B.A.T.F. / IRS CRIMINAL FRAUD

American Citizen vs. U.S. Citizen Under the Collective Entity Doctrine

There is considerable confusion surrounding the distinction between a natural person — a living human being — and an artificial or legal entity created through legislative means. This document seeks to clarify that distinction from a theoretical and interpretive standpoint.

Natural Person vs. Legal Person

A natural person, such as John Joseph Smith, refers to a biological, flesh-and-blood individual — a human being endowed with inherent rights. In contrast, the entity rendered in uppercase letters — JOHN JOSEPH SMITH — represents an artificial person or legal fiction, established through statutory law for administrative and commercial purposes.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, a “person” may refer to both natural persons and artificial persons — the latter including corporations, trusts, partnerships, and other entities created by law. Artificial persons exist to facilitate functions in society and commerce that are not suited for natural individuals to manage alone.

Statutory Citizenship and the Legislative Construct

A U.S. citizen, as defined in U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. 829 (1873), may be considered a distinct legal category, separate from a citizen of one of the several states. The term “citizen of the United States” refers to a class of citizenship created by congressional authority, particularly as outlined in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of that amendment establishes that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of both the United States and the state in which they reside.

It has been asserted that this form of citizenship constitutes a legal status under federal jurisdiction, distinct from the broader and older concept of state or national citizenship as it existed prior to the Civil War and subsequent constitutional amendments.

Municipal Corporations and Legal Identity

Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 3002(15)(A), defines the “United States” as a federal corporation for specific administrative purposes. From this, some infer that all U.S. citizens function as part of a municipal structure — a broader governmental entity composed of smaller jurisdictions and operating through legislative authority.

A municipal corporation, per Black’s Law Dictionary, may exercise both public and private functions. As a legal entity, it possesses its own citizens, officers, and operational framework. Individuals associated with such corporations — either through employment, residency, or statutory designation — are subject to the rules and jurisdiction established by the entity’s legislative authority.

Collective Entity Doctrine

In Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Collective Entity Doctrine, which holds that individuals acting on behalf of collective entities — such as corporations — are not entitled to invoke personal constitutional privileges (e.g., the Fifth Amendment) when acting in a representative capacity. This principle underscores the separation between the individual and the legal entity they represent.

Practical Implications in Court

In legal proceedings, individuals may be called upon in their capacity as representatives of a legal entity, particularly when the name on the docket appears in all capital letters (e.g., JOHN JOSEPH SMITH). Some interpret this as a presumption that the court is addressing the artificial person, not the natural individual. It is argued that if the natural person answers to that name without clarification, they may be presumed to have consented to represent the legal fiction and submit to the court’s jurisdiction.

A possible course of action in such situations, according to this interpretation, includes questioning the court’s jurisdiction and the nature of the proceeding under the collective entity doctrine. One might ask whether the court is operating under the presumption that the respondent is acting as an agent of a corporate trust, and whether the proceeding is being conducted under the authority of statutory jurisdiction as opposed to common law.

Birth Certificate and Legal Construct

Proponents of this theory often point to the issuance of a birth certificate — particularly one with the name rendered in uppercase letters — as the moment of creation for the legal fiction or trust entity. They argue that this legal entity, distinct from the natural person, is used as collateral in financial and governmental operations and that the natural person unknowingly assumes the role of trustee or agent of this entity.

Conclusion

This conceptual framework proposes that two distinct legal identities coexist: the natural person with inherent, unalienable rights, and the artificial person created through legislative authority for commercial and administrative purposes. While the natural person is recognized as a sovereign individual, the artificial person is considered a statutory creation, subject to the jurisdiction and authority of the government entity that created it.

Individuals are encouraged to examine their legal status, understand the implications of citizenship, and be mindful of the jurisdiction under which they are operating. However, it is crucial to note that while these interpretations are promoted in certain ideological circles, they are not widely recognized by courts or legal institutions and may not yield the intended results in official proceedings if not thoroughly understood and supported by facts that can be introduced into evidence.

By Yusef EL