text:
|Why "domicile" and becoming a "taxpayer" require your consent
Web Capture of this article -Right click and select "save As" to download an Adobe Acrobat copy of this important article
Memorandum of Law of this article -(OFFSITE LINK) Right click and select "save As" to download an Adobe Acrobat copy of this important article
Table of Contents:
Related articles:
Identity Solutions and Information that Don't Force Domicile on Federal Territory:
Federal and State Withholding Options for Private Employers, section 15, ver. 2.08
1. Introduction
The purpose of establishing government is solely to provide "protection". Those who wish to be protected by a specific government must expressly consent to be protected by choosing a domicile within the civil jurisdiction of that specific government.
In law, the process of choosing a domicile within the jurisdiction of a specific government is called "animus manendi". That choice makes you a consenting party to the "civil contract", "social compact", and "private law" that attaches to and therefore protects all "inhabitants" and things physically situated on or within that specific territory, venue, and jurisdiction. In a sense then, your consent to a specific jurisdiction by your choice of domicile within that jurisdiction is what creates the civil statutory "person", "individual", "citizen", "resident", or "inhabitant" which is the only proper subject of the civil statutory laws enacted by that government. In other words, choosing a domicile within a specific jurisdiction causes an implied waiver of sovereign immunity, because the courts admit that the term "person" does not refer to the "sovereign":
Those who have become customers of government protection by choosing a civil domicile within a specific government then owe a duty to pay for the support of the protection they demand. The method of paying for said protection is called "taxes". In earlier times this kind of sponsorship was called "tribute".
Domicile is an EXTREMELY important subject to learn because it defines and circumscribes:
So let us begin our coverage of this MOST important subject.
2. Definition
Domicile is legally defined as follows. We also include the definition of "situs" to help clarify its meaning:
Notice in the definition of "domicile" above the absence of the word "consent" and replacing it with the word "intent" to disguise the true nature of what they are saying. Lawyers and politicians don't want you to know that they need your consent to make you into a "taxpayer" with a "domicile" within their jurisdiction, even though this is in fact the case. More on this later.
An exhaustive academic treatise on the subject of domicile also candidly admits that there is no all encompassing definition for "domicile".
The above admission is not surprising, given the fact that the main purpose for inventing the concept of domicile is to infer or imply consent of the subject to the civil law that has never expressly been given in writing and cannot be proven to exist. No government or judge is going to give a definition, because then people would use that definition to prove that they DON'T have a domicile and that would destroy the source of all the government's civil and taxing authority over the people who employ the definition to break the chains that bind them to their pagan tyrant rulers.
The concept of domicile we inherit primarily from the feudal Roman law system in which the king or emperor or lord claimed ownership over all territory entrusted to him or her by divine right. Everyone occupying said territory therefore became a "subject" of the king and owed him "allegiance" as compensation for the "privilege" or franchise associated with use of his property. That allegiance expressed itself as "tribute" paid to the king, which we know of today as "taxes". What were once "subjects" of the king in Great Britain and the Roman Empire are now called "citizens", and we fired the King when the Declaration of Independence declared all men equal. At that point, everyone became equal and the sovereign transitioned from the former King of England to "We the People" as individuals. Consequently, we no longer have a landlord and the government that serves us cannot therefore lawfully charge us "rent" for the use of the land or territory that we occupy if we own it.
3. Domicile is a First Amendment choice of political affiliation
Another very important observation is in order at this point, which is that our choice of "domicile" is a strictly political and not legal matter. It is a matter of our political choice and affiliation. The Supreme Court has ruled that no government may dictate our choice of political affiliations, as revealed in the American Jurisprudence Legal Encyclopedia:
One's choice of "domicile" certainly has far-reaching legal consequences and ramifications, but our choice of domicile is not a legal matter to be decided by any court. No court whether it be a federal or state court, has jurisdiction over strictly political matters. Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say on this very subject:
Consequently, no court of law can interfere with your choice of legal domicile, which is a strictly political matter. To do otherwise would constitute compelled association in violation of the First Amendment as well as direct interference in the affairs of a political party, which is YOU. You are your own independent political party and a sovereignty separate and distinct from the federal or state sovereignties. A court of law is certainly not the proper forum, for instance, in which to question or politically ridicule one's choice of domicile, whether it be in front of a jury or a judge.
The Supreme Court said that the sovereignty of We The People is every bit as sacred as that of the states, so why should they not merit the same level of sovereign immunity from suit and dignity, especially in their choice of domicile, as that of the States? To wit:
"We The People" certainly cannot be "Sovereign" in any sense of the word if legal process can be maliciously and habitually abused by the government at great financial injury and inconvenience to them in the process of questioning or ridiculing their choice of domicile. In spite of this fact, this very evil happens daily in state and federal courts in the context of tax trials. We cannot restore the sovereignty of the people unless and until this chronic malicious abuse of legal and judicial process is ended immediately.
In recognition of the concepts in this section, the following book on the common law starkly admits that being a CIVIL STATUTORY "PERSON" is optional, and implies MEMBERSHIP in the body politic. If only lawyers now were as honest as those back at the founding of this country!:
4. You can only have one Domicile and that place and government becomes your main source of CIVIL protection
In this section, we will establish that you can only have a domicile in ONE place at a time and therefore, you can only be a STATUTORY "citizen" of one place at a time. The most instructive case on this point that we have found is the following:
Based on the above, we make the following conclusions of law:
Now do you know why the Burea of Immigration Services (BIS) was renamed to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) when the Department of Homeland Security (BHS) was created by Congress? They wanted to create the false presumption that EVERYONE in states of the Union is physically present on federal territory whenever they say they have "citizenship" in the U.S. Remember, "citizenship" implies physical presence in the STATUTORY "United States", meaning federal territory. In effect, they wanted to institutionalize GOVERNMENT IDENTITY THEFT by the abuse of "words of art"! See:
Therefore, the reason why government forms will ask you your domicile is explained as follows:
Therefore, establishing a "domicile" or "residence" also establishes a "tax home" as well. There are several problems with the above worldly approach that conflict with Christianity:
Therefore, Christians cannot be expected or required to either accept, consent to, or pay for protection that God says comes ONLY from Him. They cannot allow government to assume an authority equal or superior to God in their lives, including in the area of protection. The only purpose for government is "protection". Any government form that asks us what our "domicile" is indirectly is asking us to whom we have exclusive "allegiance". Any government that passes a law compelling "allegiance" or requiring us to consent to laws or a government or protection that we don't want is:
The Bible describes such an organized crime syndicate as "the Beast", which Rev. 19:19 defines as "the kings of the earth". In modern times, this would be our political rulers.
5. Domicile and taxation
Both state and federal income taxation is based almost entirely upon what is called "domicile". Domicile is a choice we make that requires our consent and participation, and because it requires our consent, then becoming a "taxpayer" who owes a tax requires our consent. We will explain this shortly. An examination of the Internal Revenue Code and implementing regulations confirms that there are only two proper legal "persons" who are the subject of the I.R.C., and that these two "persons" have a "domicile" in the "United States". By "United States" as used in this document, we mean the government of the "United States" and not the "United States" in the geographical sense as used in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d):
Table 3: Taxable persons under I.R.C.
[1] See 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(a): Who is required to file.
Options 1 and 2 above have civil "domicile" within the statutory but not constitutional "United States", meaning federal territory that is no part of any state of the Union, as a prerequisite. People born in and domiciled within states of the Union fall under status 3. If "nationals" (who are not statutory "citizens" under 8 U.S.C. §1401) living in states have no earnings from the "United States" government or federal territory, then even if they choose to volunteer, they cannot be "liable" to pay any of their earnings to the IRS. Note also that the "aliens" mentioned in option 4 above, even if they live in the "United States" (federal territory), are not even mentioned in the I.R.C. They only become subject to the code by either becoming involved in a "trade or business", which is a public office, which is a voluntary activity involving federal contracts and employment, or by declaring the "United States" (federal territory) to be their legal "domicile". Making the "United States" (federal territory) into their "domicile" or engaging in a "trade or business" (which is defined as a public office) are the only two activities that can transform "aliens" into "residents" subject to the Internal Revenue Code. "Aliens" or "nonresident aliens" may voluntarily elect (choose) to treat the "United States" (government or federal territory) as their domicile and thereby become "residents" in accordance with the following authorities:
We also caution that a "nonresident alien" can also unwittingly become a "U.S. person" with an effective domicile in the "United States" (federal territory) by incorrectly declaring his or her citizenship status on a government form as that of either a statutory "U.S. citizen" under 8 U.S.C. §1401 or a statutory "resident alien" under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) , instead of a "national" but not a citizen under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21). This results in a surrender of sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3), which says that "U.S. citizens" and "residents" may not be treated as "foreign states". This is by far the most frequent mechanism that your unscrupulous government uses to maliciously destroy the sovereignty of persons in states of the Union and undermine the Separation of Powers Doctrine: Using ambiguous terms on government forms and creating and exploiting legal ignorance of the people. This process by public servants of systematically and illegally destroying the separation of powers is thoroughly documented below:
6. The three sources of government civil jurisdiction
Even for civil laws that are enacted with the consent of the majority of the governed as the Declaration of Independence requires, we must still explicitly and individually consent to be subject to them before they can be enforced against us.
This requirement for the consent to the protection afforded by government is the foundation of our system of government, according to the Declaration of Independence: consent of the governed. The U.S. Supreme Court admitted this when it said:
How, then, did you "voluntarily submit" yourself to such a form of government and thereby contract with that government for "protection"? If people fully understood how they did this, many of them would probably immediately withdraw their consent and completely drop out of the corrupted, inefficient, and usurious system of government we have, now wouldn't they? We have spent six long years researching this question, and our research shows that it wasn't your citizenship as a "national" but not statutory "citizen" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) that made you subject to their civil laws. Well then, what was it?
It was your voluntary choice of domicile!
In fact, the following types of Americans DO have the right to complain if:
The "citizen" the Supreme Administrative Court is talking about above is a statutory "citizen" and not a constitutional "citizen", and the only way you can become subject to statutory civil law is to have a domicile within the jurisdiction of the sovereign. Below is a legal definition of "domicile":
"domicile. A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310, 213 A.2d. 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a "domicile" therein. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges."
Notice the phrase "civil laws" above and the term "claim to be protected". What they are describing is a contract to procure the protection of the government, from which a "claim" arises. Those who are not party to the domicile/protection contract have no such claim and are immune from the civil jurisdiction of the government. In other words, they have no "civil status" under the laws of that protectorate:
"There are certain general principles which control the disposition of this case. They are, in the main, well settled; the difficulty lies in their application to the particular facts of the case in hand. It is elementary that "every state has an undoubted right to determine the status, or domestic and social condition, of the persons domiciled within its territory, except in so far as the powers of the states in this respect are restrained, or duties and obligations imposed upon them by the constitution of the United States." Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 93. Again, the civil status is governed universally by one single principle, namely, that of domicile, which is the criterion established by law for the purpose of determining the civil status; for it is on this basis that the personal rights of a party, — that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy, — must depend. Udny v. Udny, L. R., 1 H. L. Sc. 457.
Another implication of the above is that if the STATES have the right to determine civil status, then the people AS INDIVIDUALS from which all their power was delegated have the right to determine their OWN civil status. This right derives from the right to contract and associate and every sovereignty has it. See:
In fact, there are two categories and four unique ways to become subject to the civil STATUTORY jurisdiction of a specific government. These ways are:
In addition to the above, one can ALSO become subject involuntarily to the COMMON LAW and not CIVIL STATUTORY jurisdiction of a specific court by engaging in commerce on the territory protected by a specific government and thereby waiving sovereign immunity under:
In fact, the "citizen" the Supreme Administrative Court is talking about above is a statutory "citizen" and not a constitutional "citizen", and the only way you can become subject to statutory civil law is to have a domicile within the jurisdiction of the sovereign. Below is a legal definition of "domicile":
Notice the phrase "civil laws" above and the term "claim to be protected". What they are describing is a contract to procure the protection of the government, from which a "claim" arises. Those who are not party to the domicile/protection contract have no such claim and are immune from the civil jurisdiction of the government. In other words, they have no "civil status" under the laws of that protectorate:
"There are certain general principles which control the disposition of this case. They are, in the main, well settled; the difficulty lies in their application to the particular facts of the case in hand. It is elementary that "every state has an undoubted right to determine the status, or domestic and social condition, of the persons domiciled within its territory, except in so far as the powers of the states in this respect are restrained, or duties and obligations imposed upon them by the constitution of the United States." Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 93. Again, the civil status is governed universally by one single principle, namely, that of domicile, which is the criterion established by law for the purpose of determining the civil status; for it is on this basis that the personal rights of a party, — that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy, — must depend. Udny v. Udny, L. R., 1 H. L. Sc. 457.
In fact, there are three categories and seven unique ways to become subject to the civil jurisdiction of a specific government. These ways are:
We allege that if the above rules are violated then the following consequences are inevitable:
Lastly, those who have not chosen a domicile within a specific jurisdiction and therefore chosen NOT to become the following in relation to ONLY that jurisdiction:
. . .are called "exclusively private". Such parties have been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court to beyond the civil control of the government. Notice they only recognize the right to "regulate" activity of "citizens" who are party to the "social compact" and NOT "ALL PERSONS":
7. The Social Contract/Compact
7.1 Introduction
The end of the previous section referred to what the U.S. Supreme Court called "the social compact". What most judges won't tell you about the above requirement for establishing jurisdiction is that the "social compact" is one means of satisfying the need for a "contract" in order to establish civil jurisdiction over you. In law, the words "compact" and "contract" are equivalent:
All civil societies are based on "compact" and therefore "contract". Here is how the U.S. Supreme Court describes this compact and therefore contract.
Note the sentence: "Citizenship is the effect of compact [CONTRACT!]". By calling yourself a "citizen", you:
Even the author of the Law Of Nations, which is the document upon which the USA Constitution was based by the founding fathers, acknowledged that all civilizations are based upon compact and contract, called this contract the "social compact", and said that when the government fails to be accountable for the protection sought, those being protected have a right to leave said society. Notice that the author, Vattel, refers to the parties to the social compact as "contracting parties".
7.2 Government violation of the Social Contract/Compact
Item #2 at the end of the previous section, in which a government fails to discharge its obligation of "protection", includes any one or more of the following:
The terms of the "social compact" at the heart of every civilized society are exhaustively described in the following classic book by Rousseau written just before the U.S. Constitution was written:
7.3 Rousseau's description of the Social Contract/Compact
Rousseau is also widely regarded as the father of socialism. In chapter 8 of the above book he even describes all governments as what he calls a "civil religion". Here is the way Rousseau describes the "social compact" that forms the foundation of all societies:
Note how Rousseau describes those who are not party to the social contract as "foreigners":
We also clarify the following about Rousseau's comments above:
7.4 Breaches of the Social Compact subject to judicial remedy
If you are injured and take the party who injured you into a civil court, the judge, in fact, is really acting as a trustee of the social contract/compact in enforcing that contract between you and the other party. All governments in the USA, in fact, are "trustees":
Both parties to the lawsuit must be parties to the social contract and therefore "citizens" or "residents" within the jurisdiction you are civilly suing. If the defendant you are suing is NOT party to the social contract, they are called a "nonresident" who is therefore protected from being civilly sued by:
Why does all this matter? Because what if you are a nonresident and the U.S. government wants to sue you for a tax liability? They can't take a nonresident (in relation to federal territory) and a "nontaxpayer" into a Federal District Court and must instead sue you in a state court under the above requirements. Even their own Internal Revenue Manual says so:
The other great thing about being a nonresident, is that the statute of limitations under civil law DO NOT apply to you and do not limit your rights or the protection of those rights.
Why do we say these things? Because what you think of as civil law, in most cases, is really only a private law franchise for government officers, agents, instrumentalities, and/or statutory "employees", as exhaustively proven in the following document:
Under the concepts in the above document, a "statute of limitations" is an example of an "privilege and immunity" afforded to ONLY government officers and statutory "employees" when the OTHER party they injure is also a government officer or employee in some capacity. If the injured party is not party to the social compact and franchise but is protected by the Constitution, then the statutes of limitations cannot be invoked under the franchise.
7.5 TWO social compacts in America
In the United States (the country), there are, in fact TWO "social contracts" or "social compacts", and each protects a different subset of the overall population.
You can only be a party to ONE of these two social contracts/compacts at a time, because you can only have a domicile in ONE jurisdiction at a time. These two jurisdictions that Congress legislates for are:
The "separation of powers doctrine" is what created these two separate and distinct social compacts and jurisdictions. Each has its own courts, unique types of "citizens", and laws. That doctrine is described in:
The U.S. Supreme Court has identified the maintenance of separation between these two distinct jurisdictions as THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF ANY COURT. Are the courts satisfying their most important function, or have they bowed to political expediency by abusing deception and words of art to entrap and enslave you in what amounts to a criminal conspiracy against your constitutional rights? Have the courts become what amounts to a modern day Judas, who sold the truth for the twenty pieces of silver they could STEAL from you through illegal tax enforcement by abusing word games?
WHICH of the two social compacts are you party to? Your choice of domicile determines that. It CAN'T legally be both because you can only have a domicile in ONE place at a time. Furthermore, if you have been deceived by corrupt politicians and "words of art" into becoming a party to BOTH social compacts, you are serving TWO masters, which is forbidden by the Holy Bible:
7.6 The TWO social contracts/compacts CANNOt lawfully overlap and you can't be subject to both at the same time
We might also add that franchises and the right to contract that they are based upon cannot lawfully be used to destroy the separation between these two distinct jurisdictions. Preserving that separation is, in fact, the heart and soul of the United States Constitution. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court held the following:
Notice the language "Congress cannot authorize [e.g. LICENSE] a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.". All licensed activities are, in fact, franchises and excise taxes are what implement them and pay for them. The income tax itself, in fact, is such a franchise. See the following for exhaustive proof:
On the subject of whether Christians can be party to or consent to what the courts call "the social compact" and contract, God Himself says the following:
"You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a "resident" or domiciliary in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their [government] gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you."
Why did God warn Christians in this way? Because Rev. 19:19 identifies political rulers as "The Beast", and contracting with them MAKES you an officer of and one of them. And as their officer or public officer participating in their franchises, you can't avoid "serving them", and hence, violating the First Commandment NOT to serve other pagan gods, among which are included civil rulers or governments.
Now let's discuss how the courts treat the issue of the social compact to confirm what we have said in this section. The first federal corporation established outside of federal territory was the original Bank of the United States commissioned by Congress. That bank invaded the state of Ohio and began operating there. The state sought to penalize and tax it out of existence and the bank refused to pay the state penalties and taxes. When the state seized assets of the bank for nonpayment of taxes, the case went before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that the bank:
The case also held that the ONLY way that federal law can be enforced within a state of the Union was if EITHER a public office was involved (which is federal government property), OR if the bank had a contract with the government (which is ALSO federal government property).
"All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [private] individuals."
The above holding brings up some crucial points about civil jurisdiction in courts of justice:
[1]This should of course be understood as applying to a free State; for elsewhere family, goods, lack of a refuge, necessity, or violence may detain a man in a country against his will; and then his dwelling there no longer by itself implies his consent to the contract or to its violation.
[2] At Genoa, the word Liberty may be read over the front of the prisons and on the chains of the galley-slaves. This application of the device is good and just. It is indeed only malefactors of all estates who prevent the citizen from being free. In the country in which all such men were in the galleys, the most perfect liberty would be enjoyed.
7.7 Challenging the enforcement of the Social Contract in a Court of Law
The Social Contract is enforced, usually illegally, by judges and government prosecutors in court against unwitting and often unwilling and non-consenting parties. By "Social Compact" in this section, we mean and intend the following. We DO NOT mean the CRIMINAL code or criminal law:
The boundary between what is lawful and unlawful in a civil context is determined solely by whether there is a flesh and blood PHYSICAL injured party.
For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
If there is not injury party, then all of the above types of civil franchises have no "force of law" against a non-consenting party and any legal proceeding to enforce them constitutes an INJUSTICE rather than JUSTICE.
Some questions you can ask to reveal the false presumptions protecting that enforcement and the illegality of that enforcement of the above types of "rules" include the following:
"At this point it behooves us to consider the myth of the "social contract". Many apologists for the status quo assert that we are all born as parties to a contract – and that, as a consequence, we are all subject to liabilities defined by the state or [national] government. In other words, in return for the various benefits, real or imagined, that we receive from the government, we owe the government a portion of whatever resources we derive from our experience of life. We should note that the only people who promote this myth are those who want to spend our money or to exercise power over us through the enforcement of edicts forbidding mala prohibita. They would have us believe that they have a valid claim on the money that we receive in exchange for our creativity and productivity."
The following legal authorities are useful in establishing that there MUST be consent to the "social compact", what form the consent must take, and why in some cases even consent is insufficient to give it the "force of law" in your specific case:
8. "Domicile"="allegiance" and "protection"
The U.S. Supreme Court describes the relationship of domicile to taxation as follows:
The first thing to notice about the above ruling is that the essence of being a "citizen" is one's domicile, not just their place of birth or naturalization or the NATIONALITY these two things produce. "Domicile" establishes your LEGAL status within a municipal government while "nationality" (being a "national") establishes your POLITICAL status and association with a specific nation under the law of nations.
The U.S. Supreme Court admitted that an alien with a domicile in a place is treated as a native or naturalized "citizen" in nearly every respect. We call this type of "citizen" simply a "domiciled citizen" to distinguish it from anything resembling nationality. Note that they use the phrase "This right to protect persons having a domicile", meaning they DON'T have a right to protect people who choose NOT to have a domicile and therefore are UNABLE to render protection because they can ONLY "govern" people who consent to be governed by choosing a domicile within their protection.
Note also the key role of the word "intention" within the meaning of domicile. A person can have many "abodes", which are the place they temporarily "inhabit", but only one legal "domicile". You cannot have a legal "domicile" in a place without also having an intention (also called "consent") to live there "permanently", which implies allegiance to the people and the laws of that place.
What the U.S. supreme Court essentially is describing above is a contract to procure the civil protection of a specific government, and it is giving that contract a name called "domicile". What makes the contract binding is the fact that each party to the contract both gives and receives specific and measurable "consideration". You manifest your consent to the contract by voluntarily calling yourself a "subject", "inhabitant", "citizen", or "resident", all of which have in common a domicile within the jurisdiction that those terms relate to. You give "allegiance" and the support (e.g. "taxes") that go with that allegiance, and in return, the government has an implied legal duty to protect and serve you. All contracts require both mutual consent and mutual consideration. Without both demonstrated elements, the contract is unenforceable. The contract is therefore only enforceable if both parties incur reciprocal duties that are enforceable in court as "rights". Below is how the U.S. Supreme Court again describes this "protection contract":
The interesting thing about allegiance is that in every circumstance where you try to document it on a government form, the covetous government tries to create the false impression that it must be PERMANENT, so that you can't choose WHEN and under what circumstances you have it or under what circumstances you want protection and have to pay for protection. In other words, you aren't allowed to request protection for specific circumstances and you have to give them essentially a blank check and make the relationship permanent. Here are some examples:
We must remember, however, that for the purposes of Title 8, even the word "permanent" is not really permanent and can be withdrawn by you on a whim.
8 U.S.C. §1101 Definitions [for the purposes of citizenship]
When might you want to withdraw your allegiance and the CIVIL statutory protection that goes with it? How about if you are going abroad and DO NOT want Uncle Sam's protection or the bill (taxes) that go with that protection. Some people, including us, even fill out their DS-11 Passport Application to indicate that they waive any and all claim to protection of the national government while they are abroad and thereby temporarily WITHDRAW their allegiance while abroad. Why would they do this? Because they don't want to be "privileged" or in receipt of any government "benefit" that could lead essentially to them having to hand Uncle a blank check to steal ANYTHING they have. What gives them the right to demand "taxes" of a STATUTORY "citizen" while they are abroad? The answer is that such "citizen" is an officer of the government managing government property. THAT property is ALL of his/her property! Here is the proof:
The Law of Nations, Book II: Of a Nation Considered in Her Relation to Other States
The above document is the document upon which the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. It is even mentioned in Article I of the Constitution. The implications of the above document are that calling yourself a "citizen" makes you a presumed officer of the government holding temporary title to government property, which is ALL of your property while you are abroad and being protected by the nation you are a "member" or STATUTORY "citizen" of. The implication is that:
The sharing of ownership in legal terms is called a "moiety". With these factors in mind, why the HELL would anyone want to call themselves a STATUTORY "citizen"? Isn't the purpose of forming government to protect PRIVATE property and PRIVATE rights? Isn't the ability to own property the essence of "happiness" itself according to the Declaration of Independence? How can you be "happy" if you have to share ownership of EVERYTHING with the government and turn EVERYTHING you own essentially into PUBLIC property to have any protection at all? For details on sharing ownership with the government, see:
Obviously, the "price" of government protection is too high, and therefore a rational and informed person would have to conclude that having "allegiance" and requesting "protection" from the government as a security guard over their property is something that they should NOT want. So how do we withdraw that allegiance and our request for protection? A good place to start is studying the laws on passports.
On the other hand, when obtaining a USA passport, one only needs "allegiance" and no requirement for permanence is mandated, other than, of course, the Address field on the DS-11 Form, which asks for a "permanent address". If you don't fill out anything in that field because your allegiance is temporary and you DO NOT WANT their protection, then you can make your allegiance temporary and changeable.
No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States."
See the following for details on how to WITHDRAW allegiance when abroad in the passport application process:
Now let's look at the domicile "protection contract" or "protection franchise" a little closer. Does it meet all the requisite legal elements of a legally enforceable contract? In fact, after you declare your exclusive allegiance to the "state" by declaring a "domicile" within that state so that you can procure "protection", ironically, the courts continue to forcefully insist that your public SERVANTS STILL have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect you! This is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the traitor, calls "The New Deal", and what we call "The RAW Deal". Below is the AMAZING truth right from the horse's mouth, the courts, proving that police officers cannot be sued if they fail to come to your aid after you call them when you have a legitimate need for their protection:
Consequently, the "protection contract" is unenforceable as a duty upon you because it imposes no reciprocal duty upon the government. On the one hand, the government throws people in jail for failing to pay for protection in the form of "taxes", while on the other hand, it refuses to prosecute police officers for failing to provide the protection that was paid for, even though their willful or negligent refusal to protect us could have far more injurious and immediate effects than simply failing to pay for protection. This is a violation of the equal protection of the laws. If it is a crime to not pay for protection, then it ought to equally be a crime to not provide it! Who would want to live in a country or be part of a "state" that would condone such hypocrisy? That is why we advocate "divorcing the state". It is precisely this type of hypocrisy that explains why prominent authorities will tell you that taxes are not "contractual": because the courts treat it like a contract and a criminal matter to not pay taxes for "taxpayers", but refuse to hold public servants equally liable for their half of the bargain, which is protection:
The above is a deception at best and a LIE at worst. A "taxpayer" is legally defined as a person liable, and it is true that for such a person, taxes are not consensual or in any way "voluntary". HOWEVER, the choice about whether one wishes to BECOME a "taxpayer" as legally defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) is based on domicile and the excise taxable activities one voluntarily engages in, both of which in fact ARE voluntary actions and choices. By their careful choice of words, they have misrepresented the truth so they could get into your pocket. What else would you expect of greedy LIARS, I mean "lawyers"? We would also like to take this opportunity to clarify for whom taxes are "voluntary" in order to further clarify the title of this document:
Some other points to consider about this "Raw Deal" scam:
The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that "allegiance" is completely incompatible with any system of "citizenship" in a republican form of government, and that it is "repulsive". Ironically, allegiance is exactly what we currently base our system of citizenship on in this country. Apparently, this is yet one more symptom that the U.S. government has become corrupted.
Consequently, we must conclude that allegiance to anything but God is therefore to be avoided at all costs. Notice also that they say that citizenship is the effect of "compact", which is a type of contract. If "domicile" is the basis of citizenship, and citizenship is the effect of "compact", then "domicile" amounts to the equivalent of a "contract". This leads us right back to the conclusion that the voluntary choice of one's "domicile" is a "contract" to procure man-made protection and fire God as our protector:
The Bible is consistent with the Supreme Court above in its disdain for "allegiance". It has a name for those expressing "allegiance": It is called an "oath". When a person becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, he must by law (see 8 U.S.C. 1448) take an "oath" of "allegiance" and be "sworn in". When a person signs an income tax return, he must swear a perjury oath. Jesus, on the other hand, commanded believers not to take "oaths" to anything but God, and especially not to earthly Kings, and said that doing otherwise was essentially Satanic:
God also commanded us to take oaths ONLY in His name and no others:
Israel's first King, Saul, in fact, distressed the people because one of his first official acts was to try to put the people under oath to him instead of God.
God's response to the Israelites electing a King/protector to whom they would owe "allegiance", in fact, was to say that they sinned:
Notice above the words "He [the new King] will take...". God is really warning them here that the King they elect will STEAL from them, which is exactly what our present day government does! Some things never change, do they?
Since God clearly states that it violates His law to have a king ABOVE you, then by implication, Christians are FORBIDDEN by His sacred law from becoming a "subject" under any civil statutory law system that allows any government or civil ruler to engage in any of the following types of anarchy, lawlessness, or superiority:
Jesus Himself agreed that we cannot allow civil rulers to be ABOVE us in any way, when He said:
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 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."Jesus' words above are very descriptive of the RESULT of allowing rulers to be ABOVE those they serve:
The nature and substance of any government that violates the above admonition of Jesus is described in the following:
ONLY when the people are in deed EQUAL in every way to those in the government can anyone be truly FREE in any sense of the word. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this when it held:
"No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."
If you would like to watch an entire training video on why you can only be FREE if you are EQUAL to government in authority, rights, and power, see:
9. Choice of Domicile is a voluntary and SERIOUS choice
The law and government that a person voluntarily consents or "intends" to be subject to determines where their "legal home" is under this concept. This choice must be completely voluntary and not subject to coercion or intimidation because all just powers of any free government derive from the "consent of the governed", as the Declaration of Independence indicates.
This form of consent is called "allegiance" in the legal field. A voluntary choice of allegiance to a place amounts to a choice to join or associate with a group of people called a "state" and to respect, be subject to, and obey all positive laws passed by the citizens who dwell there. The First Amendment guarantees us a right of free association, and therefore, only we can choose the group of people we wish to associate with and be protected by as a result of choosing a "domicile". The First Amendment also guarantees us a right of freedom from "compelled association", which is the act of forcing a person to join or be part of any group, including a "state".
The California FTB Publication 1031, Guidelines for Determining Resident Status, Year 2013 confirms that the government CANNOT determine the status for you and that only you can determine the status:
"The FTB will not issue written opinions on whether you are a California resident for a particular period of time because residency is a question of fact, not law.The information included in this publication is provided to help you with this determination."
Therefore, no government has lawful authority to compel us to choose a "domicile" that is within its legislative jurisdiction or to have allegiance towards it, because that would be compelled association. The right to choose what political group or country we wish to join and have allegiance to and protection from also implies that we can reject all the earthly options and simply elect to join God's followers and be subject ONLY to His laws. This type of government would be called a "theocracy". This, in fact, is the goal of this entire publication: Establishing an ecclesiastical state separate from the corrupted governments that plague our land. It is a stark reality that what you define as protection might amount to its opposite for someone else. Therefore, each person is free to:
The notion of freedom to choose one's allegiances is a natural consequence of the fact that a "state" can consist of any number of people, from one person to millions or even billions of people. The political landscape constantly changes precisely because people are constantly exercising their right to change their political associations. A single person is free to create his own "state" and pass his own laws, and to choose a domicile within that created state. The boundaries of that created "state" might include only himself, only his immediate family, or encompass an entire city, county, or district. He might do this because he regards the society in which he lives to be so corrupt that it's laws, morality, and norms are injurious rather than protective. Such a motive, in fact, is behind an effort called the "Free State Project", in which people are trying to get together to create a new and different type of state within the borders of our country. The U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, has ruled that when the laws of a society become more injurious than protective to us personally, then we cease to have any obligation to obey them and may lawfully choose other allegiances and domiciles that afford better protection. To wit:
If a person decides that the laws and the people of the area in which he lives are injurious of his life, liberty, and property, then he is perfectly entitled to withhold his allegiance and shift his domicile to a place where better protection is afforded. When a person has allegiance and domicile to a place or society other than where he lives, then he is considered "foreign" in that society and all people comprising that society become "foreigners" relative to him in such a case. He becomes a "transient foreigner" and the only laws that are obligatory upon him are the criminal laws and the common law and no other. Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court said about the right of people to choose to disassociate with such "foreigners" who can do them harm. Note that they say the United States government has the right to exclude foreigners who are injurious. This authority, it says, comes from the Constitution, which in turn was delegated by the Sovereign People. The People cannot delegate an authority they do not have, therefore they must individually ALSO have this authority within their own private lives of excluding injurious peoples from their legal and political life by changing their domicile and citizenship. This act of excluding such foreigners becomes what we call a "political divorce" and the result accomplishes the equivalent of "disconnecting from the government matrix":
Notice above the phrase:
The court is tacitly admitting that there is NO legal remedy in the case where a foreigner is expelled because the party expelling him has an absolute right to do so. This right to expel harmful foreigners is just as true of what happens on a person's private property as it is to what they want to do with their ENTIRE LIFE, property, and liberty. This same argument applies to us divorcing ourselves from the state where we live. There is absolutely no legal remedy in any court and no judge has any discretion to interfere with your absolute authority to divorce not only the state, but HIM! This is BIG, folks! You don't have to prove that a society is injurious in order to disassociate from it because your right to do so is absolute, but if you want or need a few very good reasons why our present political system is injurious that you can show to a judge or a court, read through chapter 2 of our free Great IRS Hoax book:
The following authority establishes that a change in domicile is a SERIOUS choice that can have drastic effects upon people:
Lastly, we emphasize that there is no method OTHER than domicile available in which to consent to the civil laws of a specific place. None of the following conditions, for instance, may form a basis for a prima facie presumption that a specific human being consented to be civilly governed by a specific municipal government:
10. Theological Signifance of Domicile
10.1 Domicile in the Bible
Throughout the Bible, the terms "dwell", "dwelling", "abode", or "refuge" are used as a synonym for the legal concept of CIVIL DOMICILE. Below are some examples:
Your DOMICILE is the "dwelling place" of your LEGAL NAME. That name in legal parlance is called "person". Your PROPERTY attaches legally to your birth name. Two things were created when you were born: 1. Your physical body; 2. You identity as a "person" under a system of laws:
"They have set fire to Your sanctuary; They have defiled the dwelling place of Your name to the ground."
Since you can only have ONE civil domicile, then if your CIVIL domicile is in "The Kingdom of Heaven", then it BY DEFINITION IS NOT within any man-made government. Here is an example:
"For our citizenship [domicile] is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself."
Since John 14 above says our "dwelling" as Christians must be with the Lord in the Kingdom of Heaven, then it by definition CANNOT be in any man-made government or any earthly political entity. This is the essence of what it means to be "sanctified" as a Christian: We are not joined legally through consent or contract with any part of the corrupt governments of the world. That concept is the foundation of separation of church and state, in fact:
10.2 Biblical criteria for a civil domicile in the Kingdom of Heaven
It may surprise the reader to learn that there is a specific biblical criteria by which people may lawfully claim a civil domicile in the Kingdom of Heaven. Below is the scripture, which is one of our favorites. We include this scripture in our Statement of Faith, in fact. We have boldfaced the important words to show the connection with domicile and a government or theological or political kingdom.
We established in the previous section that the word "dwell" means a civil domicile. The Kingdom of Heaven is represented by the phrases "Your tabernacle" and "holy hill". The words "hill" or "mountain" in the bible are equated many times as a metaphor for a political kingdom. Below is an article on the subject of Mystery Babylon from our Pastor's Corner that shows us this:
Back in the time that Apostle John wrote Rev. 17:9, many governments were theocracies and there was no separation between church and state. Hence, "hills" and "mountains" were synonymous with either churches or governments or civil or papal rulers that presided over them.
The phrase "dwell in" is a term synonymous with JOINING or ASSOCIATING with. Obviously, "hill" does NOT mean a physical hill, because you can't realistically live inside a physical hill. This is the same symbology the present de facto government uses when they say you are "in this State" or are a "resident" within "this State". "resident" means a contractor or covenant member:
26 C.F.R. §301.7701-5 Domestic, foreign, resident, and nonresident persons.Now that we know what a "hill" or "mountain" is, we have a whole new perspective on the following statement by Jesus:
Jesus indirectly was referencing a prayer that would bring an evil political kingdom down and destroy it. Obviously, He wasn't referring to a righteous government, because elsewhere in the Bible, we are told to submit ourselves ONLY to political rulers WHO ARE OBEYING GOD'S LAWS. Those rulers or governments who are NOT obeying God's laws or who write laws in CONFLICT with God's laws we are commanded to rebel against:
An example of the prayer Jesus is talking about in Mark 11:22-24 to punish an unrighteous government or civil ruler is described in the following sermons:
To summarize the criteria for a civil domicile in the Kingdom of Heaven INSTEAD of in Caesar's kingdom, you must:
10.3 Biblical mandate of equal treatment REQUIRES no civil statutes and only common law and criminal law
In his wonderful course on justice and mercy that we highly recommend, Pastor Tim Keller analyzes the elements that make up "justice" from both a legal and a biblical perspective.
At 19:00 he begins covering biblical justice and introduces the subject by quoting Lev. 24:22:
"You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God.'"
The above scripture may seem innocuous at first until you consider what a biblical "stranger" is. In legal terms, it means a "nonresident". A "nonresident", in turn, is a transient wanderer who is not domiciled in the physical place that he or she is physically located. To have the SAME law for both nonresident and domiciliary means they are BOTH treated equally by the government and the court. This scripture therefore advocates equality of protection and treatment between nonresidents and domiciliaries. We cover the subject of equality of protection and treatment in:
The legal implications of Lev. 24:22 is the following:
The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the only way the nonresident and the domiciliary can be treated EXACTLY equally in a biblical sense is if:
The above analysis is EXACTLY the approach we take in defining what "law" is in the following memorandum:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
10.4 It is idolatry for a Christian to have a domicile within any man-made government or within anything other than God's Kingdom
Note also the use of the word "permanent home" in the definition of "domicile". According to the Bible, "earth" is NOT permanent, but instead is only temporary, and will eventually be destroyed and rebuilt as a new and different earth:
The legal definition of "permanent" also demonstrates that it can mean any length of time one wants it to mean:
We believe what they are really describing above is the equivalent of a "protection contract" between you and the government, because the way it functions is that it is terminated when either you or the government insist, which means that while it is in force, your consent is inferred and legally "presumed". Below is how another author describes it, and note that the real meaning of "indefinitely" is "as long as he consents to a protector":
Christians define "permanent" the same way God does. God is eternal so His concept of "permanent" means "eternal". Therefore, no place on earth can be "permanent" in the context of a Christian:
Christians are only allowed to be governed by God and His laws found in the Bible. Man's laws are simply a vain substitute, but God's laws are our only true and permanent source of protection, and the only type of protection we can consent to or intend to be subject to without violating our covenant and contract with God found in the Holy Bible.
The main allegiance of Christians is exclusively to Him, and not to any man or earthly law or government. We are citizens of Heaven, and not earth. The most we can be while on earth is "nationals", because "nationals" are not subject to man's laws and only "citizens" are. See:
Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth can be our only "legal home" or "domicile" or "residence".
The above scriptures say we are "sojourners and pilgrims", meaning we are perpetual travelers while temporarily here as God's ambassadors. Legal treatises on domicile also confirm that while a person is "in transitu", meaning travelling and sojourning temporarily, he cannot choose a domicile and that his domicile reverts to his "domicile of origin". The domicile of origin is the place you were created and existed before you came to Earth, which is Heaven:
Even the U.S. Supreme Court has held that while a person temporarily occupies a place and is "in transitu" or "in itinere", he or she is not subject to the civil laws of that place.
To "consent" or "choose" to be governed by anything but God and His sacred Law is idolatry in violation of the first four Commandments of the Ten Commandments.
If you can't put confidence in "princes", which we interpret to mean political rulers or governments, then we certainly can't have allegiance to them or put that allegiance above our allegiance to God. We can therefore have no "legal home" or "domicile" or "residence" anywhere other than exclusively within the Kingdom of Heaven and not within the jurisdiction of any corrupted earthly government. Our only law is God's law and Common law, which is based on God's law. Below is an example of how the early Jews adopted this very attitude towards government from the Bible.
Our acronym for the word BIBLE confirms the above conclusions:
We are only temporarily here and the Kingdom of Heaven is where we intend to return and live permanently. Legal domicile is based only on intent, not on physical presence, and it is only "domicile" which establishes one's legal and tax "home". No one but us can establish our "intent" and this is the express intent. Neither can we as Christians permit our "domicile" to be subject to change under any circumstances, even when coerced. To admit that there is a "permanent home" or "place of abode" anywhere on earth is to admit that there is no afterlife, no God, and that this earth is as good as it gets, which is a depressing prospect indeed that conflicts with our religious beliefs. The Bible says that while we are here, Satan is in control, so this is definitely not a place we would want to call a permanent home or a domicile:
Satan could not have offered the kingdoms of the world to Jesus and tempted Him with them unless he controlled them to begin with. Satan is in control while we are here. Only a fool or an atheist would intend to make a wicked earth controlled by Satan into a "permanent place of abode".
Only a person who hates this life and the earth as they are and who doesn't want to make it a "permanent place of abode" or "domicile" can inherit eternal life.
Even Jesus Himself admitted that earth was not his "domicile" when He said:
When we become believers, we, like Jesus Himself, become God's "ambassadors" on a foreign mission from the Kingdom of Heaven according to 2 Cor. 5:20. Our house is a foreign embassy:
The Corpus Juris Secundum Legal Encyclopedia says that ambassadors have the domicile of those who they represent, which in the case of Christians is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Another interesting aspect of domicile explains why the Bible symbolically refers to believers as the "children of God". Below are examples:
The Corpus Juris Secundum Legal Encyclopedia says that those who are children, dependents, minors, or of unsound mind assume the domicile of the sovereign who is their "caretaker". As long as we are called "children of God" and are dependent exclusively on Him, we assume His domicile, which is the Kingdom of God:
The Bible treats the government as God's steward for truth and justice under God's laws. The passage below proves this, and it is not referring to ALL governments, but only those that are righteous, which are God's stewards, and who act in a way that is completely consistent and not in conflict with God's holy laws.
The term "governing authorities" is synonymous with "God's ministers". The Bible says that the government is on Jesus' shoulders, and therefore God's shoulders, not any man:
The Lord cannot be King where Satan is allowed to rule, even temporarily. Those who are not God's ministers are NOT "governing authorities" but usurpers and representatives of Satan, not God. They are "children of Satan", not God.
When government ceases to be a "minister of God's justice" and rather becomes a competitor for pagan idol worship and obedience of the people, then God abandons the government and the result is the equivalent of a legal divorce. This is revealed in the following scripture, which describes those who pursue pagan gods and pagan governments that act like god as "playing the harlot". The phrase "invites you to eat of his sacrifice", in modern day terms, refers to those who receive socialist welfare in any form, most of which is PLUNDER STOLEN from people who became a human sacrifice to the pagan government:
The result of the divorce of a righteous God from a Pagan government that has become a child of Satan and His competitor for the worship of the people is that God "hides his face", as the Bible says:
Below is a fascinating sermon about how and why God "hides his face" or "disappears":
Those who follow pagan governments rather than God after the civil "divorce" become the children of Satan, not God and are practicing idolatry. These people have misread Romans 13 and made government into a pagan substitute for God's protection and adopt the government as their new caretaker, and thereby shift their effective domicile to the government as its dependents and "children". This is especially true when the government becomes socialist, abuses its power to tax as a means of wealth transfer, and pays any type of social welfare to the people. At that point, the people become "dependents" and assume the domicile of their caretaker. One insightful congressman said the following of this dilemma during the debates over the original Social Security Act:
Any attempt to think about citizenship, domicile, and residence any way other than the way it is described here amounts to a devious and deceptive attempt by the Pharisees [lawyers] to use the "traditions of men" to entrap Christians and churches and put them under government laws, control, taxes, and regulation, thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine. The Separation of Powers Doctrine as well as the Bible itself both require churches and Christians to be totally separate from government, man's laws, and control, taxation, and regulation by government. See Great IRS Hoax, sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.12 for further details on the competition between "church" and "state" for the love and affections and allegiances of the people, and why separation of these two powers is absolutely essential.
11. Domicile and civil jurisdictions
11.1 What's so bad about the civil statutory law? Why care about avoiding it or pursuing common law or constitutional law to replace it?
Our investigation into the subject of domicile began with abuse by the family courts and the statutory codes that regulate and control it. This sort of legal abuse by what we now call "legislative franchise courts" such as the family court is what gets most people interested in the freedom subject and our website to begin with. Traffic court is another court that abuses people as well and it too is a "legislative franchise court". At the time of the abuse, we couldn't figure out exactly what it was about the process that was unjust or unfair, but we resolved to not only thoroughly document it, but to identify how to avoid it and exactly how to prosecute those who instituted the abuse for those who "un-volunteered". That quest is what gave birth to our entire website and this document, in fact.
So how does the civil code, or what we call the "civil protection franchise" undermine the above, we asked ourselves in studying this important subject?:
Is it any surprise that the Roman Empire, which was the origin of the above system of usury under the Roman "jus civile", failed and collapsed? Anyone that would build the security of private property upon such a frail and evil foundation is bound to fail quickly, and every government that has ever tried throughout history has failed for the same reason. Below is a description of HOW that failure happened:
Is there a better way? Absolutely. God's law is the PERFECT law of liberty:
If you would like exhaustive coverage of God's "perfect law of liberty", read the following:
By the way, "the perfect law of liberty" forbids those subject to it from consenting to or coming under the civil statutory jurisdiction of any other law system, or any ruler who grants or administers it, and says that doing so is IDOLATRY.
NOW do you know why we began our search for something BETTER and more EQUAL and JUST than the civil protection franchise or statutory "code"? The amount of INJUSTICE evident in the above list of defects is truly mind-boggling almost to the point of making life not even worth living if called to endure it. That's what George Carlin said about the miserable existence we suffer under presently because of a defective legal system:
The video below describes the MASSIVE injustices of the present de facto civil franchise system as "The Matrix":
Lastly, lest we be accused of being "narcissistic psychopathic anarchists", let us now emphasize what we DO NOT object to about the civil protection franchise. What we like about it is the opportunity it provides for remedy when an injury occurs between PRIVATE people one to another. That remedy is NOT exclusive, because you can abandon a domicile and instead invoke the common law. Outside of the sphere or remedy for PRIVATE injury, nothing but problems result that are easily remedied by God's "perfect law of liberty". The problems occur mainly when the GOVERNMENT is the party doing the injuring, which happens far more frequently than PRIVATE injury. Like any mafia, the government only protects itself and uses the law as an excuse to persecute political dissidents. This we call "selective enforcement" and it happens all the time, and ESPECIALLY with the IRS. The abuse of discretion to target of conservative groups by the IRS and the scandal that ensued in 2015 comes to mind. That mafia is described in the following funny video:
The fact that government essentially is allowed to behave literally as a criminal mafia under the auspices of the civil statutory protection franchise is how the original Roman Empire grew so large to begin with. Look at how the Romans treated Jesus in crucifying Him, and you understand why they were unjust. He refused to pay His "protection money" so they broke His knee caps, even though they could find no legal fault in Him.
For a fascinating book about Jesus' tax protest activity, see:
11.2 History of our system of civil statutory law
Our system of civil statutory law was inherited from the Roman statutory law, which was called "jus civile".
Roman law recognized only TWO classes of persons: statutory "citizens" and "foreigners". Only those who consented to become statutory "citizens" could become the lawful subject of the jus civile, which was the statutory civil law. Those who were not statutory "citizens" under the Roman Law, which today means those with NO civil domicile within the territory of the author and grantor of the civil law, were regarded as:
Note also that the above treatise characterizes TWO classes of rights: Civil rights and Natural rights. Today, these rights are called PUBLIC rights and PRIVATE rights by the courts in order to distinguish them. Public rights, in turn, are granted only to statutory "citizens" who consented to become citizens under the civil statutory law. The civil statutory law, or jus civile, therefore functions in essence as a franchise contract or compact that creates and grants ONLY public rights. Those who do not join the social compact by consenting to become statutory "citizens" therefore are relegated to being protected by natural law and common law, which is much more just and equitable.
Note the emphasis in the above upon the concept that everything exchanged must be paid for:
"And doubtless the laws of the surrounding peoples had each its own peculiar requirements. But in all of them the consent of the parties to transfer the ownership for a price was required."The concept we emphasize in the above cite is that the PUBLIC rights attached to the status of "citizen" under the Roman jus civile or statutory law constituted property that could not be STOLEN from those who did not consent to become "citizens" or to accept the "benefits" or "privileges" of statutory citizenship. Such a THEFT by government of otherwise PRIVATE or NATURAL rights would amount to an unconstitutional eminent domain by the government by converting PRIVATE rights into PUBLIC rights without the consent of the owner and without just compensation.
11.3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 establishes that civil law is a voluntary franchise
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 establishes the basis for litigating in all CIVIL courts under ONLY the STATUTORY law.
Conspicuously absent from the above federal civil rule are the two MOST important sources of law:
Why are these two sources of law NOT explicitly or expressly mentioned in the above civil rule as a source of jurisdiction or standing to sue in a federal CIVIL statutory court? Because these sources of law come from the constitution and are NOT "granted" or "created" by the government. Anything not CREATED by the government cannot be limited, regulated, or taxed. PRIVATE rights and PRIVATE property, for instance, are NOT "created" by government and instead are created and endowed by God, according to the Declaration of Independence:
The Constitution or the common law therefore may be cited by ANYONE, including those not domiciled within the civil statutory jurisdiction of the civil court, so long as they were physically present on land protected by the Constitution within the district served by the court at the time they received an injury. Recall that the Constitution attaches to LAND, and not to your status as a statutory "citizen" or "resident":
11.4. Two contexts for legal terms: CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY
"When words lose their meaning [or their CONTEXT WHICH ESTABLISHES THEIR MEANING], people lose their freedom."
It is absolutely crucial to understand that there are TWO contexts in which all legal statuses such as "citizen", "resident", and "alien" can be used:
One can, for instance, be a "citizen" under CONSTITUTION and yet be an "non-resident non-person" under STATUTORY law in relation to the federal government. This is the status of those who are born in states of the Union and who are domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of a CONSTITUTIONAL state of the Union.
The purpose of providing a statutory definition of a legal "term" is to supersede and not enlarge the ordinary, common law, constitutional, or common meaning of a term. Geographical words of art include:
The terms "State" and "United States" within the Constitution implies the constitutional states of the Union and excludes federal territory, statutory "States" (federal territories), or the statutory "United States" (the collection of all federal territory). This is an outcome of the separation of powers doctrine. See:
The U.S. Constitution creates a public trust which is the delegation of authority order that the U.S. Government uses manage federal territory and property. That property includes franchises, such as the "trade or business" franchise. All statutory civil law it creates can and does regulate only THAT property and not the constitutional States, which are foreign, sovereign, and statutory "aliens" for the purposes of federal legislative jurisdiction.
It is very important to realize the consequences of this constitutional separation of powers between the states and national government. Some of these consequences include the following:
The following cite from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark helps clarify the distinctions between the STATUTORY and CONSTITUTIONAL contexts by admitting that there are TWO components that determine one's "citizenship" status: NATIONALITY and DOMICILE.
In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: 'The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.' Page 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: 'The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,—one by virtue of which he becomes the subject [NATIONAL] of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.' And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which 'the personal rights of the party—that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy— must depend,' he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country (patria), and his 'nationality,—that is, natural allegiance,'—'may depend on different laws in different countries.' Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word 'citizen,' not as equivalent to 'subject,' but rather to 'inhabitant'; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
Understanding the distinction between nationality and domicile, in turn is absolutely critical.
Nationality and domicile, TOGETHER determine the POLITICAL AND CIVIL/LEGAL status of a human being respectively. These important distinctions are recognized in Black's Law Dictionary:
"nationality – That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil [statutory] status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization."
The U.S. Supreme Court also confirmed the above when they held the following. Note the key phrase "political jurisdiction", which is NOT the same as legislative/statutory jurisdiction. One can have a political status of "citizen" under the constitution while NOT being a "citizen" under federal statutory law because not domiciled on federal territory. To have the status of "citizen" under federal statutory law, one must have a domicile on federal territory:
Notice in the last quote above that they referred to a foreign national born in another country as a "citizen". THIS is the REAL "citizen" that judges and even tax withholding documents are really talking about, rather than the "national" described in the constitution. And also notice that they say in relation to DOMICILE/STATUTORY status the following "He owes the same obedience to the CIVIL laws", thus establishing that CIVIL law does not apply to those WITHOUT a DOMICILE.
Domicile and NOT nationality is what imputes a status under the tax code and a liability for tax. Tax liability is a civil liability that attaches to civil statutory law, which in turn attaches to the person through their choice of domicile. When you CHOOSE a domicile, you elect or nominate a protector, which in turn gives rise to an obligation to pay for the civil protection demanded. The method of providing that protection is the civil laws of the municipal (as in COUNTY) jurisdiction that you chose a domicile within.
"domicile. A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310, 213 A.2d. 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a "domicile" therein. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges."
Later versions of Black's Law Dictionary attempt to cloud this important distinction between nationality and domicile in order to unlawfully and unconstitutionally expand federal power into the states of the Union and to give federal judges unnecessary and unwarranted discretion to kidnap people into their jurisdiction using false presumptions. They do this by trying to make you believe that domicile and nationality are equivalent, when they are EMPHATICALLY NOT. Here is an example:
"nationality – The relationship between a citizen of a nation and the nation itself, customarily involving allegiance by the citizen and protection by the state; membership in a nation. This term is often used synonymously with citizenship. "
Federal courts regard the term "citizenship" as equivalent to domicile, meaning domicile on federal territory.
"The words "citizen" and citizenship," however, usually include the idea of domicile, Delaware, L.&W.R.Co. v. Petrowsky, C.C.A.N.Y., 250 F. 554, 557 ;"
WARNING: A failure to either understand or correctly apply the above concepts can literally mean the difference between being a government pet in a legal cage called a franchise, and being a free and sovereign man or woman.
11.5. Changing your domicile changes your relationship from foreign to domestic and changes POLITICAL speech to LEGAL speech in court
We said earlier in section 1 that domicile is an EXTREMELY important subject to learn because it defines and circumscribes:
This section will prove these assertions.
Throughout our website, we refer to:
The above metaphor is exhaustively proven using the Bible as evidence in the following:
Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007
Anyone who does not worship (serve ANYONE or ANYTHING ABOVE them, and who in turn possesses superior or supernatural powers) is an atheist. Those who worship the wrong god are called idolaters. Even those who THINK they are atheists often in fact DO worship (obey and serve) a religion without knowing it. The thing they worship is the thing they put higher in importance than God. This could be SELF, any law system OTHER than Gods, money, sex, power, etc. The idolatry practiced by atheists is described in:
Problems with Atheistic Anarchism, Form #08.020
The Bible shows how the transition from FOREIGN to DOMESTIC and POLITICAL to LEGAL happens in relation to God in the following passage:
Translations of the words and phrases found above into contemporary legal language:Table 2: Biblical v. Legal use of terms within the Bible relating to domicile
Before we become Christians, we are legally separated from God and outside of the protection and "benefit" (blessing) of His laws:
Being "outside" of the protection of a specific system of law as described below is called being "foreign", a "stranger", "stateless", or a "nonresident" in secular legal terms.
2 That at that time ye were without (separated from) Christ, being aliens (shut out) from the commonwealth (Politeo, polis) of Israel, and strangers (xenos or alien) from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God (atheist) in the world (cosmos):
While we are "foreign", a "stranger",' stateless", and a "nonresident" in relation to God and His laws, we are usually "domestic", a statutory "person", and a "subject" in relation to a political ruler. The Apostle Paul refers to the shedding of this legal identity as "putting on the new man":
After we have shed Caesars/Satans' authority over us, we are no longer under Caesar's protection:
The "new man" referred to above is actually a TRUSTEE POSITION or "office" within the Bible trust indenture, just like all of man's civil law. The believer then becomes a "foreigner" in relation to Caesar's civil statutory franchise codes and no longer an AGENT of Caesar, but rather of God. You can only have ONE King and ONE domicile and ONE allegiance at a time, or you have a conflict of interest:
To redeem us from the corruption of this pagan system of secular law that enslaves us to worshipping false idols called civil rulers, Christ shed His blood for us. When we accept His free gift of salvation through faith, we become "domestic" in relation to God and "foreign" in relation to the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
The Biblical political model for government was based on city states rather that "states". Ancient cities had walls around them and a gate controlling entry and exit. To enter the city, you had to be a STATUTORY "citizen", "resident", or "member" of the city, and swear allegiance to the ruler.
Blessed are those who do [OBEY] His commandments [LAWS], that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside [the city and its protection] are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
The only way to avoid committing idolatry is to ensure that God is the King of the city you want to be a member of. The Bible book of Nehemiah describes how such a city can be and was built. It describes the rebuilding of the wall around Jerusalem and the restoration of God as the King of the Israelites. To do this, all the people in the new city had to:
On that last item above, now deceased U.S. Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia boldly stated at a legal gathering that socialism "deprives Christians of sanctification". By this he clearly can only mean that it INTERFERES with obeying God's laws, since sanctification is effected only through obedience to God's laws. He should know about Christianity because after all, his son is a Catholic Priest and presided over his own funeral:
The basis for our ministry is, in fact, the rebuilding of this wall of separation between church, which is believers as individual humans, and the secular pagan state, which is the heathens around us. See the following discussion about Nehemiah in:
The Heaven we enter after the final judgment called "The New Jerusalem" is described as such a great city. You can't enter this walled city without allegiance to its King, who is Jesus, and without obedience to the laws that make it a safe and pleasant place for EVERYONE. If Jesus is your Savior but NOT your Sovereign Lord and KING, then you can't enter this city!
The wall keeps the sinners, disobedient, and anarchists (in relation to God's laws) OUT of the city. These people are NOT subject to the laws applicable WITHIN the city, but instead are "foreign", a "stranger", "stateless", or a "nonresident" in relation to the civil laws of that place. All laws are prima facie territorial, meaning that they DO NOT apply to people not ON that land or at least domiciled there.
In the case of the civil statutory "codes" or protection franchise, you must not only be ON that land, but must CONSENT to be protected by them by consensually choosing a domicile within the jurisdiction of the "state" that civilly protects that land. If you don't choose such a domicile on the land in which you have injured someone, then:
As a public officer, agent, and trustee of God under the Bible trust indenture and someone who is "domestic" in relation to Heaven and "foreign" in relation to Caesar, you are an "ambassador" of God who is subject ONLY to the CIVIL lawgiver you represent.
Jesus even described how we became "foreign", a "stranger", "stateless", or a "nonresident":
"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of [domiciled within] the world, but I [Jesus] chose you [believers] out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, 'A [public] servant is not greater than his [Sovereign] master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also [as trustees of the public trust]. But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him [God] who sent Me."
The phrase "do not know Him who sent Me" is equivalent to someone who has no commercial or legal relationship with God by virtue of not accepting or nominating Him as their CIVIL protector. These people are domiciled on Earth within Caesar's jurisdiction rather than in Heaven under God's civil protection. They are therefore practicing idolatry and are under the control of the "wicked one" as Jesus called Him in Matt. 13, 1 John 2, and 1 John 3. They are "worshipping" a false idol called "Caesar" because they have nominated HIM as their pagan civil lawgiver instead of God. The source of law in any society is the GOD of that society and if Caesar's law deviates from God's law, then Caesar is the new pagan god:
The Bible even describes Jesus as NOT having an Earthly domicile:
Then a certain scribe came and said to Him, "Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go." And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."
Consistent with the above analysis, states of the Union:
You have to SURRENDER your right to be left alone, fire God as your civil protector, and agree to commit idolatry by asking Caesar for civil protection. Once you ask, he will make you into a public officer working WITHIN his corporation and therefore "domestic". Nearly all statutory "persons" are public officers, as we exhaustively prove in:
If you are not serving WITHIN the above "foreign corporation" of Caesar as a public officer, then you remain "foreign", a "stranger", "stateless", or a "nonresident" in relation to that corporation. While serving WITHIN that corporation as its agent and officer, your effective domicile is the domicile of the corporation, which is the District of Columbia under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), as we established earlier in section 11.3. If you want to REMAIN "foreign", a "stranger", "stateless", or a "nonresident", then you MUST ensure that you NEVER contract, meaning "fornicate" with The Beast Government (Rev. 19:19) for EITHER civil "protection" or civil "benefits". In other words, you should NEVER consent to surrender your sovereignty or sovereign immunity to become a statutory "person", "citizen", or "resident" under the CIVIL statutory franchise codes:
If we don't obey the above commandments, then here is the process of corruption that happens in which we will be DESTROYED. This process of corruption is summarized in an ancient maxim of law:
The above maxim of law is described in 1 Sam. 8:19-20:
The result of trusting Egypt/Babylon/District of Columbia for protection, franchises, or privileges is the following:
Notice the language "no help or benefit" in the last quote above. God is describing an UNFAIR or UNEQUAL trade wrought out of desperation and which produces "USURY". We describe this as "the raw deal" scam, which is a euphemism for franchises and the FDR "New Deal". The Bible reiterates this criticism of the government's "raw deal scam" in the following:
For thus says the LORD: " You have sold yourselves for nothing, And you shall be redeemed without money."The same unequal sale for nothing happened during the famine in Egypt, and also in the first city Babylon between Nimrod and his "victims", where he used the PLUNDER to build his tower to celebrate his vanity. Do you see a pattern here? It's about USURY. For more on the "raw deal scam" and its origin with "protection", see section 8 of this document.
The only remedy for the usury is:
For more on who "Babylon the Harlot" and "Mystery Babylon" is, see:
Lastly, President Barack Obama agrees with us that religious people are foreigners in their own society, and by that he can only mean from both a LEGAL perspective and a POLITICAL perspective:
11.6. "Domicile" and "residence" compared
Black's Law Dictionary helps define the distinctions between residence and domicile:
The above definition deliberately clouds the issue of:
When we look up the definitions for "abode" and "inhabitant" as used in the definition of "residence", they all connect back to domicile and therefore also have consent as a prerequisite.
1. Definition "inhabitant":
2. Definition of "abode":
So to say that a "residence" is "A factual place of abode" in the definition of "residence" means one's CHOSEN place of domicile. And to say that "It requires only bodily presence as an inhabitant of a place" in the definition of "residence" ALSO implies domicile and therefore requires consent, because an "inhabitant" is someone who is "domiciled" in a place.
The following authorities clarify that "residence", and especially in taxing statutes, is usually associated with CONSTITUTIONAL but not STATUTORY alienage or "alien" status and excludes those who are nationals of the country.
We wish to clarify that those who are domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of a CONSTITUTIONAL but not STATUTORY "State" relative to federal law and who were born somewhere within the country where the "State" is located are all the following in relation to the national government. This status, by the way, is the status of the AVERAGE American:
It therefore appears to us that the only occasion where "domicile" or "residence" are NOT equivalent is in the case of those who are constitutional but not statutory aliens of the place they are in. Otherwise, they are equivalent. The implication is that constitutional aliens do not need to consent to the civil laws of the place they are in because they are "privileged", where as nationals born there do. This appears to violate the notion of equal protection, which may explain why the legal dictionary was so terse in their definition of residence: because they don't want to admit that courts routinely treat people unequally and in violation of the requirement for equal protection.
Below is the ONLY definition of "residence" found anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code. This definition is entirely consistent with the above. The definition does not begin with qualifying language such as "for the purposes of this section" or "for the purposes of this chapter". Therefore, it is a universal definition that applies throughout the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations. Note also that the definition is provided ONLY in the context of an "alien". Therefore, "citizens" or "nationals" cannot have a "residence". This is VERY important and is completely consistent with the fact that the only kind of "resident" defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code (see 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)) is an "alien":
The phrase "definite purpose" is important in the definition of "residence" above. Those who have a definite purpose because of their eternal covenant with God and their contractual relationship to Him described in the Bible and who know they are only here temporarily can only be classified as "transients" above. This explains why our rulers in government want to get God out of the schools and out of public life: so that the sheep will have no purpose in life other than to serve them and waste themselves away in vain and sinful material pursuits.
Only you, the Sovereign, can determine your "intention" in the context of "residence". Notice the words "definite purpose", "transient" and "temporary" in the definition of "residence" above are nowhere defined in the law, which means that you, and not your public servants, define them. If you do not intend to remain in the "United States", which is defined as ONLY the District of Columbia in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and not expanded elsewhere in Subtitle A to include any other place, then you can't be counted as a "resident", even if you are in fact an "alien". The government cannot determine your intention for you. An intention that is not voluntary is not an intention, but simply a reaction to unjust external authority. This is the basis for why the Supreme Court said:
The California Election Code, Section 349 further clarifies the distinctions between "domicile" and "residence" as follows:
The above definition is consistent with the analysis earlier in this section, but don't make the false assumption that the above definitions apply within income tax codes, because they DON'T. Only statutory "citizens" who have a domicile within the forum can be the subject of the above statute relating to voting and elections, while the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A applies exclusively to privileged aliens who have a domicile or tax home on federal territory: two COMPLETELY different audiences of people, for which the terms are NOT interchangeable. A "residence" in the I.R.C. is the temporary abode of a privileged alien, while a "residence" in the election code is the temporary abode of a non-privileged Sovereign American National. The worst mistake that you can make as a person born in your country is to believe or think that laws written only for "aliens" or "resident aliens" apply to you. The only types of persons the federal government can write laws for in a state of the Union, in fact, are Constitutional but not statutory aliens.
If you are born in a state of the Union and have a domicile there and not on federal territory, federal laws CANNOT and DO NOT apply to you. The only exception is if you contract away your rights and sovereignty by pursuing a federal government benefit, such as Social Security, Medicare, federal employment, etc. Otherwise, We the People are Sovereign over their public servants:
11.7. "Domiciliary" v. "Resident"
The most instructive case that describes WHEN one has a domicile in a specific place and which distinguishes "domiciliary" from "resident" is District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 (1941). Recall that the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A income tax is upon STATUTORY "residents", including American born parties who are "resident" in foreign countries. The tax is NOT upon their domicile but their "residence", which means the temporary abode or "tax home" (26 U.S.C. §911) of a STATUTORY "alien". All of the "persons" mentioned in 26 U.S.C. §911 are ALIENS, including the "citizens" therein mentioned, because such "citizens" are in fact "aliens" in relation to the foreign country they are in and interface to the Internal Revenue Code through a tax treaty WITH that foreign country. That tax treaty, in fact, constitutes an excise taxable "benefit" for those STATUTORY "citizens" born in the federal zone and travelling abroad while domiciled in the federal zone. Layered on top of the "national" income tax (not "federal", but "national", meaning federal zone) enforced upon "residents" of the federal zone is the income tax imposed MUNICIPALLY upon those DOMICILED rather than "RESIDENT" locally. This case shows how these two factors work together to determine I.R.C. tax liability and MUNICIPAL tax liability.
District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 (1941) involved TWO parties in opposite circumstances:
The Board found "as a fact" that, at the end of one year after he came to the District in 1914, respondent "had an 449*449 intention to remain and make his home in the District of Columbia for an indefinite period of time and that intention remained with him, at least until the death of his wife." As in No. 58, it considered itself bound by the Sweeney case, supra, [1] and accordingly held "as a matter of law" that the petitioner was not domiciled in the District on December 31, 1939, and never had been.
The decisions in both cases were affirmed on review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 73 App.D.C. 345, 347, 119 F.2d. 449, 451. The cases were brought here on writs of certiorari because of the importance of the questions involved. 313 U.S. 556.
Although the District of Columbia Income Tax Act made "domicile" the fulcrum of the income tax, the first ever imposed in the District, it set forth no definition of that word. To ascertain its meaning we therefore consider the Congressional history of the Act, the situation with reference to which it was enacted, and the existing judicial precedents, with which Congress may be taken to have been familiar in at least a general way. United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 562.
Below is how Congress explained the applicability of the income tax in dispute:
From this case, we learn that:
First, the Murphy case exemplified the importance of the necessary facts, personal knowledge and actual establishment of an individual's domicile as respects the DC income tax act. If the targeted individuals were domiciled in DC on the last day of the taxable year, those individuals were liable to the tax, as the tax was imposed on the taxable income of any individual domiciled in DC on "tax day". It is that simple.
Since Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the "District" (see Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 17) it certainly had the "power" to enact such a tax on citizens domiciled in the District. In fact, the constitutionality of the tax was not ever put in issue. The issue in the case turned on whether Mr. Murphy was resident in DC or domiciled there for purposes of that DC ("federal") income tax act. His domicile was held to be in Pennsylvania by the Supreme Court, thus exempting him from the DC Income Tax.
Moreover, there are two fairly instructive Revenue Rules spot on the topic of "wherever resident". See Rev.Rul. 489 and Rev.Rul. 357 as follows:
As regards additional support, see Rev. Rul. 75-357 at p. 5, as follows:
Being that Rev. Rul. 75-357 quotes 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(b) directly, and duly informs every reader to see, 26 U.S.C. § 911, I believe we should visit 26 U.S.C. § 911 and its regulations to locate the appropriate application of the wherever resident feature in that section of federal law. See 26 U.S.C. § 911(d)(1)(A) as follows:
Additionally, as we know, 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b) states,
The regulations to section 911 make the distinction between where income is received as opposed to where services are performed. See:
The Murphy case also points out the utter arrogance, conceit, and hypocrisy of the federal courts because:
If you would like to know more about why state nationals are not "residents" and therefore NOT statutory "taxpayers" under the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A, See:
1. Sweeney v. District of Columbia, 72 App. D.C. 30, 113 F.2d. 25, certiorari denied, 310 U.S. 631.
2. We do not understand "permanent" to have been used in a literal sense. Of course it cannot be known without the gift of prophecy whether a given abode is "permanent" in the strictest sense. But beyond this, it is frequently used in the authorities on domicile to describe that which is not merely "temporary," or to describe a dwelling for the time being which there is no presently existing intent to give up. And further, compare a statement by Representative Dirksen on the floor of the House, 84 Cong. Rec. 8973.
3. Exercise of political rights elsewhere cannot be considered as meant to be conclusive on the issue of taxability in the District. See statement by Representative Dirksen on the floor of the House. Ibid.
6. Walden v. Canfield, 2 Rob. (La.) 466; Lesh v. Lesh, 13 Pa. Dist. Ct. 537; see Woodworth v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 18 F. 282, 284; Commonwealth v. Jones, 12 Pa.St. 365, 371; cf. Newman v. United States, 43 App.D.C. 53, 70; reversed on another ground, 238 U.S. 537; Deming v. United States, 59 App. D.C. 188, 37 F.2d 818; Campbell v. Ramsey, 150 Kan. 368, 388, 92 P.2d 819; Hannon v. Grizzard, 89 N.C. 129. But cf. Bradstreet v. Bradstreet, 18 D.C. 229, 7 Mackey 229; Sparks v. Sparks, 114 Tenn. 666, 88 S.W. 173.
9. This is not inconsistent with our holding that domicile here does not follow from mere indefiniteness of the period of one's stay. While the intention to return must be fixed, the date need not be; while the intention to return must be unconditional, the time may be, and in most cases of necessity is, contingent. The intention must not waver before the uncertainties of time, but one may not be visited with unwelcome domicile for lacking the gift of prophecy.
10. Of course, this term does not have the magic qualities of a divining rod in locating domicile. In fact, the search for the domicile of any person capable of acquiring a domicile of choice is but a search for his "home." See Beale, Social Justice and Business Costs, 49 Harv. L. Rev. 593, 596; 1 Beale, Conflict of Laws, §19.1.
11.8. The TWO types of "residents": FOREIGN NATIONAL under the common law or GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR/PUBLIC OFFICER under a franchise
11.8.1 Introduction
As we pointed out earlier in section 11.3:
CONTEXT therefore has a HUGE impact upon the meaning of the legal term "resident". Because there are two main contexts in which "resident" can be used, then there are TWO possible meanings for the term.
Most of the civil law passed by state and federal governments are civil franchises, such as Medicare, Social Security, driver licensing, marriage licensing, professional licensing, etc. All such franchises are actually administered as FEDERAL franchises, even by the state governments. Men and women domiciled within a constitutional state have a legislatively foreign domicile outside of federal territory and they are therefore treated as statutory "non-resident non-persons" in relation to the national government. Once they volunteer for a franchise, they consent to represent a public office within that civil franchise and their civil statutory status changes from being a "non-resident non-person" to being a statutory "domiciled citizen" in relation to federal territory and the national government under the specific franchise they signed up for. The operation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) is what makes them a "domiciled citizen" because the office they occupy or represent is domiciled on federal territory in the District of Columbia per 4 U.S.C. §72.
The legal definition of "resident" within Black's Law Dictionary tries to hint at the above complexities with the following deliberately confusing language:
Note the following critical statement in the above, admitting that sleight of hand is involved:
"Word "resident" has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used. [Kelm v. Carlson, C.A.Ohio, 473, F2d 1267, 1271]"
Within the above definition, the term "the State" can mean one of TWO things:
All federal corporations are "created" and "organized" under federal law and therefore are "residents" in relation to the national government.
It is also important to emphasize that ALL governments are corporations as held by the U.S. Supreme Court:
Consequently, when one volunteers to become a public officer within a government corporation, then they acquire a "LEGAL PRESENCE" in the LEGAL AND NOT PHYSICAL PLACE called "United States" as an officer of the corporation. In effect, they are "assimilated" into the corporation as a legal "person" as its representative.
Earlier versions of the Treasury Regulations reveal the operation of the SECOND method for creating "residents", which is that of converting statutory aliens into statutory resident using government franchises:
The key statement in the above is that the status of "resident" does NOT derive from either nationality or domicile, but rather from whether one is "purposefully and consensually" engaged in the FRANCHISE ACTIVITY called a "trade or business". This is consistent with the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court, which requires "purposeful availment" in order to waive sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97:
Incidentally, we were the first people we know of who discovered the above mechanisms and as soon as we exposed them on this website, the above regulation was quickly replaced with a temporary regulation to hide the truth. Scum bags!
The deliberately confusing and evasive definition of "resident" in Black's Law Dictionary is trying to obfuscate or cover up the above process by inventing new terms called "the State", which they then refuse to define because if they did, they would probably start the second American revolution and destroy the profitability of the government franchise scam that subsidizes the authors within the legal profession! They are like Judas: Selling the truth for 20 pieces of silver.
What we want to emphasize in this section is that:
Finally, if you would like to know more about how VOLUNTARY participation in government franchises makes one a "resident", see:
11.8.2 Why was the statutory "resident" under civil franchises created instead of using a classical constitutional "citizen" or "resident" as its basis?
After looking at the "resident" government contractor franchise scam, we wondered why they had to do this instead of simply using a classicial constitutional "citizen" or "resident" with a domicile within the territory protected by a specific government as the basis for franchises. After careful thought and research, we found that there are many reasons they had to do this:
11.8.3 How the TWO types of "RESIDENTS" are deliberately confused
As we pointed out in the previous section, there is a vested financial interest in covetous governments deliberately confusing FOREIGN NATIONALS under the common law with CONTRACTORS under government franchises. Great pains have been taken over time to confuse these two because of these strong motivations to recruit more government franchisee contractors and thus increase revenues. We will discuss these mechanisms in this section.
The first technique was already pointed out earlier in section 11.4, where we showed that "residence" is deliberately confused with "domicile", even though they are NOT equivalent and mutually exclusive under franchise statutes. "Residence" under the Internal Revenue Code "trade or business" franchise, for instance, means the abode of a statutory "alien" and DOES NOT include either "citizens" or even "nonresident aliens".
The second technique is to confuse the word "reside" with "residence" or "domicile". Reside simply means where one sleeps at night and has NOTHING to do with either their domicile OR their residence:
"RESIDE. Live, dwell, abide, sojourn, stay, remain, lodge. Western-Knapp Engine."
You can RESIDE somewhere WITHOUT having EITHER a domicile or a residence there. Here is an example:
Keep in mind the following important facts about the above case:
Only a handful of States today condition the franchise on the payment of a poll tax. Alabama (Ala. Const., §§ 178, 194, and Amendments 96 and 207; Ala. Code Tit. 17, § 12) and Texas (Tex. Const., Art. 6, § 2; Vernon's Ann. Stat., Election Code, Arts. 5.02, 5.09) each impose a poll tax of $1.50. Mississippi (Miss. Const., §§ 241, 243; Miss. Code §§ 3130, 3160, 3235) has a poll tax of $2. Vermont has recently eliminated the requirement that poll taxes be paid in order to vote. Act of Feb. 23, 1966, amending Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 24, § 701.
11.8.4 PRACTICAL EXAMPLE 1: Opening a bank account
Let us give you a practical business example of this phenomenon in action whereby a person becomes a "resident" from a legal perspective by exercising their right to contract. You want to open a checking account at a bank. You go to the bank to open the account. The clerk presents you with an agreement that you must sign before you open the account. If you won't sign the agreement, then the clerk will tell you that they can't open an account for you. Before you sign the account agreement, the bank doesn't know anything about you and you don't have an account there, so you are the equivalent of an "alien". An "alien" is someone the bank will not recognize or interact with or help. They can only lawfully help "customers", not "aliens". After you exercise your right to contract by signing the bank account agreement, then you now become a "resident" of the bank. You are a "resident" because:
11.8.5 PRACTICAL EXAMPLE 2: Creation of the "resident" under a government civil franchise
When two parties execute a franchise agreement or contract between them, they are engaging in "commerce". The practical consequences of the franchise agreement are the following:
Another surprising result of engaging in franchises and public "benefits" that most people overlook is that the commerce it represents, in fact, can have the practical effect of making an "alien" or "nonresident" party into a "resident" for the purposes of statutory jurisdiction. Here is the proof:
Legal treatises on domicile also confirm that those who are "wards" or "dependents" of the state or the government assume the same domicile or "residence" as their care giver. The practical effect of this is that by participating in government franchises, we become "wards" of the government in receipt of welfare payments such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. As "wards" under "guardianship" of the government, we assume the same domicile as the government who is paying us the "benefits", which means the District of Columbia. Our domicile is whatever the government, meaning the "court" wants it to be for their convenience:
This change in domicile of those who participate in government franchises and thereby become "wards" of the government is also consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's view of the government's relationship to those who participate in government franchises. It calls the government a "parens patriae" in relation to them!:
One Congressman during the debates over the proposal of the Social Security Act in 1933 criticized the very adverse affects of the franchise upon people's rights, including that upon the domicile of those who participate, when he said:
The Internal Revenue Code franchise agreement itself contains provisions which recognize this change in effective domicile to the District of Columbia within 26 U.S.C. §7408(d)and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39).
Since your Constitutional right to contract is unlimited, then you can have as many temporary and transient "residences" as you like, but you can have only one legal "domicile", because your allegiance must be undivided or you will have a conflict of interest and allegiance.
Now do you understand the reasoning behind the following maxim of law? You become a "subject" and a "resident" under the jurisdiction of a government's civil law by demanding its protection! If you want to "fire" the government as your "protector", you MUST quit demanding anything from it by filling out government forms or participating in its franchises:
Remember, "resident" is a combination of two word roots: "res", which is legally defined as a "thing", and "ident", which stands for "identified".
The "object, subject matter, or status" they are talking about above is the ALL CAPS incarnation of your legal birth name and the government-issued number, usually an SSN, that is associated with it. Those two things constitute the "straw man" or "trust" or "res" which you implicitly agree to represent at the time you sign up for any franchise, benefit, or "public right". When the government attacks someone for a tax liability or a debt, they don't attack you as a private person, but rather the collection of rights that attach to the ALL CAPS trust name and associated Social Security Number trust. They start by placing a lien on the number, which actually is THEIR number and not YOURS. That number associates PRIVATE property with PUBLIC TRUST property. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary definition 5(b) for "Trust" is "office":
20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) says the number is THEIR property. They can lien their property, which is public property in your temporary use and custody as a "trustee" of the "public trust". Everything that number is connected to acts as private property donated temporarily to a public use to procure the "benefits" of the franchise. It is otherwise illegal to mix public property, such as the Social Security Number, with private property, because that would constitute illegal and criminal embezzlement in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912.
Below is how the U.S. Supreme Court describes the practical effect of creating the trust and placing its "residence" or "domicile" within the jurisdiction of the specific government or "state" granting the franchise:
The implication is that you cannot be sovereign if either you or the entities you voluntarily represent have a "domicile" or "residence" in any man-made government or in any place other than Heaven or the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. If you choose a "domicile" or "residence" any place on earth, then you become a "subject" in relation to that place and voluntarily forfeit your sovereignty. This is NOT the status you want to have! A "resident" by definition MUST therefore be within the legislative jurisdiction of the government, because the government cannot lawfully write laws that will allow them to recognize or act upon anything that is NOT within their legislative jurisdiction.
All law is prima facie territorial in nature, and can act only upon the territory under the exclusive control of the government or upon its franchises, contracts, and real and chattel property, which are "property" under its management and control pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. The only lawful way that government laws can reach beyond the territory of the sovereign who controls them is through explicit, informed, mutual consent of the individual parties involved, and this field of law is called "private law".
[1] Ky.--City of Louisville v. Sherley's Guardian, 80 Ky. 71 .
[2]Ky.--Garth v. City Sav. Bank. 86 S.W. 520, 120 Ky. 280, 27 Ky.L. 675.
[3] Wash.-Matter of Adoption of Buehl, 555 P.2d. 1334, 87 Wash.2d. 649.
[4] Cd.-In re Henning's Estate, 60 P. 762, 128 C. 214.
[5] Md.Sudler v. Sudler, 88 A. 26, 121 Md. 46.
[6] Wash.-Matter of Adoption of Buehl, 555 P.2d. 1334, 87 Wash.2d 649.
11.9. Legal presumptions about domicile
It is important also to recognize that state and federal law often establishes certain rebuttable "presumptions" about one's "residence" as an "alien"/"resident". Below is an example from the Arizona Revised Statutes:
The above presumption is rebuttable, and the way to rebut it is to make our intentions known:
How do we make our "intentions" known to the protector we are nominating?:
We can also encourage other false presumptions by the government relating to our legal domicile based on the words we use to describe ourself. For instance, if we describe ourself as either a "citizen" or a "resident" or "inhabitant" on any government form, then we are declaring ourself to be a "domiciliary" in respect to the government who is accepting the form. Otherwise, we would be a "transient foreigner" outside of the jurisdiction of that government. This is further explained in the following two articles:
Within federal law, persons who are "citizens", "residents", or "inhabitants" are described as:
Those who are "non-resident non-persons", "nontaxpayers" and "transient foreigners" therefore cannot declare themselves as being either "citizens", "residents", "inhabitants", "U.S. persons", "individuals", or "domestic" on any federal government form, or they forfeit their status and become "taxpayers", "domiciliaries", and "subjects" and tenants living on the king's land. For an important example of how the above concept applies, examine the IRS Form W-8BEN:
Block 3 is used by the applicant to declare both the entity type AND their legal domicile as well. The declaration of "domicile" is "hidden" in the word "individual". Notice there is no block on the form for either "human being" or "transient foreigner". The only block a human being can fill out is "individual". 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2) identifies an "individual" as either a "citizen" or a "resident", and a person who is a nonresident alien cannot be either. Therefore, the form essentially coerces the applicant into committing perjury by not providing an option to accurately describe themselves, such as a box for "transient foreigner" or "human being". This defect is remedied in the amended version of the form available below, which adds to Block 3 an option called "transient foreigner":
The regulations relating to "aliens" also establish the following presumptions:
If you are state domiciled state national and a "non-resident non-person", don't let the above concern you, because you are not an "alien" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A), but rather an "non-resident non-person" if not engaged in a public office or a "nonresident alien" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) if engaged in a public office.
11.10. Effect of domicile on citizenship and synonyms for domicile
Now let's summarize what we have just learned so far to show graphically the effect that one's choice of domicile has on their citizenship status. Below are some authorities upon which we will base our summary and analysis.
We will now present a table based on the above consistent with the entire content of the document which you can use for all future reference. The term "Domestic National" in the table below refers to a person born in any state of the Union, or in a territory or possession of the United States:
Table 5-25: Effect of domicile on citizenship status
Based on the above table, we can see that when a person within any government identifies you as a "citizen", they presuppose that you maintain a "domicile" within their jurisdiction. The same thing goes for the term "inhabitant", which also describes a person with a domicile within the jurisdiction of the local government where he lives. Note the use of the phrase "reside actually and permanently in a given place and has a domicile there" in the definition of inhabitant:
The legal dictionary is careful to disguise the requirement for "domicile" in their definition of "resident". To admit that domicile was a prerequisite for being a "resident", they would open the door for a mass exodus of the tax system by most people, so they beat around the bush. For instance, here is the definition of "resident" from Black's Law Dictionary:
The Law of Nations, which is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution and was used by the Founding Fathers to write the Constitution, is much more clear in its definition of "resident", and does essentially admit a requirement for "domicile" in order for an "alien" to be classified as a "resident":
You can read the above yourself at:
Since the only definition of "resident" found anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code or the Treasury Regulations is that of a "resident alien", found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A), then we:
If you want to read more about this "resident" scam, consult section 4.10 of our free Great IRS Hoax book.
11.11. Effect of domicile on CIVIL STATUTORY "status"
The law of domicile is almost exclusively the means of determining one's "civil status" under the civil statutory laws of a given territory:
We have already established that civil law attaches to one's VOLUNTARY choice of civil domicile.Civil law, in turn, enforces and thereby delivers certain "privileges" against those who are subject to it. In that sense, the civil law acts as a voluntary franchise or "protection franchise" that is only enforceable against those who voluntarily consent to avail themselves of its "benefits" or "protections". Those who voluntarily and consensually avail themselves of such "benefits" and who are therefore SUBJECT to the "protection franchise" called domicile, in turn, are treated as public officers within the government under federal law, as is exhaustively established in the following memorandum:
The key thing to understand about all franchises is that the Congressionally created privileges or "public rights" they enforce attach to specific STATUSES under them. An example of such statuses include:
The above civil statutory statuses:
Below is an example of this phenomenon as explained by the U.S. Supreme Court:
The protections of the Constitution and the common law, on the other hand, attach NOT to your STATUTORY status, but to the LAND you stand on at the time you receive an injury from either the GOVERNMENT or a PRIVATE human being, respectively:
The thing that we wish to emphasize about this important subject are the following VERY IMPORTANT facts:
Consistent with the above, below is how the U.S. Supreme Court describes attempts to enforce income taxes against NONRESIDENT parties domiciled in a legislatively foreign state, such as either a state of the Union or a foreign country:
An example of how the government cannot assign the statutory status of "taxpayer" upon you per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) is found in 28 U.S.C. §2201(a), which reads:
Consistent with the federal Declaratory Judgments Act , federal courts who have been petitioned to declare a litigant to be a "taxpayer" have declined to do so and have cited the above act as authority:
The implications of the above are that:
Authorities supporting the above include the following:
If you would like further evidence proving that it is a violation of your constitutional rights for the government to associate any civil status against you without your consent, see:
11.12. Jesus refused a domicile, refused to participate in all human franchises, benefits, and privileges, and refused the "civil status" that made them possible
Jesus definitely participated in God's franchise, being a member of the Holy Trinity. However, he refused to participate in human franchises. It may interest the reader to learn that Jesus had NO civil status under man's law and refused to participate in any government "benefit", franchise, or privilege:
Below is a famous Bible commentary on the above passage:
Below is a summary of lessons learned from the above amplified version of the same passage, put into the context of privileges, civil status, and franchises:
Moral of the Story: We can only be blessed by God if we do not seek to use benefits, privileges, and franchises to elevate ourself above anyone else or to pursue a civil status above others..
One cannot be "unspotted from the world" without surrendering and not pursuing any and all HUMAN civil statuses, franchises, or benefits. Those who are Christians, however, cannot avoid the privileged status and office of "Christian" under God's laws.
The OPPOSITE of doing the above is the following. The pursuit of government "benefits" or the civil status that makes them possible is synonymous with the phrase "your desire for pleasure" in the following passage.
The personification of those who did the OPPOSITE of Jesus and pursued civil status, rewards, benefits, privileges, and franchises were the Pharisees, and these people were the ONLY people Jesus got mad at. Here's what He said about them in one of his very few angry tirades. Back then, they had a theocracy and the Bible was their law book, so the term "religion scholars" meant the lawyers of that time, not the pastors of today's time.
Keep in mind that the term "hypocrite" is defined in the following passages as "trusting in privileges", meaning franchises: Jer 7:4; Mt 3:9.
Jesus kept Himself unspotted from the world by not choosing a domicile there. The phrase "nowhere to lay His head" in the following passage is synonymous with a legal home or domicile.
It is perhaps because of the content of this section that Jesus was widely regarded as an "anarchist". See:
12. People with either no domicile or a domicile outside the government at the place they live
12.1 Divorcing the "state": Persons with no domicile, who create their own "state", or a domicile in the Kingdom of Heaven
If we divorce the society where we were born, do not abandon our nationality and allegiance to the state of our birth, but then choose a domicile in a place other than where we physically live and which is outside of any government that might have jurisdiction in the place where we live, then we become "transient foreigners" and "de facto stateless persons" in relation to the government of the place we occupy.
"Transient foreigner. One who visits the country, without the intention of remaining."
A "de facto stateless person" is anyone who is not entitled to claim the protection or aid of the government in the place where they live:
Notice the key attribute of a "de facto stateless person" is that they have abandoned the protection of their government because they believe it is hostile to him or her and is not only not protective, but is even injurious. Below is how the Supreme Court describes such persons:
We must remember that in America, the People, and not our public servants, are the Sovereigns. We The People, who are the Sovereigns, choose our associations and govern ourselves through our elected representatives.
When those representatives cease to have our best interests or protection in mind, then we have not only a moral right, but a duty, according to our Declaration of Independence, 1776, to alter our form of self-government by whatever means necessary to guarantee our future security.
The lawful and most peaceful means of altering that form of government is simply to do one of the following:
By doing one of the above, we are "firing" our local servants in government because they are not doing their job of protection adequately, and when we do this, we cease to have any obligation to pay for their services through taxation and they cease to have any obligation to provide any services. If we choose God and His laws as our form of government, then we choose Heaven as our domicile and our place of primary allegiance and protection. We then become:
Below is how one early state court described the absolute right to "divorce the state" by choosing a domicile in a place other than where we physically are at the time:
How do we officially and formally notify the "state" that we have made a conscious decision to legally divorce it by moving our domicile outside its jurisdiction? That process is documented in the references below:
1. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Step 3.13 entitled: Correct Government Records documenting your citizenship status. Available free at:
2. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005, Section 18.104.22.168. Same as the above item. Available free at:
3. By sending in the Legal Notice of Change in Citizenship/Domicile Records and Divorce from the United States. See:
4. After accomplishing either of the above items, which are the same, making sure that all future government forms we fill out properly and accurately describe both our domicile and our citizenship status, in accordance with section 12.12 later.
5. By making sure that at all times, we use the proper words to describe our status so that we don't create false presumptions that might cause the government to believe we are "residents" with a domicile in the "United States" (federal territory):
5.1. Do not describe ourselves with the following words:
5.1.1 "individual" as defined in 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c )(3)
5.1.2. "taxpayer" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14).
5.1.3. "U.S. person" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).
5.1.4. "resident" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A).
5.1.5. "alien"
5.2. Describe ourselves with the following words and phrases:
5.2.1. "nontaxpayer" not subject to the Internal Revenue Code. See:
126.96.36.199. "Taxpayer" v. "Nontaxpayer", Which One Are You?:
220.127.116.11. Your Rights as a "nontaxpayer", item 5.8
5.2.2. "nonresident alien" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B).
5.2.3. The type of "nonresident alien" defined in 26 C.F.R. §1.871-1(b)(1)(i) but who is NOT an "individual" within that regulation.
5.2.4. "national" under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21), but not "citizen" as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401. This person is also described in 8 U.S.C. §1452, but only if they were born in a U.S. possession.
5.2.5. Not engaged in a "trade or business" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26).
5.2.6. Have not made any "elections" under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4)(B), 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) or (h), or 26 C.F.R. §1.871-1(a).
5.2.7. A "stateless person" who does not satisfy any of the criteria for diversity of citizenship described in 28 U.S.C. §1332 and who therefore cannot be sued in federal court. See Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989):
We emphasize that it isn't one's citizenship but one's choice of legal "domicile" that makes one sovereign and a "nontaxpayer". The way we describe our citizenship status is affected by and a result of our choice of legal "domicile", but changing one's citizenship status is not the nexus for becoming either a "sovereign" or a "nontaxpayer".
The only legal requirement for changing our domicile is that we must reside on the territory of the sovereign to whom we claim allegiance, and must intend to make membership in the community established by the sovereign permanent. In this context, the Bible reminds us that the Earth was created by and owned by our Sovereign, who is God, and that those vain politicians who claim to "own" or control it are simply "stewards" over what actually belongs to God alone. To wit:
Some misguided Christians will try to quote Jesus, when He said of taxes the following in relation to "domicile":
However, based on the scriptures above, which identify God as the owner of the Earth and the Heavens, we must ask ourself:
The answer is NOTHING, except that which he STEALS from the Sovereign people and which they don't force him to return. Jesus knew this, but he gave a very indirect answer to keep Himself out of trouble when asked about taxes in the passage above. Therefore, when we elect or consent to change our domicile to the Kingdom of Heaven, we are acknowledging the Truth and the Authority of the Scripture and Holy Law above and the sovereignty of the Lord in the practical affairs of our daily lives. We are acknowledging our stewardship over what ultimately and permanently belongs ONLY to Him, and not to any man. Governments and civilizations come and go, but God's immutable laws are eternal. To NOT do this as a Christian amounts to mutiny against God. Either we honor the first four commandments of the Ten Commandments by doing this, or we will be dethroned as His Sovereigns and Stewards on earth.
By legally and civilly divorcing the "state" in changing our domicile to the Kingdom of Heaven or to someplace on earth where there is not man-made government, we must consent to be governed exclusively by God's laws and express our unfailing allegiance to Him as the source of everything we have and everything that we are. In doing so we:
The tendency of early Christians to do the above was precisely the reason why the Romans persecuted the Christians when Christianity was in its infancy: It lead to anarchy because Christians, like the Israelites, refused to be governed by anything but God's laws:
Christians who are doing and following the will of God are "anarchists". An anarchist is simply anyone who refuses to have an earthly ruler and who instead insists on either self-government or a Theocracy in which God, whichever God you believe in, is our only King, Ruler, Lawgiver and Judge:
For a fascinating read on this subject, see:
Christians who are doing the will of God by changing their domicile to Heaven and divorcing the "state" are likely to be persecuted by the government and privileged 501(c )(3) corporate churches just as Jesus was because of their anarchistic tendencies because they render organized government irrelevant and unnecessary:
Being "chosen out of the world" simply means, in legal terms, that we do not have a domicile here and are "transient foreigners".
Those who do choose God as their sole source of law and civil (not criminal) government:
The other very interesting consequences of the above status which makes it especially appealing are the following:
12.2 How do "transient foreigners" and "nonresidents" protect themselves in state court?
Now that we understand the differences between those who have contracted to be protected, called "citizens", "residents", and "inhabitants", and those who have not, called "transient foreigners" or "nonresidents", the next issue we must deal with is to determine how those who are "nonresidents" or "transient foreigners" in relation to a specific state government can achieve a remedy for the protection of their rights in state court. It will interest the reader to learn that "transient foreigners" have the same constitutional protections for their rights as citizens or residents. Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court said on this subject. Those who are "transient foreigners" are STATUTORY "non-resident non-persons" in respect to the governments identified in the cite below. The "aliens" they are talking about are foreign nationals born in foreign countries.
In order to get to the point where we can identify how remedies for constitutional rights violations are achieved, we must first describe the TWO types of jurisdictions that the state courts exercise, because it is mainly state courts where such rights violations would be vindicated.We don't space here to cover all the nuances of this subject, but we will summarize these differences and point you to more information if you want to look into it.There are two types of jurisdictions within each state government:
The differences between the two jurisdictions above are exhaustively described in the following fascinating document:
In the above document, a table is provided comparing the two types of jurisdictions which we repeat here, extracted from section 14.7. Understanding this table is important in determining how we achieve a remedy in a state court for an injury to our constitutional PRIVATE rights.
Table 3: Comparison of Republic State v. Corporate State
When we say that we are a "transient foreigner" or "nonresident" within a court pleading or within this document, we must be careful to define WHICH of the TWO jurisdictions above that status relates to in order to avoid ambiguity and avoid being called "frivolous" by the courts. Within this document and elsewhere, the term "transient foreigner" or "nonresident" relates to the jurisdiction in the right column above but NOT to the column on the left. You can be a "nonresident" of the Corporate state on the right and yet at the same time ALSO be a "citizen" or "resident" of the Republic/De Jure State on the left above. This distinction is critical. If you are at all confused by this distinction, we strongly suggest reading the Corporatization and Privatization of the Government document referenced above so that the distinctions are clear.
The Corporate state on the right above enacts statutes that can and do only relate to those who are public entities (called "publici juris") that are government instrumentalities, employees, officers, and franchisees of the government called "corporations", all of whom are consensually associated with the government by virtue of exercising their right to contract with the government. Technically speaking, all such statutes are franchises implemented using the civil law. This is explained further in the following:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ability to regulate private conduct is repugnant to the Constitution. Consequently, the government cannot enact statutes or law of any kind that would regulate the conduct of private parties. Therefore, nearly all civil statutes passed by any state or municipal government, and especially those relating to licensed activities, can and do only relate to public and not private parties that are all officers of the government and not human beings. This is exhaustively analyzed and proven in the following:
We will now spend the rest of this section applying these concepts to how one might pursue a remedy for an injury to so-called "right" within a state court by invoking the jurisdiction of the Republic/De Jure state on the left and avoiding the jurisdiction of the Corporate state on the right.
Civil law attaches to one's voluntary choice of domicile/residence. Criminal law does not. De jure criminal law depends only on physical presence on the territory of the sovereign and the commission of an injurious act against a fellow sovereign on that territory. Laws like the vehicle code do have criminal provisions, but they are not de jure criminal law, but rather civil law that attaches to the domicile/residence of the party within a franchise agreement, which is the "driver license" and all the rights it confers to the government to regulate your actions as a "driver" domiciled in the Corporate state.
Within the forms and publications on this website there are two possible statuses that one may declare as a sovereign:
Both of the above statuses have in common that those who declare themselves to be either cannot invoke the statutory law of the Corporate state, but must invoke only the common law and the Constitution in their defense. There is tons of reference material on the common law in the following:
The following book even has sample pleadings for the main common law actions:
Transient foreigners may not have a domicile or be subject to the civil laws in relation only to the place they have that status, but they don't need the civil laws to be protected. The Constitution attaches to the land, and not the status of the persons on that land.
"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."
The Constitution and the common law are the only thing one needs to protect oneself as a PRIVATE and not PUBLIC entity. That is why we place so much emphasis on the common law on this website. John Harris explains why in the following video:
Those who are believers AND transient foreigners but not "citizens", "residents" or "inhabitants" of either the Republic/De Jure state or the Corporate State DO in fact STILL have a state, which is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. That state has all the elements necessary to be legitimate: territory, people, and laws. The territory is the Earth, which the Bible says belongs to the Lord and not Caesar. It has people, which are your fellow believers. The laws are itemized in the Holy Bible and enumerated below:
In conclusion, those who are "transient foreigners" or "Nonresidents" in relation to the Corporate state can use the state court for protection, but they must:
12.3. Serving civil process on nonresidents is the crime of "simulating legal process"
Some freedom lovers try to form their own private courts or grand juries to try or indict offenses against their rights by actors within the de facto government. Such private courts are sometimes called:
Those who convene such courts must be careful how they describe their activities to those outside the group, or the participants could be indicted for simulating legal process. Legal process served by these groups can be called by a number of different names, such as the following:
Below is a definition of "simulating legal process":
Therefore, those forming common law courts or ecclesiastical courts may not use the words "complaint", "judgment", "summons" when issuing documents to parties OUTSIDE the group of people who expressly consented to their jurisdiction. In other words, those who are not in the group or who are not "citizens" within whatever community they have formed, may not receive documents that are connected with any existing state or municipal court or which could be confused with such courts.
Below is one ruling by a Texas court relating to a "simulating legal process" charge against an ecclesiastical court:
Therefore, if you form a common law or ecclesiastical court you should be careful to:
We take the same position in protecting OUR members from secular courts as the secular courts take toward private courts. The First Amendment requires that you have a right to either NOT associate or to associate with any group you choose INCLUDING, but not limited to the "state" having general jurisdiction where you live. That means you have a RIGHT to NOT be:
The dividing line between who are "members" and who are NOT members is who has a domicile in that specific jurisdiction. The subject of domicile is extensively covered in the following insightful document:
We allege that secular franchise courts such as tax court, traffic court, family court, social security administrative court, and even civil court in your area are equally culpable for the SAME crime of "simulating legal process" if they serve legal process upon anyone who is NOT a "member" of their "state" and who has notified them of that fact. As such, any at least CIVIL process served upon them by secular courts of the de facto government is ALSO a criminal simulation of legal process because instituted against non-consenting parties who are non-residents and "non-members", just as in the above case. Membership has to be consensual.
We also argue that just like the above ruling, the secular government in fact and in deed is ALSO a church, as described in the following exhaustive proof of that fact:
In support of the above, Black's Law Dictionary defines "franchise courts" such as traffic court and family court as PRIVATE courts:
As a BARE minimum, we think that if you get summoned into any franchise court for violations of the franchise, such as tax court, traffic court, and family court, then the government as moving party who summoned you should at LEAST have the burden of proving that you EXPRESSLY CONSENTED in writing to become a "member" of the group that created the court, such as "taxpayer", "driver", "spouse", etc. and that if they CANNOT satisfy that burden of proof, then:
13. How the government kidnaps your identity and your domicile and moves it to the federal zone or interferes with your choice of domicile
Based on the foregoing discussion, it ought to be obvious that the government doesn't want you to know any of the following facts:
Therefore, governments have a vested interest in hiding the relationship of "domicile" to income taxation by removing it or at least obfuscating it in their "codes". We call this "The hide the presumption and hide the consent game."
There are many ways that corrupt governments will use to make you LOOK like someone who consented to their jurisdiction or to a civil domicile within their civil jurisdiction. The SEDM sister site has written the following forms that deal with this subject:
The following subsections deal with the subset of ways that corrupt and covetous governments will use to try to change your domicile without your consent and often without your knowledge.
13.1. Inevitable effects of government interference with your choice of domicile: Anarchy and violence
A very important subject we need to study is:
We will answer that question in this section.
First of all, we know that the purpose of the entire separation of powers between various components of government is to protect your PRIVATE or natural rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence.
The separation of powers BEGINS with the separation between YOU and GOVERNMENT. Separation between YOU and GOVERNMENT in a legal sense means separation between PRIVATE rights and PUBLIC rights respectively. That separation is exhaustively described in:
When there is no separation between YOU and GOVERNMENT, or between PRIVATE and PUBLIC respectively, you become a public officer and government statutory "employee" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and need permission and DEMONSTRATED legal authority from U.S. Inc. federal corporation to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. In that scenario, you are a SLAVE and a vassal and have no "rights", choice, autonomy, or discretion to speak of. That condition of NO separation between PRIVATE and PUBLIC, by the way, was famously described by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as his rendition of hell in its most literal sense from a legal perspective:
The above quote by Scalia is an indirect reference to a more famous quote on the same subject. This quote implies that since hell is the MOST corrupt place, it will have INFINITELY many laws.
The Thirteenth Amendment outlaws all forms of involuntary servitude, and hence, outlaws any method to compel you to:
Below are a few authorities on this subject:
When anyone in government forces a specific domicile upon you that you don't want, they are not only engaging in a criminal violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. Chapter 77, but they are also engaging in the legal equivalent of criminal identity theft and human trafficking. The nature of how that identity theft and human trafficking is accomplished is described in:
The inevitable result of the government slavery, identity theft, and human trafficking described above will inevitably be anarchy and violence. Why? Because withdrawing or withholding one's domicile and funding to the government is the only way to peacefully and lawfully seek a PEACEFUL remedy for government abuse:
The above mechanism is the SAME mechanism and the ONLY peaceful mechanism mentioned in the Declaration of Independence of procuring relief WITHOUT violence:
The "guards for their future security" described are SELF-GOVERNMENT and the privatization of government services so that the tyrannical government is no longer funded to perform them. These privatized government services are paid for with the money removed from the tyrant government and diverted to a better government. Since domicile is the means used to justify the need to pay for the services, then we just shift our domicile from the TYRANT government to the competitor that we want. The Declaration of Independence even makes it our DUTY to do that. Any judge or politician who interferes with us doing that, in fact is committing TREASON punishable by death. 18 U.S.C. §2381: Treason.
There are those who would say that the Declaration of Independence is not "law" that can be used to obligate anyone. However, they are simply WRONG. The Declaration of Independence was enacted into law by the first official act of the brand new Congress of the United States. You can find that enactment on the FIRST page of the Statutes At Large, in fact. Anyone who says it ISN'T law is therefore LYING. Judge Andrew Napolitano, in fact, says the Declaration of Independence is the most violated law ever enacted!
An inability to lawfully stop participating in or subsidizing an abusive government guarantees that no peaceful remedy, including a remedy in court, is rationally possible The only thing left when all peaceful remedies are destroyed is violence and political revolution. The violent American Revolution was made inevitable and certain precisely because of this exact problem. The anarchy that ensues FROM that violence and revolution will therefore ALSO be inevitable. That, folks, is exactly what we are headed for because the same problem repeats itself again today.
History is repeating itself and another revolution is inevitable. Look at the reasons given in the Declaration of Independence for the separation from Great Britain:
In the above quotes from the Declaration of Independence:
Below are the reasons WHY the Declaration of Independence had to be signed, penned at the first meeting of the Continental Congress two years before the Declaration of Independence was signed:
Note the key language below:
The "statutes" they are talking about are the CIVIL STATUTORY LAW or what we call "the protection franchise" and the FORCED civil status and domicile of those who it is enforced against. "In all cases whatsoever" refers to the fact that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is made a subject of legislation. The result is SLAVERY described in the Declaration of Independence:
This is EXACTLY the problem we have now. Obamacare alleges an unconstitutional right to FORCE "taxpayers" to buy health insurance. The way they FORCE EVERYONE to buy health insurance is to FORCE people to fraudulently elect a domicile on federal territory and claim an illegal office in the national government called "taxpayer". That public office was illegally created in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912 and they are punished with commercial penalties they are not subject to for abandoning the illegally created public office. That public office is called a "trade or business" in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). This illegally and criminally compelled public office is described in:
Yes, ladies and gentlemen. We are headed for a revolution, violence, and anarchy, because all peaceful means of remedy to correct the problems caused by the inability to withdraw domicile and the sponsorship that goes with it have been removed or interfered with by a malicious, covetous band of thieving lawyers using trickery, words of art, criminal identity theft, and criminal human trafficking. Here's how the Bible describes this kidnapping and human trafficking:
Anyone who protects the present de facto system of usury we have now, which is also described in the Declaration of Independence is committing TREASON punishable by death. THEY are the real "terrorists" and anarchists.
13.2 Compelled domicile generally
A number of irreconcilable conflicts of law are created by COMPELLING EVERYONE to have either a specific domicile or an earthly domicile. For instance:
The "quasi-contract" they are referring to above is your voluntary choice of "domicile", no doubt. How can they compel such a contract if the person who is the object of the compulsion refuses to "do business" with the state and also refuses to avail themselves of any of the benefits of membership in said state? Wouldn't that amount to slavery, involuntary servitude, and violate the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude?
Do you see how subtle this domicile thing is? It's a very sneaky way to draw you into the world system and force you to adopt and comply with earthly laws and a government that are hostile towards and foreign to God's laws. All of the above deceptions and ruses are designed to keep you enslaved and entrapped to support a government that does nothing for you and which you may even want to abandon or disassociate with. Keep these tricks in mind as you look at how they are implemented on the government forms we will show you in the next section.
We allege that whenever anyone from a state or federal government, or acting as an agent of same such as a "witholding agent", compels you to either have a specific domicile in a specific place or PRESUMES you have a domicile without producing evidence of consent on the record to that specific domicile then they are:
You should insist on the above terms on any form you fill out and submit to the government that has a block for "residence", "permanent address", or "domicile".
13.3 Domicile on government, financial institution, and private employer forms
You should view every opportunity to complete a government form or any form that indicates a "domicile", "residence", or "permanent address" as:
In short, anyone who asks you to fill out a government form or indicate a "domicile", "residence", or "permanent address" on their own private form is asking you the following question:
There are several ways that you are often deceived into inadvertently declaring a domicile on federal territory on government forms.
We will now spend the rest of the section talking about how to avoid the problem described in item 1 above. There are many occasions on government forms, and especially tax forms, where we will be asked if we are "residents" and what our "residence" is and we must be very careful what we put on these forms. If a "residence" must be established on a government form for any reason, the safest way to handle this situation as a Christian is as follows:
A person who does all the above is what we call "civilly dead". The status of being "civilly dead" is the only proper status for a devout Christian, and it is thoroughly described in:
Any location of "residence" other than "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth" or a place not within the jurisdiction of any man-made government, however, will prejudice your rights, violate the Bible, and result in idolatry towards man/government. In fact, we believe the word "residence" and "resident" were invented by the legal profession as a way to separate intent from the word "domicile" so that people would no longer have a choice of their legal home. Christians should be very wary of this devious legal trap and avoid it as indicated above.
Our job while on earth as Christians, according to Jesus Christ Himself, is instead to keep ourselves "unspotted from the world" and the corrupted governments of the world:
There are also BIG advantages to declaring our domicile as being outside of federal jurisdiction in either the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth or a state of the Union, which is legislatively but not Constitutionally "foreign" with respect to the federal government. For instance, one's domicile determines the rules of decision of every court in which a person is sued. Below is an excerpt from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17(b) which proves this:
The above may not seem like a big deal, until you consider that if a person declares "heaven" as their domicile, then the court has to use God's laws in the Holy Bible as the only rules of decision! They cannot quote ANY federal statute or even court ruling as authority for what they are doing. The only thing they can apply is God's law and the rulings of ecclesiastical courts on the subject. We would LOVE to see this in a tax trial. The government would get CREAMED! This tactic is what we affectionately call "courtroom evangelism". In the case of Christians, the Common Law is the nearest equivalent of God's law and that is the ONLY thing we can allow ourselves to be protected by as a devout Christian. Statutory law, on the other hand, is only law for GOVERNMENT actors and not private persons:
Below is an example of how to fill out a Change of Address for the state of California to remove any presumptions about "residence". If you don't do this, the state will essentially legally "presume" that you are an "alien", a "resident", and a "taxpayer", and this will grossly prejudice your Constitutional rights:
A number of legal factors are used in determining one's domicile. The following facts and circumstances, although not necessarily conclusive, have probative value to support a claim of domicile within a particular state:
Other factors indicating an intent to make a state one's domicile may be considered. Normally, the following circumstances do not constitute evidence of domicile sufficient to effect classification as a domiciliary:
To conclude this section, you may wish to look at a few of the government's forms that effectively ask you what your "domicile" is, so you can see what we are talking about in this section. Before we do, we must emphasize that in some cases, the version of a form we choose to file, even if it says nothing on the form about "domicile", may determine our "residence"! For instance, if we file a 1040NR form, we are claiming that we are not a "resident alien" and that we do not maintain a domicile in the "United States" (federal territory). Whereas, if we file a 1040 form, we are claiming that we are either a "resident" with a domicile in the District of Columbia, or are a "U.S. citizen" who is described as a "alien" coming under a tax treaty with the United States if we attach a form 2555 to the 1040 form. Also keep in mind that only a "resident" can have a "residence", and that all "residents" are aliens under the tax code, as far as we understand it. This is confirmed by our quote of 26 C.F.R. §1.871-2 earlier in this section, which you may want to go back and read. With these important considerations, below are a few of the forms that determine our "domicile":
Table 25: Example forms that determine domicile
Items 4 and 5 above are noteworthy, because they mention the phrase "Permanent address". Why do they use the phrase "permanent"? Because they want to DECEIVE you into thinking that you can't revoke or withdraw your request to be protected and are therefore FORCED to keep subsidizing them to protect you without your continuing consent. That way, they are the only ones who can unilaterally terminate the CONTRACTUAL protection arrangement. SCAM!
When you fill out government forms to reflect a domicile that is in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, some ignorant or wicked or atheist clerks may decide to argue with you. Below are the three most popular arguments you will hear, which are each accompanied by tactics that are useful in opposing them:
Another approach that is useful against this tactic is to point out that the federal courts have ruled that:
We should always remember that we never chose to come here to earth, and our presence is involuntary. Therefore, everything we do while here is a matter of compulsion rather than true choice. This subject is covered more thoroughly earlier in sections 4.11.6 through 220.127.116.11 if you wish to investigate. Therefore, we can be relieved of the consequences attendant to domicile if we do not wish to have one here.
If all the above arguments are ineffective or when the government refuses to recognize your choice of Heaven as a domicile, remember also that the First Amendment STILL prevents them from compelling you to associate with any group, including a state, and that they can't compel you to belong to or consent to any earthly government or law, to accept or pay for protection you don't want and don't need, and which you can even prove is harmful to you. In effect, they cannot violate the very reason for their establishment, which is protecting you the way YOU, not THEM want to be protected.
Lastly, if you would like further instruction on how to avoid traps in government forms, please read the following:
13.4 How the tax code compels choice of domicile
The government has compelled domicile or interfered with receiving the benefits of your choice by any of the following means:
13.5 How the Legal Encyclopedia compels choice of domicile
Even the legal encyclopedia tries to hide the nature of domicile. For instance, Volume 28 of the Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) at:
which we quoted in the previous section does not even mention the requirement for "allegiance" as part of domicile or the fact that allegiance must be voluntary and not compelled, even though the U.S. Supreme Court said this was an essential part of it:
The legal encyclopedia in the above deliberately and maliciously omits mention of any of the following key concepts, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged elements of them as we have shown:
The result of maliciously refusing to acknowledge the above concepts is a failure to acknowledge the foundation of all just authority of every government on earth, which is the consent of the governed mentioned in our Declaration of Independence.
A failure to acknowledge that requirement results in a complete destruction of the sovereignty of the people, because the basis of all your sovereignty is that no one can do anything to you without your consent, unless you injured the equal rights of others. This concept is exhaustively described in the following document:
13.6 How governments compel choice of domicile: Government ID
In order to do business within any jurisdiction, and especially with the government and financial institutions, one usually needs identification documents. Such documents include:
All ID issued by the state governments, and especially the driver's license, requires that the applicant be a "resident" of the "State of____". If you look up the definition of "resident" and "State of" or "State" or "in this State" within the state tax code, these terms are defined to mean a privileged alien with a domicile on federal territory not protected by the Constitution.
USA passports also require that you provide a domicile. The Dept. of State DS-11 Form in Block 17 requires you to specify a "Permanent Address", which means domicile. See:
Domicile within the country is not necessary in order to be issued a national passport. All you need is proof of birth within that country. If you would like tips on how to obtain a national passport without a domicile within a state and without government issued identifying numbers that connect you to franchises, see:
State ID, however, always requires domicile within the state in order to be issued either a state driver's license or a state ID. Consequently, there is no way to avoid becoming privileged if you want state ID. This situation would seem at first to be a liability until you also consider that they can't lawfully issue a driver's license to non-residents. Imagine going down to the DMV and telling them that you are physically on state land but do not choose a domicile here and that you can't be compelled to and that you would like for them to certify that you came in to request a license and that you were refused and don't qualify. Then you can show that piece of paper called a "Letter of Disqualification" to the next police officer who stops you and asks you for a license. Imagine having the following dialog with the police officer when you get stopped:
We allege that the purpose of the vehicle code in your state is NOT the promotion of public safety, but to manufacture "residents" and "taxpayers". The main vehicle by which states of the Union, in fact, manufacture "residents", who are privileged "public officers" that are "taxpayers" and aliens with respect to the government is essentially by compelling everyone to obtain and use state driver's licenses. This devious trap operates as follows: