CONSTITUTION SOCIETY
DISCLAIMER/LICENSE AGREEMENT

Back to home

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

  1. Introduction
  2. Intended/Authorized Audience of this Website
  3. Sovereign Immunity
  4. Meaning of Words
  5. Copyright/Software License Agreement
  6. Basis for Belief
  7. Government Agreement with Our Materials and Invitation to Rebut Evidence of Government Wrongdoing
  8. Approach Towards Violence and Terrorism
  9. Approach Towards "Hate Speech" and Hate Crime

1. INTRODUCTION

The content of this page supersedes and is controlling over:

  1. Every other page, file, electronic book, video, or audio available on this website or third party websites it has been posted on, such as Youtube, Google Books, Google Play, Archive.org, Scribd.com, Linked in, Amazon.com, etc.
  2. Every communication with, to, or about any fellowship officer or member.
  3. Every service offered by this website.
  4. Every dispute in any court relating to materials or services available through this website or from any Society officer. This includes third party websites that the content on this site has been posted on.

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

There are only four exceptions to the above paragraph relating to our own speech or publications, which are that the following information are both FACT and ARE admissible as evidence in their entirety in any court of law because they must be admissible as evidence in order to protect Society Officers and Members from unlawful acts of persecution by a corrupted government.

  1. This Disclaimer page available at //constitution.org/0-Navigation/disclaimer.htm
  2. About Us page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Not physically present on federal territory.
  2. Not domiciled on federal territory. See Form #05.002.
  3. Not consenting to any government franchise, public right, or privilege. See Form #05.030.
  4. Does not share ownership of any of their property with any government  All property is absolutely owned.  Ownership of all property is not “qualified ownership” and is not shared with any government. See Form #12.025.
  5. Not consenting to do business with any government and thus waive sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97.
  6. Not claiming any statutory civil status or any of the “benefits” of such status under any act of any government. See Form #13.008.
  7. A "Merchant" under U.C.C. §2-104(1) but not a "Buyer" under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a) in relation to said government. This is the ONLY relation that God allows with any government.
  8. Invoking the Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027 for all commercial relations with any government. This makes them waive official, judicial, and sovereign immunity for any commercial uses of the name or status of the member that would "benefit" any government.

2. INTENDED/AUTHORIZED AUDIENCE OF THIS WEBSITE

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

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

For a definition of "tax information or services", see Important Note, Section 3.

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

This website and the materials on it were prepared for the use of the authors only by themselves.  Any use of the terms "you", "your", "individuals", "people", "persons", "we recommend", "you should", "we" or "our readers", "readers", "those", "most Americans", "employers", "employees", and all similar references either on the website or in any verbal communications or correspondence with our readers is directed at the author(s) and not other readers.   The only exception to this rule are the following, which apply to the author(s) or Society PLUS anyone else reading, using, or downloading any of the materials on this site:

  1. This Disclaimer page available at //constitution.org/0-Navidation/disclaimer.htm
  2. About Us page.

All the authors are doing by posting these materials is sharing with others the results of their extensive research and the play book they developed only for use by themselves.   Consequently, how those materials impact or influence others is of no concern or consequence to the authors, and no motive may be attributed to any statements by the authors that would appear to be directed at third parties, because such statements are actually directed at themselves only.  How readers use or apply the materials appearing here is entirely their choice and we assume no responsibility for how they act, or fail to act, based on the use of these materials.  This approach is no different from that of the federal government, where the term " employee" in the Internal Revenue Code is made to "appear" like it applies to everyone, but in fact it only applies to federal agents, officers, and instrumentalities of the United States government, all of whom are described in 26 U.S.C. §6331(a).   Any effort on the part of the government to redefine the words we use to mean anything other than what we define them to mean is an admission that we don't have First Amendment Rights, and such an act is an act of Treason punishable by death.  How can a person have First Amendment rights if the authors can't even define the meaning of the words they use?  How can the government claim that we have equal protection of the laws guaranteed under the Constitution (see Article 4, Section 2 and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Declaration of Independence) if they can define the meaning of the words they use in their void for vagueness "codes", but we can't define the meaning of the words we use in our writings and must rely on some government lawyer or judge with a conflict of interest (in violation of 28 U.S.C. §144, 28 U.S.C. §455, and 18 U.S.C. §208) to define or redefine them to have a meaning other than what we use?  Hypocrisy!

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

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

Any attempt to associate any member or officer of this Society with any status OTHER than that described in this section is hereby stipulated by all parties concerned to be a criminal attempt at identity theft as described in the following:

PDF Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046

3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Click here for a detailed explanation of why this website, this Society, and its officers, volunteers, and workers are entirely immune from federal and state jurisdiction relating to the materials posted here or any activities associated with them.

4. MEANINGS OF WORDS

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

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

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

Flash Word Crimes (OFFSITE LINK)

The definitions in this section are MANDATORY in any interaction between either the government or any of its agents or officers and any agent or member of this Society.

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

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

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

  1. In possession of absolute, exclusive ownership and control over their own labor, body, and all their property. In Roman Law this was called "dominium".
  2. On an EQUAL rather than inferior relationship to government in court. This means that they have no obligations to any government OTHER than possibly the duty to serve on jury and vote upon voluntary acceptance of the obligations of the civil status of “citizen” (and the DOMICILE that creates it). Otherwise, they are entirely free and unregulated unless and until they INJURE the equal rights of another under the common law.
  3. A "nonresident" in relation to the state and federal government.
  4. Not a PUBLIC entity defined within any state or federal statutory law. This includes but is not limited to statutory "person", "individual", "taxpayer", "driver", "spouse" under any under any civil statute or franchise.
  5. Not engaged in a public office or "trade or business" (per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)). Such offices include but are not limited to statutory "person", "individual", "taxpayer", "driver", "spouse" under any civil statute or franchise.
    "PRIVATE PERSON. An individual who is not the incumbent of an office."
    [Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1359]
  6. Not consenting to contract with or acquire any public status, public privilege, or public right under any state or federal franchise. For instance, the phrase "private employee" means a common law worker that is NOT the statutory "employe" defined within 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) or 26 C.F.R. §301.3401(c )-1 or any other federal or state law or statute.
  7. Not sharing ownership or control of their body or property with anyone, and especially a government. In other words:
    7.1 Ownership is not "qualified" but "absolute".
    7.2 There are no moities between them and the government.
    7.3 The government has no usufructs over any of their property.
  8. Not subject to civil enforcement or regulation of any kind, except AFTER an injury to the equal rights of others has occurred. Preventive rather than corrective regulation is an unlawful taking of property according to the Fifth Amendment takings clause.
  9. Not "privileged" or party to a franchise of any kind:

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

    “Is it a franchise? A franchise is said to be a right reserved to the people by the constitution, as the elective franchise. Again, it is said to be a privilege conferred by grant from government, and vested in one or more individuals, as a public office. Corporations, or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known to our laws. In England they are very numerous, and are defined to be royal privileges in the hands of a subject. An information will lie in many cases growing out of these grants, especially where corporations are concerned, as by the statute of 9 Anne, ch. 20, and in which the public have an interest. In 1 Strange R. ( The King v. Sir William Louther,) it was held that an information of this kind did not lie in the case of private rights, where no franchise of the crown has been invaded.
    If this is so--if in England a privilege existing in a subject, which the king alone could grant, constitutes it a franchise--in this country, under our institutions, a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which could not be exercised without a legislative grant, would also be a franchise.”
    [People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859) ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________

FOOTNOTES:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDF Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002

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

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

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

  1. A physical presence in that place. The status would be under the COMMON law.  Common law is based on physical location of people on land rather than their statutory status.
  2. CONSENSUALLY doing business in that place. The status would be under the common law.  See the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 and International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
  3. A domicile in that place. This would be a status under the civil statutes of that place. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a).
  4. CONSENSUALLY representing an artificial entity (a legal fiction) that has a domicile in that place. This would be a status under the civil statutes of that place. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).
  5. Consenting to a civil status under the laws of that place.  Anything done consensually cannot form the basis for an injury in a court of law.  Such consent is usually manifested by filling out a government form identifying yourself with a specific statutory status, such as a W-4, 1040, driver license application, etc.  This is covered in:
    Avoiding Traps in Government Forms Course, Form #12.023
    https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

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

PDF Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046

"civil status" is further discussed in:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman statesman Cicero defined law as follows:

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

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

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

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

[. . .]

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.

__________________

FOOTNOTES:

FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108.
[Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]

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

[. . .]

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

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

__________________

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDF Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDF Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025

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

PDF What is "law"?, Form #05.048

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

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

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

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

FRANCHISE. A special privilege conferred by government on individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right. Elliott v. City of Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358, 360.  In England it is defined to be a royal privilege in the hands of a subject.

A "franchise," as used by Blackstone in defining quo warranto, (3 Com. 262 [4th Am. Ed.] 322), had reference to a royal privilege or branch of the king's prerogative subsisting in the hands of the subject, and must arise from the king's grant, or be held by prescription, but today we understand a franchise to be some special privilege conferred by government on an individual, natural or artificial, which is not enjoyed by its citizens in general.   State v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 639, 86 A.L.R. 240.

In this country a franchise is a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. To be a corporation is a franchise. The various powers conferred on corporations are franchises. The execution of a policy of insurance by an insurance company [e.g. Social Insurance/Socialist Security], and the issuing a bank note by an incorporated bank [such as a Federal Reserve NOTE], are franchises. People v. Utica Ins. Co.. 15 Johns., N.Y., 387, 8 Am.Dec. 243. But it does not embrace the property acquired by the exercise of the franchise.  Bridgeport v.  New York & N. H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255, 4 Arn.Rep. 63. Nor involve interest in land acquired by grantee. Whitbeck v. Funk, 140 Or. 70, 12 P.2d 1019, 1020.   In a popular sense, the political rights of subjects and citizens are franchises, such as the right of suffrage. etc. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H. 484 ; State v. Black Diamond Co., 97 Ohio St. 24, 119 N.E. 195, 199, L.R.A.l918E, 352.

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

Exclusive Franchise. See Exclusive Privilege or Franchise.

General and Special. The charter of a corporation is its "general" franchise, while a "special" franchise consists in any rights granted by the public to use property for a public use but-with private profit. Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212, 81 N. E. 443, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 420.

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

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

Special Franchisee. See Secondary Franchises, supra.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [. . .]

    Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell's and Raddatz' recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution.    Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right [a “privilege” or “public right” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress' power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress' power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.

    [Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]
  2. Any type of privilege, immunity, or exemption granted by a statute to a specific class of people and not to all people generally that is not found in the Constitution. All such statues are referred to as "special law" or "private law", where the government itself is acting in a private rather than a public capacity on an equal footing with every other private human in equity. The U.S. Supreme court also called such legislation "class legislation" in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and the ONLY "class" they can be talking about are public officers in the U.S. government and not to all people generally. See Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a "Public Officer" For Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008 for proof:

    “special law. One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally.  A private law.  A law is "special" when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field of action or operation.  A "special law" relates to either particular persons, places, or things or to persons, places, or things which, though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but not such legislation, be applied.  Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass'n, Utah, 564 P.2d. 751, 754.  A special law applies only to an individual or a number of individuals out of a single class similarly situated and affected, or to a special locality.  Board of County Com'rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d. 361, 362.  See also Private bill; Private law.  Compare General law; Public law.” 
    [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398]

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

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

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

__________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For further details on government franchises, see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The term "state national" means those who are born in a Constitutional but not Statutory "State" as described in the Fourteenth Amendment. Equivalent to a "non-citizen national of the United States OF AMERICA". EXCLUDES any of the following:

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

The term is equivalent to "American National" as used by the Department of State in 8 U.S.C. §1502. "state" for a foreign national = the country of which that person is a national. "state" for an American national is the United States of America, or just America. "state" is not defined in 8 U.S.C. although "State" is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(36) and they are NOT equivalent. See 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) for another reference to a "state national". Remember the context of 8 U.S.C. §1101 is immigration and nationality. So when we speak of a state in this context, we are talking about international states. In that context, American nationality (or U.S. nationality) is what we are---nationality of California is meaningless in this context. So to say you are a national of California is to say you are a national of the United States[***] OF AMERICA or an American National.

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

State

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

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

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

  1. Not domiciled on federal territory and not representing a corporate or governmental office that is so domiciled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17.
  2. Not engaged in a public office within any government. This includes the civil office of "person", "individual", "citizen", or "resident". See Form #05.037 and Form #05.042 for court-admissible proof that statutory "persons", "individuals", "citizens", and "residents" are public offices.
  3. Not "purposefully or consensually availing themself" of commerce with any government. Therefore, they do not waive sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97.
  4. Owes no CIVIL obligations to any government or any STATUTORY "citizen" or STATUTORY "resident", as "obligations" are described in California Civil Code Section 1428. This means they are not party to any contracts or compacts and have injured NO ONE as injury is defined NOT by statute, but by the common law. See Form #12.040 for further details on the definition of "obligations". Because they owe no civil obligations, the definition of "justice" REQUIRES that they MUST be left alone by the government. See Form #05.050 for a description of "justice".
  5. Waives any and all privileges and immunities of any civil status and all rights or "entitlements" to receive "benefits" or "civil services" from any government. It is a maxim of law that REAL de jure governments (Form #05.043) MUST give you the right to not receive or be eligible to receive "benefits" of any kind. See Form #05.040 for a description of the SCAM of abusing "benefits" to destroy sovereignty. The reason is because they MUST guarantee your right to be self-governing and self-supporting:

    Invito beneficium non datur.
    No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.

    Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est.
    A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.

    Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto.
    Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
    [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
    SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

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

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

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

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

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

“We have repeatedly held that, as to property reserved by its owner for private use, "the right to exclude [others is] `one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.' " Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 433 (1982), quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979). “
[Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825  (1987)]

__________________________________________________________

“In this case, we hold that the "right to exclude," so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right,[11] falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation.”
[Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)]

__________________

FOOTNOTES:

[11] See, e. g., United States v. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 206 Ct.Cl. 649, 669-670, 513 F.2d. 1383, 1394 (1975); United States v. Lutz, 295 F.2d. 736, 740 (CA5 1961). As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis, "[a]n essential element of individual property is the legal right to exclude others from enjoying it." International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 250 (1918) (dissenting opinion).

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Shall be based FIRST upon statutory definitions provided.
  2. Shall conclusively be presumed to EXCLUDE the ordinary or EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE civil context for the meaning of words.  This is because the ability to regulate EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE conduct is REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION as held by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  3. Shall rely FIRST on the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites By Topic for the statutory definitions.
  4. May not ADD anything not EXPRESSLY appearing in any statute in which they are defined, if a statutory definition is provided. Any attempt to do so shall be interpreted as TREASON by the judge or government prosecutor who attempts it.

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

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

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

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

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

Geographical terms:  The following geographical definitions apply within the context of discussions about law.

Law Federal constitution Federal statutes Federal regulations State constitutions State statutes State regulations
Author Union States/
”We The People”		 Federal Government “We The People” State Government
“state” Foreign country Union state or foreign country Union state or foreign country Other Union state or federal government Other Union state or federal government Other Union state or federal government
“State” Union state Federal state Federal state Union state Union state Union state
“in this State” or “in the State”[1] NA NA NA NA Federal enclave within state Federal enclave within state
“State”[2] (State Revenue and taxation code only) NA NA NA NA Federal enclave within state Federal enclave within state
“several States” Union states collectively[3] Federal “States” collectively Federal “States” collectively Federal “States” collectively Federal “States” collectively Federal “States” collectively
“United States” states of the Union collectively Federal United States** Federal United States** United States* the country Federal United States** Federal United 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 book.  In the context of the above, a “Union State” means one of the 50 Union states of the United States* (the country, not the federal United States**) mentioned in the Constitution for the United States of America.

FOOTNOTES:

[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.

5. COPYRIGHT/SOFTWARE/USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

This website consists of both copyrighted information and computer software.  Use of this web site or any of the materials found on it constitutes an implied and mandatory agreement by the reader to respect the copyright and Software User License below applying to all information offered on this site and all communications with us by any means.:

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

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

    1.2  An unlawful purpose.

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

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

    7.1  To admit THE ENTIRE website into evidence (except the rebuttal letters), including but not limited to the Tax Deposition CD, Form #11.301, the Family Guardian Website DVD, Form #11.103, the Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, etc..  No part of the website can be admitted without the ENTIRE website also being admitted and subject to examination by the jury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  10. Members who violate this agreement, who work either directly for the government in the legal or tax profession or as contractors for these functions, and who participate as either witnesses, informants, litigants, or representatives in any litigation directed against this Society or its volunteers, members, or officers agree to a personal liability/fine of $300,000 payable out of their private funds and which they agree NOT to accept reimbursement for from the government. Payment shall occur BEFORE any trial is heard which involves them and is against this Society. Government employees and/or informants involved as either plaintiffs, defendants, or witnesses in litigation directed against the Society or its agents also stipulate NOT to accept or use government counsel in their defense or offense, and instead to either handle the case personally or hire a private attorney at their own expense.
  11. Always use the very latest version of any information provided on this website in any litigation, and to dispose of and stipulate NOT to admit into evidence any information that it older.

  12. Bring any inaccurate statements noted on this website, in any educational materials we provide, or in any of our statements to our attention immediately at the time noticed and give us an opportunity to remedy it BEFORE pursuing either: 1. A refund for a bookstore item the statement was contained in, so that we may correct it and send the correction to you without the need for a refund or; 2. Any litigation or injunctions against us because any information provided is erroneous. If we are physically able to correct the erroneous information, then we will do so as soon as practicable, provided that your comments are accompanied with credible, admissible evidence that the information provided is erroneous. We cannot correct an allegedly erroneous statement without court admissible evidence proving it is erroneous or inaccurate. If this requirement is not heeded by the reader, then the reader agrees to:

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

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

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

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

  1. Protect the First Amendment rights of the authors.

  2. Discourage and prevent anti-whistleblowing activity on the part of public servants.

  3. Further the ends of liberty and justice for ALL, which is the sole function of this website and the object of our pledge of allegiance.

  4. Help eliminate ignorance, fear, and presumption of the average American towards the legal and judicial process through education and empowerment.

  5. Encourage you, the reader, to take complete and exclusive and personal responsibility for yourself and to prevent you from transferring that responsibility in any form to us. It would be completely hypocritical of us to on the one hand say we want to encourage personal responsibility, but then on the other hand tell people that they can transfer any part of the responsibility for themselves, their lives, or their choices to us.

  6. Provide strong protections for you and your Fourth Amendment personal data by ensuring that our organization is never infiltrated by government moles who mean to do anyone harm.

  7. Ensure that we are LEFT ALONE, which the Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled is a Constitutional Right:

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

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

If either of the following two situations happens:

  1. A Member becomes involved in a lawsuit as a witness against Constitution Society and the Plaintiff uses licensed materials or communications of the Society as evidence in the proceeding.
  2. A Member is prosecuted as an alleged agent or officer of Constitution Society for alleged injuries arising from activities or offerings of the Society, even if they in fact are not, and the Plaintiff or Plaintiff Counsel, who is a Member, uses licensed materials or communications of the Society as evidence in the case.

Then the affected Member or Members who are the Defendant or witness in the above two cases are hereby authorized to do the following on behalf of the Society in the context of only that proceeding:

  1. To initiate a lawsuit as Plaintiff against the other Member or third party who initiated the lawsuit in order to enforce the terms of the Copyright/Software/License Agreement.
  2. To pay all expenses of the litigation from the proceeds of the Settlement for the litigation they initiate.
  3. To keep 50% of what remains of the Settlement after all legal expenses have been paid.
  4. To return the remainder of the Settlement to the Society.

6. BASIS FOR BELIEF

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

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

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

PDF Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007

Members, users, and readers of this website, including government employees and officers, also stipulate and agree to refuse to hold Constitution Society to a higher standard of accountability than the IRS or the government itself.  The IRS claims in section 4.10.7.2.8 of its own Internal Revenue Manual that you cannot rely on its publications, which include its tax preparation forms.  The courts have also said that you cannot rely on the IRS' telephone support personnel or its Internal Revenue Manual.  Therefore, Constitution Society shall not be held to a higher standard than the IRS for its publications, statements, or actions, which include everything on this website and everything delivered to our members, or for anything Constitution Society or any of its agents say or write or do.  Constitution Society makes all the same disclaimer statements about its publications, statements, support, and actions as the IRS, in fact, which means they can have no liability for anything they do or produce. Click here for an article on this subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Constitutes an equitable estoppel from civil liability pursuant to Fed.Rul.Civ.P. 8(b)(6).
  2. Makes those in government who have read our materials guilty of:
    2.1  Conspiracy to defraud the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §371.
    2.2  Accessory after the fact pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3.
    2.3  Misprision of felony pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4.

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

8. APPROACH TOWARDS VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM

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

  1. PDF Government by consent.
  2. PDF Terrorist government.

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

terrorism.JPG (8549 bytes)
Original (pre-Orwellian) Definition of
the Word "Terrorism"
Funk and Wagnalls New
Practical Standard Dictionary (1946)

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

  1. PDF Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018, Sections 5 and 7
  2. PDF De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
  3. Terrorism Playlist - SEDM
  4. Government Corruption
  5. Government Terror - Brasscheck TV
  6. I Want To Be A Spy
    http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crime/Humor/AshcroftSpy.mp3 (OFFSITE LINK)
  7. The REAL Matrix (OFFSITE LINK)
  8. Media Player Devil's Advocate: Lawyers (OFFSITE LINK)
  9. We Bomb for Cash
  10. Media Player How the World Works
  11. Media Player Pirates and Emperors
  12. Media Player Government Mafia
  13. Flash If I Were The Devil -Paul Harvey
  14. Flash Terrorstorm (OFFSITE LINK)
  15. Flash We are Preparing for Massive Civil War, Says DHS Informant (OFFSITE LINK)
  16. Flash Is the United States of America a leading terrorist state? (OFFSITE LINK)-Noam Chomsky
  17. Flash Statism and Terrorism - your government is terrorist
  18. Flash Securiotic-how governments have created a fictional war on terror to themselves become terrorists
  19. Flash Amazing Speech by War Veteran-he identifies the REAL terrorists.
  20. Flash Ken O'Keefe Dares To Say What Others Do Not
  21. Flash Party in the CIA

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

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

9.  APPROACH TOWARDS "HATE SPEECH" AND HATE CRIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDF Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020

Government's tendency to compel everyone into a commercial or civil legal relationship (Form #05.002) with them is defined by the Bible as the ESSENCE of Satan himself! The personification of that evil is dramatized in the following video:

Devil's Advocate: Lawyers

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

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

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

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

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

Discrimination and Racism page, Section 5: Hate Speech and Hate Crime; https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Discrimination/discrimination.htm#HATE_SPEECH
Home
Original URL: //constitution.org/0-Navigation/disclaimer.htm
Maintained: Constitution Society
Original date: 2018 February 12