneself.
11. Can tax and spend any amount or percentage of the people’s earnings over the OBJECTIONS of the people.
12. Can print, meaning illegally counterfeit, as much money as they want to fund their criminal enterprise, and thus to be
completely free from accountability to the people.
13. Deceive and/or lie to the public with impunity by telling you that you can’t trust anything they say, but force YOU to sign
everything under penalty of perjury when you want to talk to them. 26 U.S.C. §6065.
[Family Guardian Disclaimer, Section 4: Meaning of Words; https://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm]
For further information on the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation, also called "textualism", and their use in defending against the fraudulent
tactics in this section, see the following, all of which are consistent with the analysis in this section:
1. How Judges Unconstitutionally "Make Law", Litigation Tool #01.009-how by VIOLATING the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation, judges
are acting in a POLITICAL rather than JUDICIAL capacity and unconstitutionally "making law".
http://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/HowJudgesMakeLaw.pdf
2. Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 13.9. Section 15 talks about how these rules are UNCONSTITUTIONALLY violated
by corrupt judges with a criminal financial conflict of interest.
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf
3. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan A Garner (OFFSITE LINK) -book about statutory
interpretation
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Law-Interpretation-Legal-Texts/dp/031427555X
4. Statutory Interpretation, by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (OFFSITE LINK)
https://sedm.org/statutory-interpretation-justice-scalia/
5. Collection of U.S. Supreme Court Legal Maxims, Litigation Tool #10.216, U.S. Department of Justice
https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/USSupremeCourtMaxims_1993-1998-Governmentattic.org.pdf
6. Reinquist Court Canons of Statutory Construction, Litigation Tool #10.217
https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/Rehnquist_Court_Canons_citations.pdf
7. Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends, Congressional Research Service Report 97-589, Litigation Tool #10.215
https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/Statutory%20Interpretation.General.Principles.MARCH.30.2006.CRS97-589.pdf
8. Family Guardian Forum 7.5: Word Games that STEAL from and deceive people
https://famguardian.org/forums/forum/7-issue-and-research-debates-anyone-can-read-only-members-can-post/75-word-games-that-steal-from-and-
deceive-people/
For a video that emphasizes the main point of this section, watch the following:
Courts Cannot Make Law Music Video
The above video is also found at:
https://sedm.org/courts-cannot-make-law/
Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship Last revision: 8/16/2009

Home About Contact This private system is NOT subject to monitoring

Citizenship Status V. Tax Status: Table of Contents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citizenship Status V. Tax Status: Table of Contents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/4/22, 7:48 AM Citizenship Status v.

CITIZENSHIP STATUS V. TAX STATUS

1. The Four "United States"

WARNING ABOUT USE OF LABELS OR CIVIL STATUTORY STATUSES TO DESCRIBE YOURSELF:

"And he who sees Me sees Him [God] who sent Me."

[Ricker's Petition, 66 N.H. 207 (1890)]

Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]

1. What is "law"?, Form #05.048

Related offsite articles

"Dolosus versatur generalibus. A deceiver deals in generals. 2 Co. 34."

"Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions."

[Wikipedia topic: Equivocation, Downloaded 9/15/2015; SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation]

“I hate the double-minded, But I love Your law.”

1. THE FOUR "UNITED STATES"

Table 1: Geographical terms used throughout this page

Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Sections 4 and 5

2. STATUTORY V. CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXTS

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023

3. STATUTORY v. CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENS

(9) United States

TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

Title 26: Internal Revenue

Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046

4. SUMMARY OF CITIZENSHIP STATUS v. TAX STATUS

Table 2: “Citizenship status” vs. “Income tax status”

5. EFFECT OF DOMICILE ON CITIZENSHIP STATUS

6. MEANING OF GEOGRAPHICAL WORDS OF ART

Table 4: Meaning of geographic "words of art"

1. Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023

[1]See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 6017.

7. CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE OPTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS

8. FOUR TYPES OF AMERICAN NATIONALS

9. FEDERAL STATUTORY CITIZENSHIP STATUSES DIAGRAM

Figure 2: Federal Statutory Citizenship Statuses

10. CITIZENSHIP STATUS ON GOVERNMENT FORMS

11. CAPITALIZATION WITHIN STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, form #05.030

Title 26: Internal Revenue

(c) Presumption rebutted—

(1) Departing alien.

Title 26: Internal Revenue

(b) Residence defined.

26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) Resident alien

(b) Definition of resident alien and nonresident alien

For purposes of this title (other than subtitle B) -

(A) Resident alien

(i) Lawfully admitted for permanent residence

(ii) Substantial presence test

Such individual meets the substantial presence test of paragraph (3).

(iii) First year election

Such individual makes the election provided in paragraph (4).

Title 26: Internal Revenue

We should also point out that:

1. There are literally BILLIONS of aliens throughout the world.

Title 28 › Part IV › Chapter 97 › § 1605

12.2 “U.S. Persons”

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

(30) United States person

(A) a citizen or resident of the United States[**],

(9) United States

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701