"Sedition by Syntax"


                          Ralph Schwan

                       The Upright Ostrich
                   December/January, 1985-1986

     Are you  a citizen  of the United States?  Be careful!  I'll
tell you  something that  the United States Government will never
want to  tell you:   That's  a "trick"  question.    The  federal
(feudal?) government  will ask  you  that  trick  question  quite

     It would be better to put the question like this:  Are you a
citizen of  the United  States, or a Citizen of one of the United
States of  America?   Do you  think the  two are one and the same
thing?   Your education via government schools serves you poorly.
Recall some fourth grade grammar, then check the Constitution for
the United  States of  America, particularly the Preamble in that
important  document.     Hereafter,   we  will   refer  to   this
Constitution as the "U.S. Constitution".

     Let's use  a simple  example:   Consider "the  house of  Mr.
Jones."   We'll rewrite  it to read, "Mr. Jones' house."  See the
apostrophe?   It  tells  you  something  about  the  relationship
between Mr.  Jones and  his house.   In most words, you would add
both an  apostrophe and  an "s";  but when a word ends in an "s",
you do  not need  to add  another.  Ah, yes, you do remember that
rule!  Then, a citizen of the United States could be rewritten as
"United States'  citizen", but  never as "United States citizen".
Right?  Right!

     You now graduate to the fifth grade.

     Now, for  more grammar.   Examine  the term "United States".
Is it a singular noun (one thing), or is it plural (more than one
thing)?  By the U.S. Constitution, it is singular and plural!  We
know that,  because the  terms "their"  and "them"  are  used  as
pronouns referring  to the  "United States", e.g. treason against
the "United States" is "levying War against them" or "adhering to
their Enemies,  giving them  Aid  and  Comfort".    You  probably
memorized the  names of  the "United States" in fifth grade.  Was
it boring for you?

     But, the  term "United  States" is also used in the singular
sense.  It is one Nation.  A Nation is a natural thing.  This one
exists because  of the  boundaries of  the states.   IT  is never
defined  in   other  terms.    The  term  "United  States"  is  a
geographical name  -- one  thing, one  Nation.  The United States
are one  Union.   The United  States is  one  Nation.    Are  you
confused?  You isn't?  I are!

     Because "United  States" is  a noun ending in "s", it can be
either singular  or plural.   "Jones' house" could mean the house
of one  person (Mr.  Jones), or  many persons (Mr. and Mrs. Jones
and their  12 children).   But,  in either case, as we learned in
fourth grade, the apostrophe must follow the "s".

     Were you  born in  the United  States?  The preposition "in"
shows that  "United States",  in that  question, is  a place -- a
geographical place named "United States".  It is a singular noun.
You can  only be born in one place;  so, the term "United States"
is one  place.   When the  term "United  States" is  singular, it
refers to a natural place, a nation, a land.

     When "United  States" is  a plural  noun, it  refers to  the
"Union" of  the several  states.  Unions are things that are "Un-
natural";  they are things, not places.  Unions, as We the People
said, need  to  be  perfected;    nations  cannot  be  perfected.
Unions, all unions, exist by agreement;  Nations exist naturally.

     The only requisite for citizenship is your "place" of birth.
Every Person  is a  natural Citizen of some Nation.  Nature is so
important  to   citizenship,  that   Persons  wishing  to  change
citizenship must be NATURAL-ized.  For those who appreciate 2000-
year-old terms,  "naturalized" means  "born again".   But, that's
not important.   Just  remember that  original citizenship exists
because of  places, not  agreements.   If you  want to get fancy,
look up  the definition of "Jus soli" in a legal dictionary, like
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (with pronunciations).

     If you  were born in the United States (the "Nation", in the
singular sense),  you are  automatically a  Citizen of the United
States, i.e. the United States, one place, one Nation.  Would you
also like  to join  the "Union", the United States (in the plural
sense), "them"?   Sorry, only states can join this Union.  People
cannot join  this Union,  although they  can serve  in  Congress.
Carefully read  the qualifications for serving in the U.S. Senate
and House  of Representatives;   both  qualifications  share  one
important thing:   every qualified candidate must be a Citizen of
(one of) the United States.

     At least that's how it was intended to be.

     In  1867,   "United  States"   was  either  the  name  of  a
geographical place, or the name of a Union of states.  In 1868, a
new meaning  was created.   A  third  meaning.    The  Fourteenth
amendment accomplished  this feat.   It  begins like  this:  "All
persons born  ...  in  the  United  States  and  subject  to  the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...."

     The problem  here is  that the Fourteenth amendment uses the
term "United States", first in the singular, geographic, national
sense (in  the United  States), and  then in  the  plural,  Union
agreement sense (jurisdiction thereof) -- but it did not make the
word "jurisdiction"  plural.   It should have read "jurisdictions
thereof".   But, that would have been quite illogical, for places
do not possess jurisdiction.  The Union had jurisdiction over the
several states,  but not  over People,  and  We  the  People  had
jurisdiction over  the Union  --  or  so  We  said.    Under  the
definitions  of   the  term   "United  States"  circa  1867,  the
Fourteenth amendment made no sense.

     Rather than  to admit  the  foolishness  of  this  amendment
(which was  never lawfully  ratified), a new meaning was given to
the term  "United States".   It became a TITLE.  This meaning was
never imagined  by the Framers of the original U.S. Constitution.
They took  great care  in it  to grant  no titles  to the federal
government.     The  U.S.   Constitution  merely   describes  the
government of  the United  States;   it used no Titles.  The best
example of  this fact is that the "supreme" Court is spelled with
a lower-case "s".  The U.S. Constitution "entitled" nothing.  "We
the People"  is  the  only  real  title  used  anywhere  in  that
document!   In fact,  titles of nobility are expressly prohibited
in the organic U.S. Constitution.  We the People had had our fill
of kings, and nobles of kings.  You and I were intended to be the
only Nobility  of this Nation.  Our title was our birthright;  it
was not granted by the federal (feudal) government.  It was not a
privilege -- it was a Right, a fundamental Right, no less.

     But,  the   Fourteenth  amendment,  while  it  attempted  to
establish a title, did not eliminate or change the prior meanings
of the  terms "United  States", or "Citizen", as those terms were
used in  the organic  U.S. Constitution.   Hence, since 1868, the
term "United  States" has  had three different meanings:  (1) the
geographical name  of a  Nation,   (2) the  name of  a  Union  of
states, and   (3)  a title  of nobility referring to a government
operating outside  of the several states of the Union.  The first
meaning is  singular and  natural;   the second meaning is plural
and created  by agreement;   the  third meaning  is singular  and

     But, wait!   The  federal government  may grant no titles of
nobility.  True.  Very true.  The government of the United States
may not, but you can!

     As a  nobleman, you  can grant a title, only you.  Plus, you
can abdicate  your title;   you can trade it for a new one.  But,
you can  only trade  downwards, because  the title  you were born
with is  the highest  title.  You can trade your high title for a
low one;   that's  a Right which you possess.  It's easy to do --
too easy,  actually.  They have also made it as easy as possible,
because government  agents want  you to  join their  vast herd of

     All you  need to  do is  to claim  that your  new  title  is
"citizen of  the United States".  Do that, and you will instantly
inform the  rest of  the world  that you are a person (lower-case
"p") who  is "subject  to the  jurisdiction of the United States"
[sic].   You will  use "United  States" as a title conferred upon
"citizen" (lower-case  "c"), and  you will thereby prove that you
believe the  "United States"  is something (someone) other than a
geographical description,  or the  name of a Union of states.  By
claiming that  it has  a jurisdiction  greater than your own, you
grant it  a TITLE.  The "person" who holds the highest title of a
Nation, and  who subjects people to his jurisdiction, is called a

     Have you  ever claimed  the title  of "citizen of the United
States"?   Did you  ever get  a Social  Security number and card?
You did  it.   How about  a passport?  Same thing.  Passports and
social security  are entitlements  (read "en-TITLE-ment").   They
are  granted   by  the   high  noble,   to  the   lesser  nobles.
Entitlements are  granted by the "United States" (in the singular
sense).   This government  is a  government of  title.  It exists
side-by-side with  the constitutionally  described "government of
the United  States of  America", under  the Constitution  for the
United States of America (see Preamble).

     Do you  want proof?   Take  a look  at anything possessed by
this government.   On  that object,  you will  find a label, or a
placard, or  a sign.   It  reads:  "property of the United States
Government."   It owns  more property  than any  feudal king ever
dreamed of  possessing, but  then, it also has more subjects than
any feudal king ever had, by far!

     As a  person of  low title  under the United States (feudal)
government, you  are bound  to obey not only law, but a "Code" as
well.   Remember how  feudal knights had to obey a code -- a code
of chivalry?   Well,  the "Code"  which a  citizen of  the United
States is bound to obey is called ("entitled") the "United States
Code" (no  apostrophe).   Originally, this  Code was  called  the
"Code of  Law of  the United  States", but  it was quickly filled
with so  much non-law  that the name was changed, so that persons
(not "Persons")  claiming low  title would  know that  it was for
them to obey.  You did not realize this?  Maybe you don't deserve
your birthright title!

     At the  same  time,  another  problem  arose.    The  courts
described in  the Constitution  had jurisdiction  (read "judicial
power") in  all matters arising under the Constitution, the laws,
and the  treaties of  the United  States, which  were made  under
THEIR authority,  plural, the  "Union".  If violators of the Code
were to  be punished by the courts, or if the courts were to hear
any matter  under their  special "Code",  then a new court system
had to  be established -- a court system for persons of low title
(small "p").  These courts would be courts of title.

     What are the names of these courts?  Answer:  "United States
District Court" and "United States Court of Appeals".  The courts
described by  the U.S.  Constitution would be "district Courts of
the United  States", "appeals  Court of  the United  States", and
"supreme Court  of the  United States".   It  would appear  that,
since both  titled courts  and  constitutional  courts  must  now
exist, side-by-side,  then the  judges must  sit in either;  they
really hold two jobs.

     You determine which court by addressing your petition to one
or the  other.   You pick.   The titled courts are no place for a
Freeman, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America.  These
courts have  a zillion  rules (published  for the  "Code"), right
down to  the kind  of paper and the style of type you must use in
your pleadings.   The  courts of  the United States are quite the
opposite, having  no published rules.  These courts are courts of
Law, convened  for Justice.   Trivial  things like paper and type
style have no bearing on either.  Here, substance always prevails
over  form.     For  proof,  examine  28  U.S.C.  2072(a),  where
constitutional courts  are not  even mentioned  in the  authority
which Congress  granted the  Supreme Court to promulgate rules of
practice and  procedure, and  rules of  evidence,  but  only  for
titled courts -- United State district courts.

     If you  are a citizen of the United States, you will have to
appear before  a court  of title, at least in civil matters under
the Code.   Jurisdiction  in criminal  matters is  properly still
left to "district Courts of the United States".  Lucky criminals!
Counterfeiters and  pirates fare  far better  than persons of low
title!   Well, they  should, for  their  Court  follows  Law  and
Justice, while  a  United  States  District  Court  follows  only

     Titled courts,  like the  United States  District Court, are
harsh in  their administration of the Code, for they are bound to
nothing  else  (assuming  the  presiding  judge  is  not  also  a
criminal).   These courts  will gladly  take the word of a United
States ATTORNey  over the  word of  a petty citizen of the United
States.   To "attorn" is to supervise the transfer an estate from
the old  lord to  the new  lord;   it is  a term from feudal law.
When they attorn properly, they are rewarded handsomely.

     In courts  of title,  rank has its privileges.  These courts
owe no  allegiance to  the U.S. Constitution;  they need not rule
by the  Laws of the United States of America (the "Union").  They
follow only  a Code.   They  obey their master, the United States
(feudal) government.   These  courts, as  did the  infamous Crown
Courts of England, exist only for the benefit of the peerage and,
unfortunately, often to the detriment of the Freemen of the land.

     This "dual  court" system  is probably  the only  reason for
what, at first glance, appears to be a set of contradictory "case
laws".   While a reasonable mind can understand the potential for
divergent  court   holdings  from   one  state  to  another,  the
contradictions manifest  in "federal"  court holdings  are  quite
troubling, indeed.

     Ever wonder  how the  "Supreme" Court  can overturn  itself?
Most often,  it does  not.   But, one  can quickly  see that  the
decisions of  courts of  title, or  "United States Courts", would
oft times  conflict with the rules made by constitutional "courts
of the  United States".  One hears only matters brought by titled
citizens, the  other hears matters brought by Freemen.  Since the
decisions are  published in the same volumes, with no distinction
between the courts, case law seems to contradict itself.

     Should you find this "dual court" concept a bit far fetched,
examine the  Internal Revenue Code, sections 7402(b) and 7604(a).
You will  find that  these sections  grant the  authority to  two
different  courts  to  enforce  a  summons.    The  sections  are
identical, word-for-word  in every  respect, except for one:  one
section gives  authority to  the "United  States district courts"
and the  other section gives authority to the "district courts of
the United  States".    For  a  recent  discussion  of  this  all
important distinction, read "Karma and the Federal Courts" in the
Supreme Law Library on the Internet, and the supporting citations
in "A Collection of Court Authorities in re the District Court of
the United States" also in the Supreme Law Library.

     Why both?   Income  taxes are  excise taxes.   They  are  an
excise/occupation tax  on a  privilege.   The privilege  is  your
title --  citizen of  the United States.  A "first party" summons
is served  upon a  titled person.   But,  a "third party" summons
might be served upon anyone, titled or not.  Thus, one court must
enforce the one;  the other court must enforce the other.

     Since a  titled person  (lower-case "p")  is required by the
Code to  keep books,  records and  papers, the court of title can
demand the  delivery of  those  documents,  without  particularly
describing them,  without describing  the place  to be  searched,
without the presentment of an accusation by a party under oath or
affirmation.   Should a  titled person  fail to  deliver up  such
documents, he  will find  himself in  jail for  contempt  --  not
contempt of  court, but  contempt of  the Code!  A court of title
may jail him for failing to produce records which no one has even
claimed existed  in the  first place!   He  will be released from
jail only  when he  "creates" the documents which a titled person
is required to possess.

     Nowhere is  the dual  court /  dual government  system  more
apparent than  in tax matters.  At common law, titled individuals
(but not  the king)  are bound by an oath of allegiance, in order
to be  entitled.   Thus, income  tax forms must be signed only by
persons under  oath, persons who are subject to the "penalties of
perjury".   Signing such  a form  is a  confession that  you hold
title.   The form  is to  be signed  by a  "citizen of the United
States" or  a "resident  of the  United States"  (singular  sense
here).   Hence,  a  signed  tax  form  is  always  introduced  as
evidence, in  a "criminal"  tax prosecution,  to  show  that  the
defendant has  claimed a  title.   Signed tax  forms need  not be
notarized, because  they conform to affirmations made "inside the
United States".   For  proof, see  28 U.S.C.  1746(2),  and  then
compare its companion at subsection 1746(1).

     Perhaps you  have heard  that tax  deductions are granted by
the "grace" of the United States (feudal) government.  It's true.
Grace is a favor, a privilege.  Kings dispense grace;  kings deny
grace.   What is  given in  grace, may  be denied.   The IRS will
often deny tax deductions.  Search as we may, it is impossible to
discover where  it is  in the  U.S. Constitution that the federal
government is authorized to dispense or deny any "grace".

     But, the government of the United States of America does not
dispense or  deny grace;   the United States Government does.  It
dispenses and denies grace to its subjects -- the citizens of the
United States.  This king wears no crown, for it has no head.  It
cannot be  killed.  It cannot be harmed.  It cannot even be sued,
unless it  first "grants"  its own  permission to be sued.  It is
hardly the  same government  which We demanded would always allow
Us to  petition for  redress of  grievances, an unalienable Right
guaranteed by the Petition Clause of the First Amendment!

     This government-king  has existed  for over  100 years.   At
first, it  was quite  innocuous, for  it had  very few  subjects.
But, when  it tricked  Us, the  People,  into  signing  away  our
birthrights via reams of forms, its power became immense.  Today,
this government  by title  is  so  powerful  that  the  original,
constitutional government  of the United States of America became
lost in its shadow.

     There are  still two  governments.  One asks that you should
serve it;   the other only seeks to serve you.  The government of
title will  entice you  with promises of grants and enTITLEments:
welfare,  social   security,  low-interest   loans,   grants   of
exemption, grants  of deduction.   But,  it can give you nothing.
It exists  only by  your authority.   It cannot give you anything
that you  did not  already possess.   Try  as it might to deceive
you, it exists by your grace -- not the other way around!

     Do Us  both a favor:  withdraw your grace;  deny your grace.
Be a  Citizen of one of the United States of America again.  Stop
trying to  serve two  masters;   you can't do it.  The Holy Bible
says so,  and it  is the  Word of the Most High.  Stop pretending
that you  are subject  to the  jurisdiction of the United States,
and announce that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the Most
High, and only the Most High.  You won't be, unless you choose to
be.  Even the greatest earthly king is only a king by the consent
of his  subjects.   Make yourself  subject only  to the  King  of
kings.  Stop being a subject of anyone else, or anything else.

     Be a free man!

     Refuse to  claim that  you are  a  "citizen  of  the  United
States".   This term  is identical to, and should be replaced by,
the term  "federal citizen",  because the latter term is entirely
unique and  cannot be confused with any other legal term.  Confer
at "Federal citizenship" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
(with pronunciations).   As a Citizen of ONE OF the United States
of America, you may deny jurisdiction to titled courts.  Be aware
that this  latter term,  also known  as "state  Citizen", is  not
defined in  Black's Law  Dictionary, however.  And, by all means,
stop  calling   this  king   by  its  title,  the  United  States

                             #  #  #

Return to Table of Contents