SOURCE: Great IRS Hoax, section 4.12.5, ver. 4.53

1. Introduction

Two words are used to describe citizenship: “citizen” and “national”. There is a world of difference between these two terms and it is extremely important to understand the distinctions before we proceed further. Below is a law dictionary definition of “citizen” that deliberately tries to confuse these two components of citizenship. We will use this definition as a starting point for our discussion of the differences between “citizens” and “nationals”:

citizen. One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. U.S. Const., 14th Amend. See Citizenship.

"Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.

The term may include or apply to children of alien parents from in United States, Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, D.C.Md., 23 F.2d 862, 863; U.S. v. Minoru Yasui, D.C.Or., 48 F.Supp. 40, 54; children of American citizens born outside United States, Haaland v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 42 F.Supp. 13, 22; Indians, United States v. Hester, C.C.A.Okl., 137 F.2d 145, 147; National Banks, Amierican Surety Co. v. Bank of California, C.C.A.Or., 133 F.2d 160, 162; nonresident who has qualified as administratrix of estate of deceased resident, Hunt v. Noll, C.C.A.Tenn., 112 F.2d 288, 289. However, neither the United States nor a state is a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Jizemerjian v. Dept of Air Force, 457 F.Supp. 820. On the other hand, municipalities and other local governments are deemed to be citizens. Rieser v. District of Columbia, 563 F.2d 462. A corporation is not a citizen for purposes of privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. D.D.B. Realty Corp. v. Merrill, 232 F.Supp. 629, 637.

Under diversity statute [28 U.S.C. §1332], which mirrors U.S. Const, Article III's diversity clause, a person is a "citizen of a state" if he or she is a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state of the United States. Gibbons v. Udaras na Gaeltachta, D.C.N.Y., 549 F.Supp. 1094, 1116. “
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244]

Based on the above definition, being a “citizen” therefore involves the following FOUR individual components, EACH of which require your individual consent in some form. Any attempt to remove the requirement for consent in the case of EACH SPECIFIC component makes the government doing so UNJUST as defined by the Declaration of Independence, and produces involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment:

Table 19: Mandatory components of being a "citizen"

#	*Characteristic*	*How consented to*	*What happens when you don’t consent*
1	Allegiance to the sovereign within the community, which in our country is the “state” and is legally defined as the PEOPLE occupying a fixed territory RATHER than the government or anyone serving them IN the government.	Requesting to be naturalized and taking a naturalization oath.	Allegiance acquired by birth is INVOLUNTARY.
2	VOLUNTARY political association and membership in a political community.	Registering to vote or serve on jury duty.	If you don’t register to vote or serve on jury duty, you are NOT a “citizen”, even if ELIGIBLE to do either.
3	Enjoyment of full CIVIL rights.	Choosing a domicile	You can’t be a statutory “citizen” unless you voluntarily choose a domicile.
4	Submission to CIVIL authority.	Choosing a domicile	You can’t be a statutory “citizen” unless you voluntarily choose a domicile.

From the above, we can see that simply calling oneself a “citizen” or not qualifying which SUBSET of each of the above we consent to is extremely hazardous to your freedom! Watch out! The main questions in our mind about the above chart is:

Must we expressly consent to ALL of the above as indicated in the third column from the left above in order to truthfully be called a “citizen” as legally defined?
Which components in the above table are MANDATORY in order to be called a “citizen”?
What if we don’t consent to the “benefits” domicile protection franchise? Does that NOT make us a “citizen” under the civil statutory laws of that jurisdiction?
What if we choose a domicile in the place, but refuse to register to vote and make ourselves ineligible to serve on jury duty. Does that make us NOT a “citizen”?
If we AREN’T a “citizen” as defined above because we don’t consent to ALL of the components, then what would we be called on:
5.1 Government forms?
5.2 Under the statutes of the jurisdiction we are NOT a "citizen" of?

2. What if I don’t consent to receive ANY of the “benefits” or “privileges” of being a “citizen”? What would I be called?

Under maxims of the common law, refusing to consent to ANY ONE OR MORE of the above four prerequisites of BEING a “citizen” makes us ineligible to be called a “citizen” under the laws of that jurisdiction.

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

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

The Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (F.A.M.) identifies TWO components of being a “citizen” with the following language. It acknowledges that one can be a “national of the United States” WITHOUT being a “citizen”, thus implying that those who are NOT “citizens” or who do not consent to ALL the obligations of being a “citizen” automatically become “non-citizen nationals of the United States”:

Department of State
Foreign Affairs Manual (F.A.M.), Department of State, Volume 8, Section 301.1-1
Downloaded 6/20/2022

b. National vs. citizen: While most people and countries use the terms “citizenship” and “nationality” interchangeably, U.S. law differentiates between the two. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. The term “national of the United States”, as defined by statute (INA 101 (a)(22) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) includes all citizens of the United States, and other persons who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted the privilege of citizenship:

(1) Nationals of the United States who are not citizens owe allegiance to the United States and are entitled to the consular protection of the United States when abroad, and to U.S. documentation, such as U.S. passports with appropriate endorsements. They are not entitled to voting representation in Congress and, under most state laws, are not entitled to vote in Federal, State, or local elections except in their place of birth. (See 7 FAM 012 and 7 FAM 1300 Appendix B Endorsement 09.);

(2) Historically, Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. non-citizen nationality to persons born or inhabiting territory acquired by the United States through conquest or treaty. At one time or other natives and certain other residents of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Guam, and the Panama Canal Zone were U.S. non-citizen nationals. (See 7 FAM 1120 and 7 FAM 1100 Appendix P.);

(3) Under current law, only persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are U.S. non-citizen nationals (INA 101(a)(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29) and INA 308(1) (8 U.S.C. 1408)). (See 7 FAM 1125.); and

(4) See 7 FAM 1126 regarding the citizenship/nationality status of persons born on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
[8 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), Section 301.1-1(b); SOURCE: https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html]

There are many good reasons for the above distinction between NATIONALITY (POLITICAL) status and CITIZEN (CIVIL) status, the most important of which is the ability of the courts to legally distinguish those born in the country but domiciled outside their jurisdiction from those who are domiciled in their jurisdiction. For instance, those domiciled abroad an outside the geographical “United States” are usually called “nationals of the United States” rather than “citizens of the United States”. An example of this phenomenon is described in the following U.S. Supreme Court case, in which an American born in the country is domiciled in Venezuela and therefore is referred to as a “stateless person” not subject to and immune from the civil laws of his country!

Petitioner Newman-Green, Inc., an Illinois corporation, brought this state law contract action in District Court against a Venezuelan corporation, four Venezuelan citizens, and William L. Bettison, a United States citizen domiciled in Caracas, Venezuela. Newman-Green's complaint alleged that the Venezuelan corporation had breached a licensing agreement, and that the individual defendants, joint and several guarantors of royalty payments due under the agreement, owed money to Newman-Green. Several years of discovery and pretrial motions followed. The District Court ultimately granted partial summary judgment for the guarantors and partial summary judgment for Newman-Green. 590 F.Supp. 1083 (ND Ill.1984). Only Newman-Green appealed.

At oral argument before a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Easterbrook inquired as to the statutory basis for diversity jurisdiction, an issue which had not been previously raised either by counsel or by the District Court Judge. In its complaint, Newman-Green had invoked 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(3), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of one State sues both aliens and citizens of a State (or States) different from the plaintiff's. In order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State. See Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648-649 (1878); Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 (1834). The problem in this case is that Bettison, although a United States citizen, has no domicile in any State. He is therefore "stateless" for purposes of § 1332(a)(3). Subsection 1332(a)(2), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of a State sues aliens only, also could not be satisfied because Bettison is a United States citizen. [490 U.S. 829]

When a plaintiff sues more than one defendant in a diversity action, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant or face dismissal. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806).{1} Here, Bettison's "stateless" status destroyed complete diversity under § 1332(a)(3), and his United States citizenship destroyed complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2). Instead of dismissing the case, however, the Court of Appeals panel granted Newman-Green's motion, which it had invited, to amend the complaint to drop Bettison as a party, thereby producing complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2). 832 F.2d. 417 (1987). The panel, in an opinion by Judge Easterbrook, relied both on 28 U.S.C. § 1653 and on Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as sources of its authority to grant this motion. The panel noted that, because the guarantors are jointly and severally liable, Bettison is not an indispensable party, and dismissing him would not prejudice the remaining guarantors. 832 F.2d. at 420, citing Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 19(b). The panel then proceeded to the merits of the case, ruling in Newman-Green's favor in large part, but remanding to allow the District Court to quantify damages and to resolve certain minor issues.{2}
[Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)]

The U.S. Supreme Court above was trying to deceive the audience by not clarifying WHAT type of “citizen” Bettison was. They refer to CONSTITUTIONAL citizens and STATUTORY citizens with the same name, which indirectly causes the audience to believe that NATIONALITY and DOMICILE are synonymous. They do this to unlawfully and unconstitutionally expand their importance and jurisdiction. Bettison in fact was a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen but not a STATUTORY citizen, so the CIVIL case against him under the STATUTORY codes had to either be dismissed or he had to be removed because he couldn’t lawfully be a defendant! Imagine applying this same logic to a case involving the (illegal) enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code to Americans abroad.

The first thing we notice about the above is the use of the phrase “privileges of citizenship”. Both voting and serving on jury duty are and always have been PRIVILEGES that can be taken away, not RIGHTS that are inalienable. The fact that they are privileges is the reason why convicted felons can’t vote or serve on jury duty, in fact.[1] Those who refuse to be enfranchised or privileged in any way therefore cannot consent to or exericse the obligations or accept the “benefits” of such privileges, and they have a RIGHT to do so. To suggest otherwise is to sanction involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

It is clearly an absurd and irrational usurpation to say that “nationality” is synonymous with being a PRIVILEGED STATUTORY “citizen” and that we can abandon or expatriate our nationality to evade or avoid the privileges. Under the English monarchy, “nationality” and “citizen” status are synonymous and EVERYONE is a “subject” whether they want to be or not. In America, they are not synonymous and you cannot be compelled to become a subject without violating the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. Forcing people to abandon their nationality to become unenfranchised actually accomplishes the OPPOSITE and makes them MORE enfranchised, in fact. That is because by doing so they become YET ANOTHER type of enfranchised entity called an “alien” who is a slave to a whole different set of “privileges”.

“Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.”
[The Law of Nations, Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 213, p. 87]

There MUST be a status that carries with it NO PRIVILEGES or obligations and if there is NOT, then the entire country is just a big FARM for government animals akin to that described below:

How to Leave the Government Farm, Form #12.020
https://youtu.be/Mp1gJ3iF2Ik

It would therefore seem based on 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (F.A.M.) 1100(b)(1) that those who refuse to register to vote or serve on jury duty would satisfy the requirement above of being a “non-citizen national”. Hence, withdrawing consent to be jurist or voter alone would seem to demote us from being a “citizen” to being a “non-citizen national”. However, there is no congressional act that grants this substandard status to anyone OTHER than those in federal possessions such as American Samoa or Swain’s Island. Hence, claiming the status of “non-citizen national” would have to be done delicately with care so as not to confuse yourself with those born in or domiciled in the federal possessions of American Samoa and Swain’s Island, who are described in 8 U.S.C. §1408 and 8 U.S.C. §1452.

STATUTORY “non-citizen nationals” are described in 8 U.S.C. §1408, 8 U.S.C. §1452, and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B). However, these statutes only define civil statuses of those situated on federal territory. Those physically situated in a constitutional state would not be described in those statutes but would still appear to be eligible to be “non-citizen nationals” from a COMMON LAW or CONSTITUTIONAL, rather than a STATUTORY standpoint.

Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside. See, e.g., Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922) (Holmes, J.) ("If a thing has been practiced for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it[.]"); Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) ("It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use . . . . Yet an unbroken practice . . . is not something to be lightly cast aside."). And while Congress cannot take away the citizenship of individuals covered by the Citizenship Clause, it can bestow citizenship upon those not within the Constitution's breadth. See U.S. Const, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 ("Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory belonging to the United States."); id. at art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (Congress may "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . .."). To date, Congress has not seen fit to bestow birthright citizenship upon American Samoa, and in accordance with the law, this Court must and will respect that choice.16
[Tuana v. USA, Case No. 12-01143 (District of Columbia District Court)]

Those among our readers who do NOT want to be “citizens”, do not want to abandon their nationality, and yet who also do not want to call themselves “non-citizen nationals” may therefore instead refer to themselves simply as “non-resident non-persons” under federal law. Below is our definition of that term from the SEDM Disclaimer:

SEDM DISCLAIMER
4. MEANINGS OF WORDS

4.25 "Non-Person" or "non-resident non-person"

The term "non-person" as used on this site we define to be a human not domiciled on federal territory, not engaged in a public office, and not "purposefully and consensually availing themself" of commerce within the jurisdiction of the United States government. We invented this term. The term does not appear in federal statutes because statutes cannot even define things or people who are not subject to them and therefore foreign and sovereign. The term "non-individual" used on this site is equivalent to and a synonym for "non-person" on this site, even though STATUTORY "individuals" are a SUBSET of "persons" within the Internal Revenue Code. Likewise, the term "private human" is also synonymous with "non-person". Hence, a "non-person":

Retains their sovereign immunity. They do not waive it under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 or the longarm statutes of the state they occupy.

Is protected by the United States Constitution and not federal statutory civil law.

May not have federal statutory civil law cited against them. If they were, a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 and a constitutional tort would result if they were physcially present on land protected by the United States Constitution within the exterior limits of states of the Union.

Is on an equal footing with the United States government in court. "Persons" would be on an UNEQUAL, INFERIOR, and subservient level if they were subject to federal territorial law.

Don't expect vain public servants to willingly admit that there is such a thing as a human who satisfies the above criteria because it would undermine their systematic and treasonous plunder and enslavement of people they are supposed to be protecting. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the "right to be left alone" is the purpose of the constitution. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438. A so-called "government" that refuses to leave you alone or respect or protect your sovereignty and equality in relation to them is no government at all and has violated the purpose of its creation described in the Declaration of Independence.
[SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.25; SOURCE: http://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm]

The noteworthy silence of the courts on the VERY important subject of this section is what we affectionately call the following:

“The hide the presumption and hide the consent game.”

Corrupt judges know that:

All just powers of CIVIL government derive from the CONSENT of the governed per the Declaration of Independence.
Any civil statutory power wielded by government against your consent is inherently UNJUST.
The foundation of justice itself is the right to be left alone:

PAULSEN, ETHICS (Thilly's translation), chap. 9.
“Justice, as a moral habit, is that tendency of the will and mode of conduct which refrains from disturbing the lives and interests of others, and, as far as possible, hinders such interference on the part of others. This virtue springs from the individual's respect for his fellows as ends in themselves and as his co equals. The different spheres of interests may be roughly classified as follows: body and life; the family, or the extended individual life; property, or the totality of the instruments of action; honor, or the ideal existence; and finally freedom, or the possibility of fashioning one's life as an end in itself. The law defends these different spheres, thus giving rise to a corresponding number of spheres of rights, each being protected by a prohibition. . . . To violate the rights, to interfere with the interests of others, is injustice. All injustice is ultimately directed against the life of the neighbor; it is an open avowal that the latter is not an end in itself, having the same value as the individual's own life. The general formula of the duty of justice may therefore be stated as follows: Do no wrong yourself, and permit no wrong to be done, so far as lies in your power; or, expressed positively: Respect and protect the right.”
[Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 2]
The first duty of government is to protect your right to be left alone by THEM, and subsequently, by everyone else. This right is NOT a privilege and cannot be given away or diminished if it truly is “unalienable”, as the Declaration of Independence (which is organic law enacted into law at 1 Stat. 1) says:

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
[James Madison, The Federalist No. 51 (1788)]

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]
The government can only CIVILLY govern people with statutes who consent to become STATUTORY “citizens”.
You have a RIGHT to NOT participate in franchises or privileges.
You can choose NOT to be a privileged “citizen” WITHOUT abandoning your nationality. Only in a monarchy where everyone is a “subject” regardless of their consent can a government NOT allow this.
They can only CIVILLY government people who consent to become “citizens”.
All men and all creations of men such as government are equal. Hence, an entire government of men has no more power than a single human as a legal “person”.
If government becomes abusive, you have a RIGHT and a DUTY under the Declaration of Independence to quit your public office as a “citizen”, and quit paying for the PRIVILEGE of occupying the position in the form of taxes.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”
[Declaration of Independence; SOURCE: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html]

If everyone knew the above, they would abandon a totally corrupted government, quit subsidizing it, and let it starve to death long enough to fire the bastards and PEACFULLY start over with no bloodshed and no violent revolution. Since they won’t recognize your right to PEACEFULLY institute such reforms and DUTIES under the Declaration of Independence, indirectly you could say they are anarchists because the inevitable final result of not having a peaceful remedy of this kind is and will be violence, social unrest, and bloodshed.

Like the Wizard of Oz, it’s time to pull back the curtain, ahem, or the “robe”, of these corrupt wizards on the federal bench and expose this FRAUD and confidence game for what it is. Let’s return to Kansas, Dorothy. There’s no place like home, and home is an accountable government that needs your explicit permission to do anything civil to you and which can be literally FIRED by all those who are mistreated.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] “As of 2010, 46 states and the District of Columbia deny the right to vote to incarcerated persons. Parolees are denied the right in 32 states. Those on probation are disenfranchised in 29 states, and 14 states deny for life the right of ex-felons to vote.”
SOURCE: http://www.ehow.com/facts_6751209_felony-conviction-voting-rights.html”

3. Statutory “citizens”

The key thing to notice is that those who are “citizens” within a political jurisdiction are also subject to all laws within that political jurisdiction. Note the phrase above:

“’Citizens’ are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have…submitted themselves to the dominion of a government [and all its laws] for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244]

Notice the phrase “for the protection of.. collective rights”. Those who want to avoid what we call “collectivism” therefore cannot become a STATUTORY “citizen” under the civil laws of any government, because you can’t become a citizen without ALSO protecting COLLECTIVE rights. This may be why the Bible says on this subject the following:

“Where do wars and fights [and tyranny and oppression] come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [pursuit of government “privileges” and “benefits” and favors such as Socialist Security] that war in your members?….You ask [from your government and its THIEF the IRS] and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your own pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses [and HARLOTS]! Do you not know that friendship with the world [as a “citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, etc] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:3-4, Bible, NKJV]

For more on collectivism, see:

Collectivism and How to Resist It, Form #12.024
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

A statutory “citizen” is therefore someone who was born somewhere within the country and who:

Maintains a PHYSICAL civil domicile within a specific territory.
Owes allegiance to the “sovereign” within that jurisdiction, and
Participates in the functions of government by voting and serving on jury duty. Domicile, in fact, is a prerequisite for being eligible to vote in most jurisdictions.

The only people who are “subject to” federal civil statutory, and therefore “citizens” under federal civil statutory law, are those people who have voluntarily chosen a domicile where the federal government has exclusive legislative/general jurisdiction, which exists only within the federal zone, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and 40 U.S.C. §§3111 and 3112. Within the Internal Revenue Code, people born in the federal zone or domiciled there are described as being "subject to its jurisdiction" rather than "subject to the jurisdiction" as mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, THIS type of “citizen” is NOT a Constitutional citizen but a Statutory citizen domiciled on federal territory:

"(c) Who is a citizen.

Every person born or naturalized in the [federal] United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). "

[26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)]

This area includes the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions of the United States, and the federal areas within states. If you were born in a state of the Union and are domiciled there, you are not subject to federal jurisdiction unless the land you maintain a domicile on was ceded by the state to the federal government. Therefore, you are not and cannot be a “citizen” under federal law. If you aren’t a “citizen”, then you also can’t be claiming your children as “citizens” on IRS returns either!

This same STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > Sec. 1401.
Sec. 1401. - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
[…]

We said earlier that the statutory term “citizen” is always territorial. In the next section, we will show that the statutory term “national” is NOT territorial. Allegiance is always owed to legal “persons” or groups of “persons” such as nations, both of which are non-territorial. This is the LEGAL context rather than the GEOGRAPHICAL context. Therefore, the phrase “national and citizen of the United States” as used in 8 U.S.C. §1401 can be confusing to the reader, because the term “United States” in that phrase actually has TWO simultaneous meanings and contexts in a single word, one which is GEOGRAPHICAL (“citizen”) and the other which is LEGAL (“national”). If we were to break that phrase apart into its components and use the term “United States” as having only one meaning or context at a time, it would read as follows as it is used in 8 U.S.C. §1401:

“citizen of the United States** [federal territory] and national of the United States*** [the legal person, because allegiance is owed to PERSONS, not geographies] at birth”

4. Statutory "nationals"

A “national”, on the other hand, is simply someone who claims allegiance to the political body formed within the geographical boundaries and territory that define a “state”.

8 U.S.C. §1101: Definitions

(a) The term ''national'' means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

The above “state” is lower case, which means it can describe a legislatively but not constitutionally foreign entity such as a state of the Union. If it had been UPPER case, it would have been a federal territory because the context is a statute rather than the constitution. We show this later in section 5.1.4.6.

A “state” is then defined as follows:

“State. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F.Supp. 201 207, 208. The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moralitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F.2d 129, 130. In its largest sense, a “state” is a body politic or a society of men. Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp., 44 Misc.2d 636, 254 N.Y.S.2d 763, 765. A body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government. State ex re. Maisano v. Mitchell, 155 Conn. 256, 231 A.2d 539, 542. A territorial unit with a distinct general body of law. Restatement, Second, Conflicts, §3. Term may refer either to body politic of a nation (e.g. United States) or to an individual government unit of such nation (e.g. California).

[…]

The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause, “The State vs. A.B.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1407]

Allegiance is NOT TERRITORIAL, but rather POLITICAL. You can have allegiance while situated ANYWHERE in the world. In fact, the doctrine of “jus sanguinis” grants NATIONALITY for people not born on the territory of the country they become nationals of.

“JUS SANGUINIS. The right of blood. See Jus Soli.”
“JUS SOLI. The law of the place of one's birth as contrasted with jus sanguinis, the law of the place of one's descent or parentage. It is of feudal origin. Hershey, Int. L. 237.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1000]

The above methods of acquiring nationality and “national” status is based on the following aspect of the English common law:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]

The “allegiance” they are talking about above is that of a “national”, because a national is someone who “owes allegiance”. That allegiance is also mandatory in the issuance of passports:

22 U.S.C. §212
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

______________________________________________________________________________________

Title 22: Foreign Relations
PART 51—PASSPORTS
Subpart A—General
§51.2 Passport issued to nationals only.
(a) A United States passport shall be issued only to a national of the United States (22 U.S.C. 212).
(b) Unless authorized by the Department no person shall bear more than one valid or potentially valid U.S. passport at any one time.
[SD–165, 46 FR 2343, Jan. 9, 1981]

We conclude, based on the above and based on the fact that passports are issued to state nationals, that all state nationals are both “nationals of the United States***” and “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States” as defined below:

Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter I › § 1101
8 U.S. Code § 1101 - Definitions

(22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

Both jus soli and jus sanguinis are the only methods of acquiring NATIONALITY, meaning “national”, status. Jus sanguinis is implemented in 8 U.S.C. §1401 for those born outside of constitutional states. Jus soli is implemented by the Fourteenth Amendment and permits nationality by virtue of birth on land within a constitutional state.

Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (F.A.M.)
7 FAM 1110
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-538; 10-24-2014)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/L)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-538; 10-24-2014)

a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:

(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a persons birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.

(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a persons citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called citizenship by descent or derivative citizenship, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

b. National vs. Citizen: While most people and countries use the terms citizenship and nationality interchangeably, U.S. law differentiates between the two. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. The term national of the United States, as defined by statute (INA 101 (a)(22) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) includes all citizens of the United States, and other persons who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted the privilege of citizenship.

(1) Nationals of the United States who are not citizens owe allegiance to the United States and are entitled to the consular protection of the United States when abroad, and to U.S. documentation, such as U.S. passports with appropriate endorsements. They are not entitled to voting representation in Congress and, under most state laws, are not entitled to vote in Federal, state, or local elections except in their place of birth. (See 7 FAM 012; 7 FAM 1300 Appendix B Endorsement 09.)

(2) Historically, Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. non-citizen nationality to persons born or inhabiting territory acquired by the United States through conquest or treaty. At one time or other natives and certain other residents of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Philippines, Guam, and the Panama Canal Zone were U.S. non-citizen nationals. (See 7 FAM 1120.)

(3) Under current law, only persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are U.S. non-citizen nationals (INA 101(a)(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29) and INA 308(1) (8 U.S.C. 1408)). (See 7 FAM 1125.)

[Foreign Affairs Manual (F.A.M.), Section 1111, U.S. Department of State;
SOURCE: https://fam.state.gov/searchapps/viewer?format=html&query=jus%20sanguinis&links=JUS,SANGUINI&url=/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1110.html#M1111]

So when we claim “allegiance” as a “national”, we are claiming allegiance to a “state”, which is:

In the case of state/CONSTITUTIONAL citizens, the collection of all people within the constitutional states of the Union, who are the sovereigns within our system of government. This is called the “United States***”. People owing this kind of allegiance are called “subject to THE jurisdiction”.
In the case of territorial/STATUTORY citizens, the United States government or United States**. It is NOT any of the people on federal territory, because they are all SUBJECTS within what the U.S. Supreme Court called the equivalent of “a British Crown Colony” in Downes v. Bidwell. People owing this kind of allegiance are called “subject to ITS jurisdiction”. See 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).

Since the federal GOVERNMENT in item 2 above is a representative of the Sovereign People in states of the Union and was created to SERVE them, then owing that government allegiance is ALSO equivalent to being a “national of the United States***” in the case of people born on federal territory. Therefore, the above two can be summarized as “national of the United States***”.

The political body we have allegiance to as a “national” is non-geographical and can exist OUTSIDE the physical territory or exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign to whom we claim allegiance. You can use a passport anywhere outside the country, but you must have allegiance to get one so as to be entitled to protection when abroad. However, be advised of the following maxim of law on this subject:

"Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio projectionem. Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection. Co. Litt. 65."
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

You cannot demand or expect CIVIL statutory protection from any government WITHOUT also becoming a “subject” of its CIVIL statutory franchise “codes”, because those law, in fact, are the METHOD of delivering said protection.

Also, Americans born abroad to American nationals take on the citizenship of their parents, no matter where born per 8 U.S.C. §1401 and 8 U.S.C. §1408. Hence, the “United States” we claim allegiance to is non-geographical because even people when abroad are called “subject to THE jurisdiction”, meaning the POLITICAL rather than CIVIL or STATUTORY jurisdiction.

“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
[United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, U.S. 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866), Justice Swayne]

Note that as a “national” domiciled in a state of the Union (a “state national”), we are NOT claiming allegiance to the government or anyone serving us within the government in their official capacity as “public servants”. As a “national”, we are instead claiming allegiance to the People within the legislative jurisdiction of the geographic region by virtue of a domicile there. This is because in states of the Union, the People are the Sovereigns, and not the government who serves them. All sovereignty and authority emanates from We the People as human beings and not from the government that serves them:

'The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. ..."
[Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)]

"From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Government founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens."
[Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.ed. 454, 457, 471, 472) (1794)]

The supreme Court of the United States described and compared the differences between “citizenship” and “allegiance” very succinctly in the case of Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795):

“Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent rights of man…..The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign….”
[Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795) ]

A “national” is not subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction and general sovereignty of the political body, but indirectly is protected by it and may claim its protection. For instance, when we travel overseas, we are known in foreign countries as “American Nationals” or:

“nationals of the United States**” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B), if we were born in a federal possession, such as American Samoa or Swain’s Island.
“nationals”, or “state nationals”, or “nationals of the United States*** of America” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) if we were born in and are domiciled in a state of the Union.
“nationals but not citizens” under 8 U.S.C. §1452 if we were born in U.S. possessions such as American Samoa or Swain’s Island.

Here is the definition of a “national of the United States**” that demonstrates this, and note paragraph (a)(22)(B):

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1101.
Sec. 1101. - Definitions

(a) (22) The term ''national of the United States'' means

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent [but not necessarily exclusive] allegiance to the United States.

Consequently, the only time a “national” can also be described as a “citizen” is when he is domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of the political body. Being a “national” is therefore an attribute and a prerequisite of being a “citizen”, and the term can be used to describe “citizens”, as indicated above in paragraph (A). For instance, 8 U.S.C. §1401 describes the citizenship of those born within or residing within federal jurisdiction, and note that these people are identified as both “citizens” and “nationals”.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > Sec. 1401.
Sec. 1401. - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

5. Power to create is the power to tax and regulate

As is shown in the following article, the power to create is the power to tax and regulate.

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

Congress can only tax or regulate that which it legislatively creates. All such creations are CIVIL FRANCHISES of the national government.

Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Congress did NOT create human beings. God did. It also didn’t create CONSTITUTIONAL citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment or the nationality and “national” status they have by virtue of jus soli. We the People wrote the Constitution, not Congress. Hence, Congress can’t tax or regulate CONSTITUTIONAL citizens directly. By CONSTITUTIONAL citizens we also mean “state nationals”. Constitutional nationality (“national” status) is a PRIVATE RIGHT, not a revocable PUBLIC PRIVILEGE. The ability to tax or regulate PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights is repugnant to the Constitution.

“The power to "legislate generally upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action, was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876) ; United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883) ; James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903) . Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) ; United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) , their treatment of Congress' §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.”
[City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) ]

Congress, however, DID create the STATUTORY “national and citizen of the United States at birth” status under 8 U.S.C. §1401. That status is a public office by the admission of both the U.S. Supreme Court and the President of the United States. See:

President Obama Admits in His Farewell Address that “Citizen” is a Public Office, Exhibit #01.018
YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/XjVyEZU0mlc
SEDM Exhibits Page: http://sedm.org/Exhibits/ExhibitIndex.htm

STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 involves only federal territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. They therefore can tax and regulate all those with such status, regardless of where physically situated. That status is technically “property” of the national government that can be reclaimed or taken away on a whim. PRIVATE RIGHTS can’t be legislatively taken but PUBLIC PRIVILEGES can.

The Court today holds that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to Bellei [an 8 U.S.C. §1401 STATUTORY citizen]. The Court first notes that Afroyim was essentially a case construing the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the Citizenship Clause declares that: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States * * * are citizens of the United States * * *.' the Court reasons that the protections against involuntary expatriation declared in Afroyim do not protect all American citizens, but only those 'born or naturalized in the United States.' Afroyim, the argument runs, was naturalized in this country so he was protected by the Citizenship Clause, but Bellei, since he acquired his American citizenship at birth in Italy as a foreignborn child of an American citizen, was neither born nor naturalized in the United States and, hence, falls outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees declared in Afroyim. One could hardly call this a generous reading of the great purposes the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to bring about. While conceding that Bellei is an American citizen, the majority states: 'He simply is not a Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence citizen.' Therefore, the majority reasons, the congressional revocation of his citizenship is not barred by the Constitution. I cannot accept the Court's conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizenship of some Americans and not others. [. . .]

The Court today puts aside the Fourteenth Amendment as a standard by which to measure congressional action with respect to citizenship, and substitutes in its place the majority's own vague notions of 'fairness.' The majority takes a new step with the recurring theme that the test of constitutionality is the Court's own view of what is 'fair, reasonable, and right.' Despite the concession that Bellei was admittedly an American citizen, and despite the holding in Afroyim that the Fourteenth Amendment has put citizenship, once conferred, beyond the power of Congress to revoke, the majority today upholds the revocation of Bellei's citizenship on the ground that the congressional action was not 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair.' The majority applies the 'shock-the-conscience' test to uphold, rather than strike, a federal statute. It is a dangerous concept of constitutional law that allows the majority to conclude that, because it cannot say the statute is 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair,' the statute must be constitutional.

[. . .]

Since the Court this Term has already downgraded citizens receiving public welfare, Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d. 408 (1971), and citizens having the misfortune to be illegitimate, Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, 91 S.Ct. 1917, 28 L.Ed.2d. 288, I suppose today's decision downgrading citizens born outside the United States should have been expected. Once again, as in James and Labine, the Court's opinion makes evident that its holding is contrary to earlier decisions. Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute.
[Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)]

6. Rights Lost By Becoming a statutory “U.S. citizen”

A state Citizen has the right to have any gun he/she wishes without being registered. A “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401 does not. In the District of Columbia, it is a felony to own a handgun unless you are a police officer or a security guard or the hand gun was registered before 1978. The District of Columbia has not been admitted into the Union. Therefore the people of the District of Columbia are not protected by the Second Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights. Despite the lack of legal guns in DC, crime is rampant. It is called Murder Capital of the World. This should prove that gun control/victim disarmament laws do not work in America. Across the country, there is an assault on guns. If you are a “U.S.** citizen” and you are using Second Amendment arguments to protect your rights to keep your guns, I believe you are in for a surprise. First by registering gun owners then renaming guns 'Assault Weapons' and 'Handguns', those in power will take away your civil right to bear arms. Of course, they won't tell you that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and not a natural right for a U.S. citizens. The Supreme court has ruled that you as an individual have no right to protection by the police. Their only obligation is to protect "society". The real protection for state Citizens to keep their guns is not the Second Amendment but the Ninth Amendment.

A state Citizen has the right to travel on the public easements (public roads) without being registered. A statutory “U.S. citizen” does not. It is a privilege for a foreigner to travel in any of the several states. If you are a statutory U.S. citizen, you are a foreigner in a constitutional state. The state legislators can require foreigners and people involved in commerce (chauffeurs, freight haulers) to be licensed, insured, and to have their vehicles registered. When you register your car, you turn over power of attorney to the state. At that point, it becomes a motor vehicle. If it is not registered then it is not a motor vehicle and there are no motor vehicle statutes to break. There are common law rules of the road. If you don't cause an injury to anybody then you cannot be tried.

If your car is registered, the state effectively owns your car. The state supplies a sticker to put on your license plate every time you re-register the motor vehicle. Look closely at the sticker on your plate right now. You may be surprised to see that it says "OFFICIAL USE ONLY".(Note: In some states, they do not use stickers on the plate) You may have seen municipal vehicles that have signs on them saying "OFFICIAL USE ONLY" on them but why does yours? You do not own your car. You may have a Certificate of Title but you probably do not have the certificate of origin. You are leasing the state's vehicle by paying the yearly registration fee. Because you are using their equipment, they can make rules up on how it can be used. If you break a rule, such as driving without a seatbelt, you have broken the contract and an administrative procedure will make you pay the penalty. A state Citizen must be able to explain to the police officers why they are not required to have the usual paperwork that most people have. They should carry copies of affidavits and other paperwork in their car. The state Citizen should also be prepared to go to traffic court and explain it to the judge.

The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1875)), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of “citizens of the United States” guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisianna, 194 U.S. 258 (1904).

The privileges and immunities [civil rights] of the 14th Amendment citizens were derived [taken] from....the Constitution, but are not identical to those referred to in Article IV, Sect. 2 of the Constitution [which recognizes the existence of state Citizens who were not citizens of the United States because there was no such animal in 1787]. Plainly spoken, RIGHTS in the constitution of the United States of America, which are recognized to be grants from our creator, are clearly different from the “civil rights” that were granted by Congress to its own brand of franchised statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401.

"A 'civil right' is a right given and protected by law [man's law], and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it."
[Nickell v. Rosenfield, 82 CA 369 (1927), 375, 255 P. 760.]

Title 42 of the USC contains the Civil Rights laws. It says "Rights under 42 USCS section 1983 are for citizens of the United States and not of state. Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905, CC Cal) 136 F 941."

In summary, what we are talking about here is a Master-Servant relationship. Being a person with a domicile within federal jurisdiction makes us subject to federal laws and makes us into a statutory “citizen of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1401. We become servants to our public servants. Those who file the IRS Form 1040 indicate a domicile in the District of Columbia, and have surrendered the protection of state law to become subject citizens. See IRS Document 7130 [1] , which says that this form may only be filed by “citizens and residents” of the “United States”, which is defined as the District of Columbia in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Available at: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/IRS/IRSDoc7130.pdf.