Author#2
Forum Replies Created
-
Neo,
Quote:The minute that statutory “national” and “alien” changes his domicile to a federal territory or possession, he becomes a statutory “U.S. citizen” (8 U.S.C. 1401) if he moves to Guam or Puerto Rico or a “national of the United States**” (8 USC 1101(a)(22)) if he moves to American Samoa or Swains Island. Once he moves to American Samoa, for instance, he continues to be a “non-citizen national” per 8 U.S.C. 1452 but changes from an 8 USC 1101(a)(21) “national” to an 8 USC 1101(a)(22) “national of the United States**”.The language you are confused about describes the diagram in section 10.4 of the “Why you are a national” pamphlet.
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
A state domiciled “non-citizen national” is what I really meant, not an 8 USC 1101(a)(21) “national”. I am trying to describe the affect upon one’s statutory citizenship when a state-domiciled “non-citizen national” moves to federal territory.
1. If he moves his domicile to a territory, he becomes a statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 USC 1401
2. If he moves his domicile to a possession such as Swains Island or American Samoa, he changes to a “national of the United States**” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(:cool:.
If that same person who started out as a state-domiciled non-citizen national and “national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452 returns his domicile to the state of the Union he started in after accomplishing the above, he returns to his former status as a non-citizen national and a “national” under 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452.
I disagree that a state domiciled non-citizen national is eligible to sign up for Social Security.
1. Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress cannot establish or license any franchise within the borders of a sovereign state, including the “trade or business” franchise. See License Tax Cases and the following for proof:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Even a state-domiciled non-citizen national who makes a 26 USC 6013(g) and (h) “resident” election by virtue of being married to a statutory and not constitutional “U.S. citizen” does not BECOME the “permanent resident” described in 20 CFR 422.104(a)(2). Where in the law does it say that a TEMPORARY election for only one year under 6013(g) and (h) makes one a “permanent resident”? IT DOESN’T! You’re presuming again. “Permanent residence” under Title 8 can and does relate ONLY to foreign nationals, not state non-citizen nationals.
3. The only way they could turn an “alien” into a resident without making them a permanent resident is to make them a public officer acting in a representative capacity. 4 USC 72 says that such public offices can be exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere. The Social Security Act cannot and does not authorize any new public offices, and therefore, they may only lawfully offer such franchises to those domiciled on federal territory. All franchises are civil law and all GOVERNMENT civil law attaches to some territory and to those domiciled on said territory ONLY. This too is covered in:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
Neo,
OK. Here is my synopsis of your position explained in a way that you haven’t so far. I’m not saying I agree with this yet, but I’m trying to understand your perspective by explaining it better than it has been so far. I won’t really “get it” until the WHOLE picture is in front of me on one page, and all the pieces of the puzzle demonstrably fit together seamlessly. And there need to be a LOT of pieces because of everything I have learned over the past 9 years studying this crazy stuff. My puzzle is therefore MUCH bigger than the one you are probably looking at so please bear with me. Understanding is always a prerequisite to agreement, not unlike friendship always precedes love:
1. The states of the Union and Foreign Countries are on an equal footing when it comes to being “foreign” and “alien” and “sovereign” in relation to federal statutory jurisdiction. The only exception to this provision are:
1.1 Interstate commerce under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
1.2 Jurisdiction over slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment.
1.3 Jurisdiction over aliens and naturalization under the Fourteenth Amendment.
For all the above three exceptions, the U.S. Supreme court has repeatedly held that the people of this country “are one” and not several.
2. Because states of the Union and Foreign countries are sovereign, foreign, and alien, then all those domiciled in those places, even if born anywhere in the “United States*” are still statutory but not constitutional “aliens” in relation to the national but not federal government, meaning the “United States**” and not the “United States*”. See:
http://famguardian.o…dies/USvUSA.htm
3. A statutory “national of the United States**” per 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(:cool: is someone who is not a statutory “U.S. citizen” (per 8 USC 1401) and yet is still within the jurisdiction of the corporate United States** and “national government” as a person domiciled in a federal territory or possession.
4. Those who are either foreign nationals or 8 USC 1101(a)(21) “nationals”/8 USC 1452 non-citizen nationals are both “aliens” under Titles 8 and 26 of the U.S. Code. They are not “nationals of the United States**” per 8 USC 1101(a)(22) because they are not domiciled in the “United States**”. Hence, they are “nonresident aliens” per 26 USC 7701(:cool:(1)(:cool:, because they are neither statutory “U.S. citizens” per 8 USC 1401 or “nationals of the United States” per 8 USC 1101(a)(22).
5. The reason people domiciled or resident in states of the Union are not described directly in Title 8 is that they are beyond the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress (under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) and therefore Congress cannot define their status.
QUOTE “It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation. The question in respect of the inherent power of that government as to the external affairs of the Nation and in the field of international law is a wholly different matter which it is not necessary now to consider. See, however, Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 212 , 11 S.Ct. 80; Nishimur Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659 , 12 S.Ct. 336; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 , 705 et seq., 13 S.Ct. 1016; Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 396 , 53 S.Ct. 457, 86 A.L.R. 747. “
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)]
6. The above explains why Constitutional citizenship always has state citizenship as a precursor: You must be domiciled outside of Congress’ legislative jurisdiction in a foreign state of the Union and be an “alien” under federal law and a “citizen” under Constitutional state law in order to be a Constitutional citizen:
Quote:The objection to the jurisdiction in the present case is, that the plaintiff is not a citizen of any particular state, and that this is essential to bring the case within the provisions of the constitution and of the act of congress made in pursuance thereof. If it had been shown that the plaintiff had returned to the state of New-York, and was a resident therein at the time of filing the bill, he would then have become redintegrated an American citizen, and entitled to the privileges belonging to that character; and then, being a resident of the state, he would have been a citizen thereof. But his residence and domicil are in the province of Canada, and not in this state; and hence, though for some purposes he may still be regarded as a citizen of the United States, he is not a citizen of the state of New-York, which is essential to give jurisdiction. Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch [6 U. S.] 445; New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. [14 U. S.] 91; Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 761; Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. [33 U. S.] 112; Picquet v. Swan [Case No 11,134]; Case v. Clarke [Id. 2,490]; Wilson v. City Bank [Id. 17,797]; Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co. [Id. 2,517]; Cooper v. Galbraith [Id. 3,193]. The language of the constitution is explicit, that the controversy must be between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects; and the above cases will show that the interpretation is in conformity therewith.A person may be a citizen of the United States, and not a citizen of any particular state. This is the condition of [statutory] citizens residing in the District of Columbia [federal territory], and in the territories of the United States, or who have taken up a residence abroad, and others that might be mentioned. A fixed and permanent residence or domicil in a state is essential to the character of [constitutional] citizenship that will bring the case within the jurisdiction of the federal *1280 courts, as will appear from the cases already referred to.
As I am satisfied that this court has no jurisdiction in the case, and that the bill must eventually be dismissed on that ground, the writ of ne exeat heretofore issued ought not to be continued The rule entered granting the writ must therefore be vacated, and the defendant be discharged from custody.
[Prentiss v. Brennan, 2 Blatchf. 162, 19 F.Cas. 1278 (C.C.N.Y. 1851)]
6. Title 26 doesn’t define “alien” but it doesn’t need to, because it is the same statutory “alien” as that described in 8 USC 1101(a)(3), which is either a foreign national or a state national. Most people think “alien” means a constitutional alien and a foreign national when they read government forms, but in fact, it is exactly the opposite, which is why so many people fill the forms out INCORRECTLY.
7. Those domiciled in a state of the Union and born anywhere in America are:
7.1 Constitutional Citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
7.2 Statutory “nationals” (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21)) and non-citizen nationals” per 8 U.S.C. 1452.
7.3 NOT “nationals of the United States” (8 USC 1101(a)(22)).
7.4 Statutory “aliens” because the place they are a “national” of, although within the “United States*”, is not within the “United States**” and therefore foreign to the legislative jurisdiction of the national government. That is why the word “state” is in lower case within 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21): Because it is ANY state that is “foreign” in relation to the “national” and not “federal” government.
8. The above is consistent with the CJS legal encyclopedia, which calls states of the Union “foreign” [and therefore alien] “states” in lower case relative to federal jurisdiction. See:
Quote:“Territories’ or ‘territory’ as including ‘state’ or ‘states.” While the term ‘territories of the’ United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress “territory” does not include a foreign state.“As used in this title, the term ‘territories’ generally refers to the political subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several states.”
[86 C.J.S. [Corpus, Juris, Secundum, Legal Encyclopedia], Territories]
SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…c/territory.htm
Per the above, Titles 8 and 26 are classified as “ordinary Acts of Congress”. Similarly, the term “several States” used in acts of congress and the U.S. Code EXCLUDES states of the Union, although they try hard to create a false presumption on this subject, such as in 1 U.S.C. 204. See:
http://www.law.corne…04—-000-.html
9. What makes someone subject to federal legislative jurisdiction or “ordinary Acts of Congress” is a domicile on federal territory or agency over an instrumentality of Congress. In either capacity, one is participating in the “protection franchise” (in the case of domicile) or other franchises (such as income tax “trade or business” franchise) and thereby is subject to federal civil jurisdiction and police powers. Being subject to such jurisdiction can occur regardless of where the public officer as a human being actually resides, and even extends to statutory but not constitutional citizens who are abroad (see Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47, 54, 56 (1924)).
10. Those who don’t have a domicile or residence on federal territory or agency over a federal instrumentality (a “public office” domiciled on federal territory under F.R.Civ.P. 17(b)) cannot lawfully come before a federal court for anything other than a Constitutional and not statutory issue, and if they do, it is a usurpation. It is a deprivation of due process to enforce a franchise against anyone who did not expressly consent. Those who didn’t consent to franchises, including the domicile “protection franchise” or the public officer income tax franchise (26 USC 7701(a)(26)), and who end up in front of a franchise court such as a U.S. District Court judge, who is an Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 franchise judge ONLY, are being subjected to involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
QUOTE Municipality cannot, under pretense of regulation as an exercise of police power, force a contract or franchise upon grantee.
[General Telephone Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 716 P.2d 879 Wash.,1986]
11. The tax described in I.R.C. Subtitles A and C is a “national” tax not a “federal tax”. It may therefore only be enforced within what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “the national domain”, meaning the U.S. government and all those who join the government by signing up for government franchises and becoming public officers of the “U.S. Inc.” federal corporation and therefore “persons” per 26 U.S.C. 6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. 7343. This is consistent with what the federal courts have repeatedly said, which is that it is a “national” tax, not a federal tax. Notice the strategic us of the LOWER CASE “states”, meaning “foreign states” of the Union and “national government”, meaning the government of federal territory and not constitutional States which only operates upon individuals on that territory and not within states, according to James Madison.
Quote:“The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power which springs from the bankruptcy clause. United States v. Butler, supra.”[Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, 298 U.S. 513; 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936)]
12. A “national of the United States**” under 8 USC 1101(a)(22) is not an “alien” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3). However, a “national” domiciled in a foreign state of the Union is a statutory but not constitutional “alien” per 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3) and also per Title 26. The minute that statutory “national” and “alien” changes his domicile to a federal territory or possession, he becomes a statutory “U.S. citizen” (8 U.S.C. 1401) if he moves to Guam or Puerto Rico or a “national of the United States**” (8 USC 1101(a)(22)) if he moves to American Samoa or Swains Island. Once he moves to American Samoa, for instance, he continues to be a “non-citizen national” per 8 U.S.C. 1452 but changes from an 8 USC 1101(a)(21) “national” to an 8 USC 1101(a)(22) “national of the United States**”.
13. The Declaration of Independence says that the rights of those in states of the Union are “inalienable”, which means they can’t be sold, bargained away, or transferred to a REAL de jure government. Therefore, the “national government”, if it attempts to “alienate” those rights and thereby turn you, a PRIVATE and not PUBLIC person, into an “alien” in relation to it, is:
13.1 Acting as a private corporation and not a government and engaging in contract law. All franchises are contracts.
13.2 Usurping authority that it does not have.
13.3 Violating the purpose of its creation, by making a business out of DESTROYING and ALIENATING rights using franchises enforced outside its territory against non-residents who it is SUPPOSED to be protecting using the Constitution.
13.4 Effectively STEALING, by converting private rights into public rights without the consent of the owner using statutes that are essentially “political propaganda” but not “law” (no force of law) to a human being domiciled outside their territorial (United States**) reach.
14. The practical effect upon the diagram in section 10.1 of the following:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
…would be to modify the “States of the Union” box as to add “Aliens. 8 USC 1101(a)(3)” and leave everything else the same. Not a whole lot of change worth getting upset about.
15 The practical effect upon the table in the following:
http://famguardian.o…pVTaxStatus.htm
…would be to modify the “Defined in” column for items 3.1 to 3.3 to add 8 USC 1101(a)(3) and leave everything else the same. Not a whole lot of change worth getting upset about.
16 The practical effect upon the venn diagram in the following:
http://famguardian.o…pVTaxStatus.htm
…would be to modify the “U.S. 3” circle to add “8 USC 1101(a)(3)” under “Defined in:” and leave everything else the same. Not a whole lot of change worth getting upset about.
17. Those who pursue the NRA position will need to understand citizenship a little better by ensuring that:
17.1 They describe themselves as statutory but not constitutional “aliens” to the “United States**”/federal zone.
17.2 They never describe themselves as statutory “U.S. nationals”, “nationals of the United States**”, “U.S.** citizens” or ANYTHING connected with the “United States”.
17.3 Must attach the following to all government forms they fill out in order to avoide being victimized by presumptions about “words of art”:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status
, Form #02.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ffCitDomTax.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
17.4 When asked if they are “U.S. citizens”, produce the following and demand the questioner to describe WHICH “United States” they mean and WHICH SPECIFIC status in the table they are referring to.
http://famguardian.o…pVTaxStatus.htm
That will SHUT THEM UP right away because it will expose all their presumptions for the fraud they are. The technique for interfering with this sort of government presumption and IDIOCY is documented in:
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 6.1
http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf
For an example of how NOT to describe your citizenship status as an NRA and thereby put yourself in harms way and grave danger (Danger, will robinson, DANGER!), see:
http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=3128
18. The USA passport has the following language in it:
QUOTE The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance, and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection.
The phrase “Secretary of State of the United States of America” implies that the “United States” they are referring to is the “United States*”, and NOT the “United States**”.
[url url=”http://www.state.gov…etary/index.htm”]http://www.state.gov…etary/index.htm[/url]
Hence, the “United States” appearing on the passport is NOT the same “United States” as that appearing in Title 8, and instead is issued in furtherance of the Law of Nations and in relation to the “United States*” ONLY. Foreign countries who read the passport don’t need to know and in fact aren’t concerned with how we organize internal to us as a “nation” under the law of nations. The only time “United States of America” is ever used in connection with the central government is in the context of foreign affairs only. The U.S. Supreme Court explained this is U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936):
QUOTE As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Even before the Declaration, the colonies were a unit in foreign affairs, acting through a common agency-namely, the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the thirteen colonies. That agency exercised the powers of war and peace, raised an army, created a navy, and finally adopted the Declaration of Independence. Rulers come and go; governments end and forms of government change; but sovereignty survives. A political society cannot endure [299 U.S. 304, 317] without a supreme will somewhere. Sovereignty is never held in suspense. When, therefore, the external sovereignty of Great Britain in respect of the colonies ceased, it immediately passed to the Union [FEDERAL and not NATIONAL government]. See Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 80, 81, Fed.Cas. No. 10925. That fact was given practical application almost at once. The treaty of peace, made on September 3, 1783, was concluded between his Brittanic Majesty and the ‘United States of America.‘ 8 Stat., European Treaties, 80.
[
U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)]
19. REGARDLESS of all the above citizenship baloney, one cannot be an “individual” unless they are a public officer in the government. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that jurisdiction over PRIVATE conduct is “repugnant to the Constitution”. Therefore, all “individuals” must be engaged in “public conduct” as public officers, and they ALSO must be statutory but not constitutional “aliens” per 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3). See:
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…rPubOfficer.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
Use of a government identifying number in connection with any “national government” payment constitutes prima facie consent to occupy such an office. The regulations at 26 CFR 301.6109-1 establish that such a number may ONLY be used in connection with those engaged in a “trade or business”, meaning a “public office”, in the government. Those who are not lawfully engaged in such an office are committing the crime of impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 912 if they use a government number in connection with what actually is a private transaction by other than a public officer. See:
Why it is Unlawful for me to Request or Use a Taxpayer Identification Number, Form #04.205
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…yTINIllegal.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
20. The above is corroborated by the following book:
Privileges and immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, Google Books
http://books.google….Y…;q=&f=false
The book talks about the provision of the Constitution called the “Comity Clause” found in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, in which the citizens of each state are required to be treated as “citizens” of ALL states. Its says that without this provision, they would be an alien in any state they visit. To wit, the book quotes Paul v. Virginia on p. 1 to say the following of the Comity Clause:
Quote:[url url=”http:///”]**9 [/url]It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws. It has been justly said that no provision in the Constitution has tended so strongly to constitute the citizens of the United States one people as this. FN16FN16 Lemmon v. The People, 20 New York, 607.[url url=”http:///”]Indeed, without some provision of the kind removing from the citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in the other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists.[/url]
[url url=”http:///”] [/url]
[url url=”http:///”]But the privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each State in the several States, by the provision in question, are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in the latter States under their constitution and laws by virtue of their being citizens. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision. It was not intended by the provision to give to the laws of one State any operation in other States. They can have no such operation, except by the permission, express or implied, of those States. The [/url][url url=”http:///”]*181 [/url]special privileges which they confer must, therefore, be enjoyed at home, unless the assent of other States to their enjoyment therein be given.
Now a grant of corporate existence is a grant of special privileges to the corporators, enabling them to act for certain designated purposes as a single individual, and exempting them (unless otherwise specially provided) from individual liability. The corporation being the mere creation of local law, can have no legal existence beyond the limits of the sovereignty where created. As said by this court in Bank of Augusta v. Earle, ‘It must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another sovereignty.’ The recognition of its existence even by other States, and the enforcement of its contracts made therein, depend purely upon the comity of those States-a comity which is never extended where the existence of the corporation or the exercise of its powers are prejudicial to their interests or repugnant to their policy. Having no absolute right of recognition in other States, but depending for such recognition and the enforcement of its contracts upon their assent, if follows, as a matter of course, that such assent may be granted upon such terms and conditions as those States may think proper to impose. They may exclude the foreign corporation entirely; they may restrict its business to particular localities, or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as in their judgment will best promote the public interest. The whole matter rests in their discretion.
[Paul v. State of Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 1868 WL 11123 U.S.,1868]
Notice the use in Paul v. Virginia of the word “individual”, which refers to a corporation as a single “individual”! THIS, I submit is THE ONLY individual who is the “person” and it is in fact the “United States” private corporation and all those who represent it as public officers and therefore statutory “U.S. persons”.
The implication of the State Citizenship book and Paul v. Virginia is that since there is no similar comity clause between federal territory and states of the Union. The Constitution, in fact, is actually silent on what Congress must or may do with federal territory by the admission of the U.S. Supreme Court:
QUOTE In passing upon the questions involved in this and kindred cases, we ought not to overlook the fact that, while the Constitution was intended to establish a permanent form of government for the states which should elect to take advantage of its conditions, and continue for an indefinite future, the vast possibilities of that future could never have entered the minds of its framers. The states had but recently emerged from a war with one of the most powerful nations of Europe, were disheartened by the failure of the confederacy, and were doubtful as to the feasibility of a stronger union. Their territory was confined to a narrow strip of land on the Atlantic coast from Canada to Florida, with a somewhat indefinite claim to territory beyond the Alleghenies, where their sovereignty was disputed by tribes of hostile Indians supported, as was popularly believed, by the British, who had never formally delivered possession [182 U.S. 244, 285] under the treaty of peace. The vast territory beyond the Mississippi, which formerly had been claimed by France, since 1762 had belonged to Spain, still a powerful nation and the owner of a great part of the Western Hemisphere. Under these circumstances it is little wonder that the question of annexing these territories was not made a subject of debate. The difficulties of bringing about a union of the states were so great, the objections to it seemed so formidable, that the whole thought of the convention centered upon surmounting these obstacles. The question of territories was dismissed with a single clause, apparently applicable only to the territories then existing, giving Congress the power to govern and dispose of them.
Had the acquisition of other territories been contemplated as a possibility, could it have been foreseen that, within little more than one hundred years, we were destined to acquire, not only the whole vast region between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but the Russian possessions in America and distant islands in the Pacific, it is incredible that no provision should have been made for them, and the question whether the Constitution should or should not extend to them have been definitely settled. If it be once conceded that we are at liberty to acquire foreign territory, a presumption arises that our power with respect to such territories is the same power which other nations have been accustomed to exercise with respect to territories acquired by them. If, in limiting the power which Congress was to exercise within the United States[***], it was also intended to limit it with regard to such territories as the people of the United States[***] should thereafter acquire, such limitations should have been expressed. Instead of that, we find the Constitution speaking only to states, except in the territorial clause, which is absolute in its terms, and suggestive of no limitations upon the power of Congress in dealing with them. The states could only delegate to Congress such powers as they themselves possessed, and as they had no power to acquire new territory they had none to delegate in that connection. The logical inference from this is that if Congress had power to acquire new territory, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the constitutional provisions. If, upon the other hand, we assume
[182 U.S. 244, 286] that the territorial clause of the Constitution was not intended to be restricted to such territory as the United States then possessed, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the power of Congress in dealing with them was intended to be restricted by any of the other provisions.
[. . .]
If those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation, and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible; and the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time, that ultimately our own theories may be carried out, and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid such action.
We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States[***] within the revenue clauses of the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional, so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case.
Therefore, those who visit federal territory while domiciled in a state of the Union are ALIENS in relation to that place and the laws of that place. This is also a natural and intended consequence of the separation of powers between states of the Union and the federal government that is the backbone of the Constitution. That separation is there by design, not by accident or default. A comity clause between the states and feds would, in fact, destroy this separation. See:
Government Instituted Slavery to Destroy the Separation of Powers Doctrine, Form #05.023
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ionOfPowers.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
Very interesting read. You might want to read this book as I am doing.
If the above describes all the implications of your position, I don’t have a problem with it and can and will make all the changes necessary to make the indicated materials conform with the changes indicated.
Is that better, Neo? You keep running me in circles because you don’t understand law well enough (YET) so I have to use my own words. Don’t be discouraged, just keep studying. Remember:
“Today’s mighty oak is yesterday’s little nut who held his ground.”, as Admins signature says in these forums.
-
Evidence gathered so far:
QUESTION: Does being an “alien” result from nationality or domicile?
ANSWER: NO, it comes from nationality, not residence or domicile. Hence, you can't be a “national” and an “alien” at the same time.
Quote:The term ” non-resident” as herein used means a citizen of the United States who does not reside in the state in which the question arises for decision, or in which the act complained of or relied upon was performed. It does not mean an alien, or a citizen of a foreign country.”[A Treatise on the Law of Non-Residents, Conrad Reno, p. v,
http://books.google.com/books?id=FhE1AAAAI…;q=&f=false.]
I have also attached a Westlaw Keycite, topic #24K654: Nationals of the United States. The several court cites listed consistently reveal that federal courts think that one becomes a “national” by becoming naturalized, and that the “United States” they are referring to is the United States* in the context of naturalization. Check this out from the list:
Quote:Scholz v. Shaughnessy, 180 F.2d 450, C.A.2.N.Y.,1950A “national” of the United States, for purpose of the Nationality Act, does not include an alien. Nationality Act of 1940, § 101, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101.See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.
The following case contains an excellent history of the term “national of the United States”, its origins and reasons for existence:
Jose Padilla v. John Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964 (2003)
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Authorit…tNo01-71454.pdf
Below is what the court said on this subject:
Quote:B. Traditional Meaning of “National of the United States”[url url=”http://”]All citizens of the United States are also nationals. However, some nationals are not citizens. Traditionally, only persons born in territories of the United States were non-citizen nationals. [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1950116436&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=797&pbc=FAF30941&tc=-1&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=Y&db=350&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir.1950)[/url]. As Justice Ginsburg recently explained:
[url url=”http://”]Nationality and citizenship are not entirely synonymous; one can be a national of the United States and yet not a citizen. [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22)[/url]. The distinction has little practical impact today, however, for the only remaining noncitizen nationals are residents of American Samoa and Swains Island.
[url url=”http://”][url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&serialnum=1998093006&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=Y&db=708&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 467 n. 2, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998)[/url] (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); see also Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 90 n. 1, 96 S.Ct. 1895, 48 L.Ed.2d 495 (1976) (noting that Civil Service Commission regulations construed “nationals” “who owe [url url=”http://”]*968 [/url]permanent allegiance to the United States” to cover only natives of American Samoa (citing 5 C.F.R. § 338.101 (1976))).
[url url=”http://”]This court, too, has explained that non-citizen nationality has traditionally been limited to people who were born in territories of the United States: “The term 'national' came into popular use in this country when the United States acquired territories outside its continental limits, and was used in reference to noncitizen inhabitants of those territories.” [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1994189420&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1452&pbc=FAF30941&tc=-1&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=Y&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449, 1452 n. 5 (9th Cir.1994)[/url]; see also United States v. Sotelo, 109 F.3d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting Rabang for the same principle).
[url url=”http://”]
[url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"""""”]Further, we have suggested that nationality may be acquired only through birth or completion of the entire naturalization process and have made no provision for a third route to nationality, such as through completion of an application for naturalization: “United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation.” Cabebe, 183 F.2d at 797.[/url] Similarly, we have noted that, “[a]lthough we have not definitively defined the term national, we have suggested a person attains national status primarily through birth.” Sotelo, 109 F.3d at 1448.
[url url=”http://”]
[/url][url url=”http://”]Other courts of appeals have also characterized non-citizen nationals as those born in territories of the United States. The Second Circuit has explained:
[/url][url url=”http://”]The term nationals came into use in this country when the United States acquired territories outside its continental limits whose inhabitants were not at first given full political equality with citizens. Yet they were deemed to owe permanent allegiance to the United States and were entitled to our country's protection. The term national was used to include these noncitizens in the larger group of persons who belonged to the national community and were not regarded as aliens.
[/url][url url=”http://”][url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1975111150&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=428&pbc=FAF30941&tc=-1&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=Y&db=350&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]Oliver v. INS, 517 F.2d 426, 428 n. 3 (2d Cir.1975)[/url] (per curiam); see also Igartua De La Rosa v. United States, 229 F.3d 80, 86 n. 12 (1st Cir.2000) (per curiam) (Torruella, J., concurring) (noting that only residents of American Samoa and Swains Island are nationals of the United States within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22)).
[url url=”http://”]Thus, decisions of the Supreme Court, this court, and other courts of appeals all suggest that the term “national,” when used to describe non-citizens, refers only to those born in territories of the United States.
C. Text and Context of [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1101(a)(22)[/url]
[/url][url url=”http://”]Both the text and context of [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22)[/url] support our interpretation of “national of the United States.” As discussed below, a number of statutory provisions are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with Petitioner's claim that he is not an alien.
1. Statutory Text
[url url=”http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26"”]Section 1101(a)(22)[/url](:cool: defines “national of the United States” as “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” (Emphasis added.) A naturalization applicant cannot rightly be said to owe permanent allegiance, because naturalization applications are often denied or withdrawn.[/url]FN4 It is difficult to see how a citizen *969 [url url=”http://”]of another country, whose application for naturalization may be denied or withdrawn, nonetheless owes permanent allegiance to the United States. See [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3b5d1e0000fde97&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(31)[/url] (defining “permanent” to mean “a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary”).
FN4. The naturalization application signed by Petitioner does not require the applicant presently to pledge permanent allegiance to the United States. Instead, the application asks only: ” Are you willing to take the full Oath of Allegiance to the U.S.?” (Emphasis added.) The statement of allegiance signed by an applicant is prospective in nature and, therefore, an applicant does not owe permanent allegiance to the United States until the applicant takes the full oath of allegiance as part of a naturalization ceremony. The applicant may withdraw the application before that occurs. See [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8CFRS335.10&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000547&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]8 C.F.R. § 335.10[/url] (allowing an applicant to request withdrawal of his or her naturalization application without prejudice to any future application).[url url=”http://”]Moreover, Petitioner's interpretation creates an absurd result with respect to those persons whose applications for naturalization are, in fact, denied. An applicant for naturalization may renounce his or her statement of allegiance to the United States by withdrawing the application. [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2003096904&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1073&pbc=FAF30941&tc=-1&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=Y&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]United States v. United States Dist. Court ex rel. Chavez-Orozco, 316 F.3d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir.2003)[/url]. However, the INS's rejection of a naturalization application does not necessarily invalidate the applicant's statement of allegiance to the United States. Under Petitioner's reading of the statute, therefore, rejected naturalization applicants who do not renounce their statements of allegiance could remain nationals of the United States.FN5 Those rejected applicants would not be aliens and, accordingly, would not be removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (providing only for the removal of “aliens”). Congress clearly did not intend this odd construction of the statute.
FN5. In fact, this very argument has been made. See [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&serialnum=2003065353&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=Y&db=0000999&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]Rodriguez v. Ashcroft, No. 02Civ.1188, 2003 WL 42018, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2003)[/url] (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a petitioner's claim that, although his application for naturalization had been denied, he was nonetheless a national of the United States because the application had contained a statement of allegiance to the United States).2. Statutory Context
[url url=”http://”]As we have just explained, the text of [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1101(a)(22)[/url] supports our holding. The statutory context of that provision further bolsters our interpretation of “national of the United States.”
[url url=”http://”][url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3b8e5e000045281&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]
[/url][url url=”http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3b8e5e000045281&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26"”]Title 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23)[/url] provides that “[t]he term 'naturalization' means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the statutory provision immediately following the definition of “national of the United States” provides that “naturalization” is the path by which a person attains nationality after birth. Section 1101(a)(23) makes no provision for the attainment of nationality short of full naturalization and, therefore, is consistent with our conclusion that one may become a “national of the United States” only through birth or by completing the process of becoming a naturalized citizen.
[url url=”http://”]We find further support for our interpretation of “national of the United States” in [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1408&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]8 U.S.C. § 1408[/url], which lists four categories of persons who are classified as nationals, but not citizens, of the United States. All the categories enumerated in § 1408 relate in some way to birth in an outlying possession of the United States,FN6 or birth to parents who are nationals of the United States. Id. Under traditional principles*970 [url url=”http://”]of statutory interpretation, the fact that Congress has defined “national” as including only those categories of persons is significant. See [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1991026773&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=756&pbc=FAF30941&tc=-1&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=Y&db=350&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756-57 (9th Cir.1991)[/url] (noting that the canon of ” expressio unius est exclusio alterius … as applied to statutory interpretation creates a presumption that when a statute designates certain persons, things, or manners of operation, all omissions should be understood as exclusions” (citation omitted)).
FN6. [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3b482700005d120&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]Title 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(29)[/url] provides that “[t]he term 'outlying possessions of the United States' means American Samoa and Swains Island.”[url url=”http://”]Petitioner's interpretation of [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1101(a)(22)[/url] is also called into doubt by 8 U.S.C. § 1481. That provision sets forth a number of ways in which a “person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality.” 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a) (emphasis added). By mentioning only birth and naturalization as reasons why a person would be a national of the United States, § 1481(a) implies that those are the only ways in which a person can attain the status of a national.
[url url=”http://”]Perhaps most importantly, Petitioner's interpretation of [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1101(a)(22)[/url] cannot be reconciled with 8 U.S.C. § 1429, which provides that “no person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of deportability … and no application for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the applicant a removal proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1429. The natural reading of this statute is that removal proceedings and final removal orders are to take precedence over naturalization applications. Because the INA permits the removal of aliens only, and § 1429 allows the removal of individuals with pending naturalization applications, it is clear that Congress viewed applicants for naturalization as aliens and not as nationals.
[url url=”http://”]When Petitioner's reading of [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1101(a)(22)[/url] is viewed in light of § 1429, it is clear that Petitioner's interpretation would paralyze the INS in cases in which a person files a naturalization application after the INS has instituted removal proceedings.FN7 The INA allows the removal of “aliens” only. However, Petitioner argues that a naturalization applicant's statement of allegiance alters his immigration status from that of an alien to that of a national of the United States. Therefore, under Petitioner's interpretation of § 1101(a)(22), if a person were to file a naturalization application after the INS had begun removal proceedings against him, the person would thereby become a “national” and the INS would not be permitted to complete the removal proceedings. However, the INS also could not act on that person's naturalization application because it would be prohibited from doing so by [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1429&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1429[/url]. The result would be a catch-22 for the INS, in which the naturalization applicant could be neither removed nor naturalized so long as there was a removal proceeding pending against the applicant. We do not believe that paralysis was Congress' intended result.
FN7. Petitioner argues that [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1429&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1429[/url] bars the filing of new applications for naturalization after removal proceedings have been initiated. However, that is not what the text of the statute says.3. Regulatory Context
[url url=”http://”]The INS has not issued regulations defining “national” under [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1101(a)(22)[/url]. However, at least one regulation addresses the meaning of “national of the United States” in a different context, and it supports our interpretation of the statute. Title 14 C.F.R. § 1259.101© defines “national of the United States” for purposes of a NASA grant program as “a citizen of the United States or a native resident of a [url url=”http://”]*971 [/url]possession of the United States. It does not refer to or include a citizen of another country who has applied for United States citizenship.”
In summary, the text and context of § 1101(a)(22) support our interpretation of “national of the United States.”
D. Case Law Defining “National of the United States”
[url url=”http://”]Despite the text and context of [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1101(a)(22)[/url], and despite the traditional interpretation of “national of the United States,” Petitioner argues that cases decided by this court and others require us to adopt his interpretation of the statute. We disagree.
1. Hughes and Other Ninth Circuit Decisions
[url url=”http://”]Petitioner argues, first, that our decision in Hughes supports his interpretation of [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=T&referenceposition=SP%3bc99d000064ea7&fn=_top&sv=Split&docname=8USCAS1101&tc=-1&pbc=FAF30941&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=L&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]§ 1101(a)(22)[/url]. However, he reads Hughes too broadly. In that case, we noted only that [url url=”http://”]it appears that, in order for a person who is born outside the United States to qualify for “national” status, the person must, at a minimum, demonstrate (1) birth in a United States territory or (2) an application for United States citizenship. Because Petitioner does not meet either of those minimal requirements, we need not delineate what additional facts (if any) he would have to show.
[/url][url url=”http://”][url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2001535292&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=757&pbc=FAF30941&tc=-1&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=Y&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]255 F.3d at 757[/url] (emphasis added). That is, we expressly declined to decide whether an application for naturalization, standing alone, is sufficient to confer nationality on an alien. Instead, we left that issue open.
[url url=”http://”]No other decision of this court has answered the question at issue here. Nonetheless, one of our post- Hughes decisions contains dictum on which the government relies. In [url url=”http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://"http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.09&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=2003096904&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=1072&pbc=FAF30941&tc=-1&ordoc=2003444937&findtype=Y&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=26""""""”]Chavez-Orozco, 316 F.3d at 1072,[/url] a defendant who was charged with illegal entry after deportation argued, as a defense, that he was a national of the United States. The defendant argued that he had completed an application for naturalization and, in doing so, had signed an oath of allegiance to the United States. But the defendant later had asked to withdraw his application, and the INS had granted his request. Id. Relying on the withdrawal of the defendant's application, we rejected his argument that he was a national of the United States. Id. at 1073.
[url url=”http://”]
[/url][url url=”http://”]In doing so, we expressed skepticism toward the idea that a completed application for naturalization alone could be sufficient to make the applicant a national of the United States:
[/url]
Chavez's entire defense-that he is a “national” of the United States-depends upon an oath of allegiance which was part of the application for seeking citizenship which he withdrew. We doubt that one could become a national by merely taking such an oath, but we need not decide that issue.
THIS is the kind of QUALITY evidence I am looking for. Not conjecture about “words of art”, Neo.
-
Neo,
I’m not saying that you are wrong, but simply that the arguments won’t get you anywhere in a legal forum and will hurt your position. That’s all. I’m still waiting for answers to my questions:
1. How does your position reduce cognitive dissonance for the average american not schooled in the law?
2. How does this help your position in a court of law?
3. Is it above the head of the average American to comprehend?
4. How are you going to explain to a jury that a person is a “national” and an “alien” at the same time?
5. What does it do to the table at the top of the following article, if anything?
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citi…pVTaxStatus.htm
6. What does your position do to the diagram in section 10.4 of the following:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
You can post any diagrams or tables you produce as attachment to this forum.
This discussion isn’t worth pursuing further without supporting and corroborating evidence and without more help and less criticism. The reason you are getting resistance from us is that you aren’t providing supporting evidence and are relying mainly on opinion and conjecture and forcing us to produce all the evidence. All you are doing is parrotting back the evidence we provide. This is not an equal interchange and you are not pulling your own weight. That approach won’t get you anywhere here or in a court of law. We don’t have the slightest concern about the work required to correct our materials if they are provably incorrect AND if the change would strengthen the position of fellowship members in a litigation context. BOTH criteria are necessary, and you are only addressing one. If you need a place to find evidence, see:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/LegalRef…alResrchSrc.htm
So your job is to find evidence to support the following contentions and present it in these forums:
1. What factor determines “alienage” under the I.R.C. and Title 8 of the U.S. Code:
1.1 Municipal domicile…OR
1.2 Nationality
You can pick ONLY one of the two above and must provide evidence to support your answer, and NOT opinion.
2. By what authority one can be a “non-citizen national” and an “alien” at the same time within the context of both Title 8 and Title 26 of the U.S. code?
3. That “nonresident aliens” include non-citizen nationals not in American Samoa and Swains Island, but in states of the Union.
4. That the I.R.C. is not administered by or for the benefit of the “national government”, but the D.C. municipal government or corporation that is foreign to states of the Union.
5. That you can be an “alien” in relation to a corporation owned by the national government that is a part of the national government and yet not be an “alien” in relation to the owner, even though they are one and the same.
6. Which of the three “United States” are implied in the phrase “national of the United States” found at 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)?
There are many other questions in addition to the above, but these are only for starters. If you want to advance your position, you are going to have to explain it to all and it must be consistent with everything else on this website or explain why it isn’t. Right now, it isn’t. These forums exist to eliminate cognitive dissonance, but right now, they are only increasing it with the position you are advancing.
We do appreciate your participation in these forums and your research. We just want to see you pull your own weight by providing independent third party evidence which corroborates your position so that we are dealing with law instead of political religion. That is the same standard we apply to everything on this website, and we expect no less of all forum participants. Statutes are only a starting place for such evidence. You are going to have to flex your muscles and look beyond them to caselaw, government publications, etc.
Fire away with your THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE! I got my asbestos pants on!
We are only interested in INFORMED OPINION based on evidence, not just opinion, in these forums. No presumptions, please.
The jury is still out waiting for more evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt”…and I’M the jury.
-
Neo,
Context, as you know, is EVERYTHING in determining the meaning of “words of art”. The two main contexts are “Constitutional” and “statutory”. One can be a “citizen” in a constitutional sense in relation to the national government while being “alien” in the context of a franchise or statute in relation to that same government. That is why the definition of “resident” in Black's Law Dictionary admits that a “resident” can have many different and distinct meanings in law. See:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/resident.htm
However, the road you want to go down of calling a person a “national” and yet an “alien” at the same time leads to cognitive dissonance and unnecessary confusion, and has no benefit whatsoever. The fact is that aliens and/or “residents” are in a privileged status no matter where they are. Even the definition of “resident” found in the Law of Nations admits this:
Quote:“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 [intention of] 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 citizenship. 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, p. 87, E. De Vattel, Volume Three, 1758, Carnegie Institution of Washington; emphasis added.]
I don't EVER want to be connected to any status under federal law, and especially one that:
1. Could come under the “Trading with the Enemy Act”, which relates to aliens and not citizens.
2. Could be privileged or “alien”. Instead, I want to be “foreign” or a “transient foreigner” without being a “person” or “U.S. person” or “alien” under federal law.
3. Could single me out for “special treatment” by law enforcement or administrative bean counters because it makes me “look” different than 99.995% of everyone else. I don't want to look like a “non-conformist” or eccentric or somene who has to play by different rules than anyone else. That will make me a lightening rod for criticism.
I can be a foreigner or “stranger” (as the Bible calls it) without being a “person”, “foreign person”, “individual”, or “alien”. Any effort to connect me with a status in civil law is an effort to induct me against my will into an office within the government under a franchise agreement, and the First Amendment protects my right of freedom from compelled association and the Constitution protects my right to NOT contract under a franchise (all franchises are contracts). This is exhaustively prove in:
Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/StatLawGovt.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
Anything beyond that point is “academic masterbation” that leads nowhere. Comprende amiga? Name ONE advantage to being an “alien” and a “national” at the same time, and how are you going to explain this type of cognitive dissonance to the average person who has no legal training? You're digging a hole for yourself and jumping into it, and for no rational benefit or reason. Even if you are right, efforts to explain why you are right will only distract attention away from simpler and more important aspects of your argument.
The engineer in you is screaming out for a way to wear your acclaimed “legal credentials” on your chest and brag about them, but the simple, joe sixpack man begs for a simple solution that most people would intuitively agree with and therefore not question or feel obligated to excessively scrutinize to their injury. Your approach is not intuitive and will put you at risk. It doesn't pass the “common sense test”, even if it is “right”, whatever that means.
Quote:“Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.”[Phil. 2:3, Bible, NKJV]
I don't want to be “right”, but only LEFT ALONE by the thugs in the District of Criminals. Would you rather be happy and free, or would you rather be “right”? You only have one choice and you can't pick both. Engineers have to make design compromises. You can be technically “right” and still be in jail for crimes you didn't commit if you're an arrogant ass who people have no patience or empathy with. The surest way to be left alone is to know the truth, to have it in your administrative record so you can talk about it in court, and to be able to explain it eloquently and simply to a jury of simpletons educated in the public fool academy without props and without fanfare. The more you show off, the more you're gonna alienate people in a jury who could help you. Einsten said the following on that subject:
Quote:“The essence of genius is simplicity.”As a person in the military, we're sure you've heard the phrase “KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid”. The corrollary to that phrase is: “Consider your audience.”
-
Amen to that, brother franklin. To your comment, I would also like to add that I hope those same corrupted judges and politicians notice the phrase “In God We Trust” on the worthless federal reserve notes they untimately justly deserve. When their counterfiet money is worthless, the only thing left for them to trust will be God, in the end. They should have trusted Him in the beginning, but their own vanity and evil ultimately caused them to worship and love money (the root of ALL evil) and Satan instead of the One and Only Living God. See:
1. In God We Trust
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituali…ident_sDay9.wmv
2. The Money Scam, Form #05.041
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf
3. Ayn Rand on Money
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanki…RandOnMoney.htm
Quote:“In God We Trust. All others from the legal and political professions [who worship and love MONEY instead of GOD] we investigate.”Follow the money, because that is where all the evil will be found, should you decide to investigate your public dis-servants.
There's a reason all this is happening, which is that it is God's judgment on a wicked generation. Common sense died a long time ago:
Quote:OBITUARY: COMMON SENSEToday we mourn the passing of an old friend, by the name of Common Sense.
Common Sense lived a long life but died in the United States from heart failure on the brink of the new millennium. No one really knows how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He selflessly devoted his life to service in schools, hospitals, homes, factories helping folks get jobs done without fanfare and foolishness. For decades, petty rules, silly laws, and frivolous lawsuits held no power over Common Sense. He was credited with cultivating such valued lessons as to know when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, and that life isn't always fair.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adults are in charge, not the kids), and it's okay to come in second. A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the Technological Revolution, Common Sense survived cultural and educational trends including body piercing, whole language, and “new math.” But his health declined when he became infected with the “If-it-only-helps-one-person-it's-worth-it” virus.
In recent decades his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of well intentioned but overbearing regulations. He watched in pain as good people became ruled by self-seeking lawyers. His health rapidly deteriorated when schools endlessly implemented zero-tolerance policies.
Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, a teen suspended for taking a swig of mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student only worsened his condition. It declined even further when schools had to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student but could not inform the parent when a female student was pregnant or wanted an abortion.
Finally, Common Sense lost his will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, criminals received better treatment than victims, and federal judges stuck their noses in everything from the Boy Scouts to professional sports. Finally, when a woman, too stupid to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, was awarded a huge settlement, Common Sense threw in the towel.
As the end neared, Common Sense drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments regarding questionable regulations such as those for low flow toilets, rocking chairs, and stepladders.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by two stepbrothers: My Rights, and Ima Whiner. Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/C…CommonSense.htm
Alex DeTocqueville, the authority most often quoted by corrupted federal judges on the organization of America and a French foreigner, said that America was GREAT, because America was GOOD and VIRTUOUS. We have lost our greatness, and will eventually lose all our wealth as a nation, because we [like the Babylonians] have lost our virtue, our common belief in a monotheistic Christian God, and ultimately our common sense. We have been debased by pagan idol worship of our rulers because they have unconstitutionally converted the exercise of even the most basic of human rights into the exercise of a privilege subject to the whim of your nearest magistrate. See:
Democracy in America, Alex DeTocqueville
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/In…Tocqueville.htm
One of the main goals of this website is to inform God's remnant so that after all this evil inevitably self-destructs and dissipates, it can be replaced with VIRTUE and GOOD and RIGHTEOUSNESS using the following as its foundation:
Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002
http://sedm.org/Forms/SelfFamilyChurchGovn…ArtOfConfed.pdf
I would also like to add that any attempt by governmetn to squelch or silence truths about their own misdeeds such as this website will destroy any possibility of virtue in this country, as revealed by the founding fathers:
Quote:“A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”[James Madison, Founding Father]
-
A criminal once told me the best way to keep a criminal out of your house…besides having it well lit inside and out…is to put this sign on the door
Quote:“Jane, don't go in…the cobra got out of its cage and we can't find it.” -
Franklin,
Great response. Mega dittos.
-
More on the same subject:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=52840
__________________
Defense Department Establishes Civilian Expeditionary Workforce
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 2009 – The Defense Department is forming a civilian expeditionary workforce that will be
trained and equipped to deploy overseas in support of military missions worldwide, according to department officials.
The intent of the program “is to maximize the use of the civilian workforce to allow military personnel to be fully utilized for operational requirements,” according to a Defense Department statement.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed Defense Department Directive 1404.10, which outlines and provides guidance about the program, on Jan. 23.
Certain duty positions may be designated by the various Defense Department components to participate in the program. If a position is designated, the employee will be asked to sign an agreement that they will deploy if called upon to do so. If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position.
The directive emphasizes, however, that volunteers be sought first for any expeditionary requirements, before requiring anyone to serve involuntarily or on short notice. Overseas duty tours shall not exceed two years.
Employees in deployable-designated positions will be trained, equipped and prepared to serve overseas in support of humanitarian, reconstruction and, if absolutely necessary, combat-support missions.
The program also is open to former and retired civilian employees who agree to return to federal service on a time-limited status to serve overseas or to fill in for people deployed overseas.
Program participants are eligible for military medical support while serving in their overseas duty station.
All participants will undergo pre- and post-deployment medical testing, including physical and psychological exams.
Defense civilians reassigned from their normal duty to serve overseas will be granted the right to return to the positions they held prior to their deployment or to a position of similar grade, level and responsibility within the same organization, regardless of the deployment length .
Families of deployed Defense Department civilian employees shall be supported and provided with information on benefits and entitlements and issues likely to be faced by the employee during and upon return from a deployment.
Defense civilian employees who participate in the expeditionary program shall be treated with high regard as an indication of the department’s respect for those who serve expeditionary requirements.
Expeditionary program participants’ service and experience shall be valued, respected and recognized as career-enhancing.
Participants who meet program requirements would be eligible to receive the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Global War on Terrorism.
-
SOURCE: http://www.cusc.org/editorial/3563.htm
This man has the right idea, but implements it wrong by calling himself a “United States Citizen”. Sounds to us like he doesn’t even know what one is! See:
Why You Are a “national” or a “state national” and not a “U.S. citizen”
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
________________________________
The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
by Leo C. Donofrio, J.D.
January 22, 2009
All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.
So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.
The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.
Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.
Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:
“Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.”
UNITED STATES CITIZENS SITTING AS FEDERAL GRAND JURORS ARE THE FOURTH BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GRAND JURY POWER
I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.
“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”
The 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :
“An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:
‘A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’
Back to the Creighton Law Review:
“A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”
So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.
Mr. Roots weighs in again:
“In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.”[88]”
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):
“An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”
No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:
“[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:
‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “
That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.
And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.
The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.
The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:
“Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:
‘A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7]
What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.
By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):
‘At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”
Now let me add my two cents to this argument:
Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:
“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.
Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:
Susan Brenner, THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY: A CASE FOR GRAND JURY INDEPENDENCE:
“Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”
Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.
Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.
The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.
Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:
“Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”
The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.
But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.
But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.
Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:
“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”
The Note 4 lie is smashed on the altar of the U.S. Supreme Court, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!
Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ “
I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.
Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.
And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:
“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “
This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.
And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.
The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”
Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.
_______________
About the Author
Mr. Leo Donofrio is a semi-retired New Jersey attorney who brought a case in 2008 against the New Jersey secretary of state for allowing three legally unqualified presidential candidates to be placed on the general election ballot in that state. This case was reviewed and dismissed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and then was reviewed by all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in a private closed-door session. At least five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices felt that this case should not be heard in a public session of the Court.
In addition to being a prominent legal scholar and essayist, Mr. Donofrio is also a nationally known chess champion, poker champion and musician.
Check out Leo Donofrio’s web log:
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
-
Neo,
Thank you for sharing that with us. Where did that come from? I'd like to read more from the author.
-
Neo,
Now that is some interesting research. Thanks for sharing it with us. You missed a few things, but that's OK. We don't claim to have all the answers just yet, but here is some related information and brainstorming. We'll have to converge on a solution to this together and over time, because the solution isn't immediately obvious to me at this point. I'm just thinking out loud:
1. Two legal “persons” are involved here:
1.1 The private human being, who is the officer but not the office and who has side jobs not connected to the office.
1.2 The “public office”, who is the “taxpayer” and the federal business trust established using the SS-5 application.
2. The SSN can only refer to the public side/public office, because the government can't regulate the private side. The U.S. Supreme Court said the ability to regulate private conduct is repugnant to the Constitution.
Quote:“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)]
3. You can be a “nonresident alien” for withholding purposes but a “resident alien” for tax return filing purposes. This is shown in 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3).
Quote:Sec. 1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.(c ) Definitions
(3) Individual.
(i) Alien individual.
The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-1(c ).
(ii) Nonresident alien individual.
The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(:cool:, an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and Sec. 301.7701(b)-7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under Sec. 301.7701(b)-1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made an election under section 6013 (g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.
4. You can't serve in a “public office” without being a statutory “U.S. citizen” subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and therefore effectively domiciled on federal territory pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 17(b) as you point out. Look at the definition of “federal service” as proof:
Quote:TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart G > CHAPTER 85 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 8501§ 8501. Definitions
For the purpose of this subchapter—
(1) “Federal service” means service performed after 1952 in the employ of the United States or an instrumentality of the United States which is wholly or partially owned by the United States, but does not include service (except service to which subchapter II of this chapter applies) performed—
(D) outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands by an individual who is not a citizen of the United States;
(3) “Federal employee” means an individual who has performed Federal service;
5. The private human being domiciled in a state of the Union would not be a “dual status”, because he is not mentioned anywhere in the I.R.C. and is neither an “individual”, nor a statutory “taxpayer”. Consequently, the only “taxpayer” of the two legal “persons” involved is the public office and the officer who is surety for the office, and only when he/she is on official business expressly delegated to the office.
6. If the private human being needs to use a number, it could not be an SSN as defined in 20 CFR 422.104 or 26 USC 6109, because private people can't use public property for a private use. Therefore:
6.1 The number must be called a “nontaxpayer identification number” when used by the private person. This is the tactic taken on the following form:
Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
6.2 The private person cannot lawfully become the subject of information returns, because such returns can only be filed against the office. See 26 USC 6041(a). IRS 6041(a) requires information returns only in connection with a “trade or business”, which is defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”. The IRS is in fact a franchise and an excise tax on EXISTING public offices that are not created by any tax form.
6.3 If the information returns are filed against the private person using the “nontaxpayer identification number”, they must be promptly corrected and the correction notice must point out that the number used was FALSE and is not an SSN as defined in 20 CFR 422.103 or a TIN as defined in 26 USC 6109 and is NOT “your” number. This is the approach taken with the following form:
Corrected Information Return Attachment Letter, Form #04.002
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
6.4 The private person would be committing a crime to file a tax return using the “nontaxpayer identification number”. That crime would be impersonating a “public officer” pursuant to 18 USC 912.
7. You must be domiciled on federal territory as a public “employee” and therefore an “individual” and a “public officer” in order to obtain an SSN to begin with. This is clear from 20 CFR 422.103(d) and 5 USC 2105. The card and the associated number are public property pursuant to 20 CFR 422.103(d) and pursuant to the language on the card itself and therefore cannot lawfully be dispensed to private individuals, but only to those ALREADY lawfully occupying a public office BEFORE they made application to receive the card and number by filling out SSA Form SS-5. You can later abandon federal “employment”/”public office” as described in 5 USC 2105(a) and become a private human being. At that point, you would change your status from a statutory “U.S. person” under 26 USC 7701(a)(30) to that of a “nonresident alien”, as you point out. In that case, you would be a “nonresident alien” but not an “individual” or “nonresident alien individual” because you are no longer “employed” (that is, occupying a “public office”) within the national government. All “individuals” are public offices, not private human beings. The only thing the government can regulate without imposing involuntary servitude are things it creates, which in this case are “public offices” and all those who volunteer to become surety for said offices by applying for federal “benefits”. These conclusions are explained in the following:
Nonresident alien position, Form #05.020
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
8. You say the “employment” of the retired commissioned officer requires him to submit a W-4. That's BUNK:
8.1 The regs at 26 CFR 31.3401(a)-3(a) identifies the W-4 as an AGREEMENT. No one can compel you to contract. They may try to implement a “policy” disguised to LOOK like a legal requirement by saying you must sign a W-4 to receive the payment, but this is SLAVERY if they threaten to withhold the payment you earned if you fail to consent to the agreement on a W-4. You can sue them for that because it's involuntary servitude, extortion, and racketeering.
8.2 They could only impose a requirement to file a W-4 against a “U.S. person”, because a transient foreigner or nonresident could not become the proper subject of such a civil statute.
8.3 Once retired, you are no longer a “public officer” but a private human being receiving deferred compensation from the time that you WERE lawfully acting as a “public officer”. Consequently, they can't impose conditions on you using laws you aren't subject to as a nonresident who abandoned the office and is retired.
-
Your question is irrelevant. As I said, attach:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Affidavits/AffCitDomTax.pdf
. . to ensure you aren't victimized by their ignorance or the resulting usually false presumptions that spring from it. They are trying to wiggle out of their Constitutional straight jacket and delegation order and your job is to stuff them right back into it with definitions and declarations ad nauseum. Then you don't have to worry about or question what they mean but deliberately won't fully explain or disclose. Don't waste your time or your brain cells trying to second guess the presumptions of others. Just explain what YOU assume it means and make it a constitutional but not statutory citizen. Or use their term and define (ore redefine) it to your advantage in an attachment so that you don't fit in their little federal plantation cage. If the form contains a perjury statement, make it conditioned on the fact that they accept and consent to your definition or the entire form is invalid or religious and political beliefs that are not facts or evidence pursuant to FRE 610.
You can turn any form into a contract where your consent or even the perjury statement is conditional. Consider every government or even corporate form as an act of contracting away your rights. That's what the Path to Freedom suggests at the end. Then rewrite the contract to say what you want by redefining words on the form in an attachment. If they reject it, GREAT, because you can't and shouldn't contract with the Beast anyway. That is what the Tax Form Attachment does, for instance.
-
Title 49 deals with interstate commerce, over which congress has exclusive legislative power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Interstate commerce is among the few things congress can or does have exclusive jurisdiction over within a state of the Union. That is why Title 49 is positive law and why the definitions could conceivably encompass states of the Union: Because it is the AIR above the state they can regulate. Taxes under IRC Subtitles A, B, and C are different than interstate commerce and are limited to federal territory.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…0_VII_20_A.html
That definition of “citizen of the United States” in 49 USC 40102(15) is deceptive. It's hard to tell which of the three “United States” they mean. Any time I had to sign a document relying on that definition, I would clarify EXACTLY what it means by attaching the Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001 to ensure that there is no room for presumption about the meaning and to ensure that I am not mistaken for a statutory citizen domiciled on federal territory and who is not protected by the Constitution.
Nearly all “States” under federal statutory law are in fact territories and not states of the Union. The following article shows the meanings:
Geographical definitions and conventions
http://sedm.org/SampleLetters/DefinitionsAndConventions.htm
Consider the context when you read definitions. States in the Constitution are ONLY states of the Union. “States” in federal statutory law in nearly all cases are only territories and no part of any state of the Union, with the exception of interstate commerce. All law is presumed territorial in nature and confined to the area over which the sovereign has exclusive/general lawmaking power. Show me a definition of “State” which expressly includes states of the Union mentioned in the Constitution before you jump to conclusions. 4 U.S.C. 104(d) defines “States” as territories. So does 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).
Quote:The foregoing considerations would lead, in case of doubt, to a construction of any statute as intended to be confined in its operation and effect to the territorial limits over which the lawmaker has general and legitimate power. 'All legislation is prima facie territorial.' Ex parte Blain, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 522, 528; State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499; People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 590, 596. Words having universal scope, such as 'every contract in restraint of trade,' 'every person who shall monopolize,' etc., will be taken, as a matter of course, to mean only everyone subject to such legislation, not all that the legislator subsequently may be able to catch. In the case of the present statute, the improbability of the United States attempting to make acts done in Panama or Costa Rica criminal is obvious, yet the law begins by making criminal the acts for which it gives a right to sue. We think it entirely plain that what the defendant did in Panama or Costa Rica is not within the scope of the statute so far as the present suit is concerned. Other objections of a serious nature are urged, but need not be discussed.[American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213 U.S. 347 at 357-358]
The “general and legitimate power” they are referring to above can only mean exclusive territorial and not subject matter or extra-territorial jurisdiction. In the absence of express declaration by Congress, “State” can only mean a federal territory. Ditto for the terms “several States”. This is exhaustively established in the Great IRS Hoax Section 5.2. Once again, you are jumping the gun. Please do your homework before you waste our time covering things that are already covered in the Path to Freedom curricula such as Chapter 5 of the Great IRS Hoax.
-
Neo,
Thank you for your continued interest and participation in these forums. We're glad you care enough to research these subjects.
The Classification Act of 1923 was not a revenue law, so far as we are aware, so it wasn't repealed by the 1939 code, 53 Stat. 1, Section 4. The 1939 code repealed all prior REVENUE laws, but not all laws in general. You're making presumptions again.
The subject of the repeal and enforceability of the Internal Revenue Code is exhaustively described in the following, and it won't be repeated here. It examines every possible angle. Like your previous posts, you are covering old ground again. We would like to move on to something new and unknown, if you don't mind.
1. Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003, Sections 8 through 8.4 and 11 through 11.7.
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Great IRS Hoax, Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.6
DIRECT LINK: http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
3. SEDM Exhibit #05.027: 53 Stat. 1
http://sedm.org/Exhibits/ExhibitIndex.htm
4. Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 7.18
DIRECT LINK: http://famguardian.org/Publications/FlawedArgToAvoid/FlawedArgsToAvoid.pdf
If there is some aspect of your question that isn't covered by the above, please point it out for the benefit of all. Otherwise, we won't cover old ground here AGAIN because it's a waste of time and rewards people for NOT following approved curricula for new members:
Path to Freedom, Form 09.015
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
. . . as required of all new fellowship members. Section 2 of that document requires reading Chapters 3 through 5 of the Great IRS Hoax and the Flawed Tax Arguments document before demanding answers or hijacking these forums for your own duplicative agenda. Please follow the process to conserve our resources, prevent jumping the gun, and keep all fellowship members on the same page and out of trouble, confusion, and conflict.
Quote:He who answers a matter before he hears it,It is folly and shame to him.
[Prov. 18:3, Bible, NKJV]
Thanks