[Don44]

Dear FG,

 

I just wanted to thank you for your helpful references and opinions.   They were all right on point.

 

Don

[Don44]

Dear Neo,

1. Other than “public office”, what are the other components of a “trade or business”?  From my understanding, the earnings of a “nonresident alien” become connected with a ‘trade or business” only if a SSN is provided.
2. I have never been able to find the code for 5 USC 552a(d).   When I search under title 5 section 552, I get “Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings”.   But the subsection numbering starts with “(a)” and not “a”.     When I search under title 5 section 552a, I am notified that there is no such section.   What is the secret to finding this mysterious code 5 USC 552a(d)?
3. Has either FG or SEDM published a guide on how to get judicial remedy under 5 USC 701 et seq. for the case where SSA does not comply with a request to correct the civil status of a person in their system of records?
4. A “nonresident alien” need only provide a SSN in the course of a “trade or business” and must pay tax on any earnings connected with a “trade or business”.   But form looking over form 1040NR, he must also pay taxes on other incomes which are not effectively connect with a “trade or business”, such as dividends, interest, Pensions and annuities, SS benefits, capital gains from exchanges that are from sources within the US(2), and other income.   Are the above listed types of income all considered “US source” incomes?    In other words, does the “nonresident alien” have tax liability only on income connected with a “trade or business” AND also on any income not connected with a “trade or business” but from “U.S. sources”?
5. In Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926), the Supreme Court has consistently held that the present income tax is a corporate tax.   “Income” has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passes”.   I interpret this to mean that only corporations have “income” but not private human beings”.   Do you interpret this court ruling the same way?
6. Are the earnings of a private human being who is a ”nonresident alien” and who, in the private sector, exchanges his labor for an equal value remuneration and for which the exchange is not connected with a “trade or business” considered “income”?  My opinion is that such “earnings” are not “income” and therefore would not qualify as “other income” which appears on page 4 of form 1040NR.  Do you agree?

Thanks for your opinion on these matters.

 

regards,

Don

[Don44]

Dear Neo,

 

Thanks for your recent comments. They were very helpful.

 

I have a few questions regarding your comments and hope that you will comment further.

 

Below is a short summary of the steps in becoming a non-taxpayer, with a few questions included in the steps:

 

1. Resign from Compelled SS Trustee position so that you are no longer a “public officer”

2. Amend block 5, “CITIZEN” field of SSA SS-5 form on file to “Legal Alien, Allowed to Work” by submitting a new SS-5 form, with the SSN provided on the form

3. Change Tax Status on file with the IRS to “nonresident alien”.   26 CFR §301.6109-1(g)(1)(i) provides a means of changing the status of the foreign persons to whom a SSN has been issued to by providing proof of foreign status. Since the 1040NR form is for Non-Resident persons, filing form 1040NR would be sufficient proof of “nonresident alien” status for the IRS to change the tax status on file. The form would be filed with a SSN provided. Would being a registered voter also be sufficient proof of “nonresident alien” status since one must certify on the voter registration form that they are resident in the state in which they are registering?

   1. Considering a “nonresident alien” person who last filed form 1040 several years ago and has not filed any form since then. He did not have any information returns filed against him nor did he associate a SSN with any earning during the years that he has not filed. He wishes to correct his tax status on file with the IRS by filing a 1040NR form. Does proper use of form 1040NR for accomplishing this goal dictate that the form be filed for the first year in which he did not file, or could it be filed for any years in which he did not file? Since being “effectively connected with a Trade or Business” is voluntarily for “nonresident aliens”, if the “nonresident alien” files a 1040NR form only for the purpose of updating his status on file, does the filed 1040NR form need to show any reported earnings?

   2. I realize that the 1040NR form will not be accepted for processing by the IRS until after SSA has corrected the Citizen field of the SS-5 application on file. Would it be appropriate to submit the 1040NR form with the “Resignation of Compelled SS Trustee” letter? If not, What would be an appropriate delay time from after submitting the SS-5 to SSA until the 1040NR form is submitted to the IRS?

4. Amend current passport or get a new passport without a SSN.

5. Cancel any driver license since these are needed only for “U.S. Citizens”

6. Cancel voter registration and re-register without a SSN as the identification number. Since voting is a political right, is it detrimental to ones freedom if the SSN is used as the voter ID number?

7. Do not deploy SSN when it is not appropriate, such as any financial related activities which you do not wish to be taxed on.

8. If one is currently outside of America and wishes to submit documents to update his status, may the documents contain a perjury statement such as “In accordance with 28 U.S.C §1746(1), I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the forgoing and entire contents of this correspondence and all attachments are true and correct. . . .”? In other words, does one need to be physical present within U.S.A. in order to be able to legally sign such a perjury statement? If such a perjury statement would be unlawful to sign while without the USA, would the perjury statement that is used for the Tax Form Attachment serve as a good substitute? The Tax Form Attachment perjury statement is made under the penalty of perjury under ONLY the laws of the Holy Bible from without the “United States”, and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746(1) and federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 . . .”

 

Thank you for your opinion on these issues.

 

Don

[Don44]

Dear Neo, thanks for the updated charts.  

 

I received a letter from the IRS dated June 7, 2013 stating that my arguments raised in my “Resignation Letter”, dated 2 Sept 2011, were frivolous and that I needed to file.  I have drafted up a great rebuttal letter base on the appendix A charts and will incorporate the update chart inform in my rebutal letter.   How much time do I have to forward my rebutal letter?

 

The Resignation Letter that I used was an old version that did not yet have the Replace SS-5 request in it.  So, I submitted a “Request to Replace SS-5” letter, dated 24 Aug 2012.   The cover letter was modified only slightly since I was already resigned, no SSN was on the SS-5 form, and my orginal “Resignation Request” was included as an attachment.   I received a reply to my Request to Replace letter dated 20 Nov 2012.  Please review their reply.  I am about to make a “Request to Amend” letter but would like to know how the request needs to be reworded to that they will honor my request.  I hope the new charts indicate if a SSN should be used on the SS-5 form to update your civil status with SSA

 

What is the preffered approach about voter registration?   If the number was issued to a public office which is a different legal person from the human being, then would it be correct to indicat the you have no SSN or DL and just have them assign a ID number to the voter card that was not tied to the SSN?   Or is an attachment to the voter application still suggested.

 

Are you saying that the DL application has a place to indicate “US Citizen” or not.  And if you just indicate no, no SSN is required to get a DL?

 

I glanced over 5 USC 552 and 5 USC 701 and I am completely lost.  Now I am overseas.  I seems like I may want to return to my Union state while this proceeding is on going.   Do you agree?    If they are already in a 5 USC 552a(d) proceeding against me, I hope maybe you can recommend someone to guide me through getting a Declaration Judgement.

[Don44]

I will post the response from SSA tomorrow. Further issues, which are numbered after the original post to prevent confusion:

14. It is said by some that choice of domicile is  political choice that the courts cannot interfere with.   Can anyone identity a legal authority to back this up? 

15. If one is facing the possibility of going to court over not filing, how does one make sure that the trial will take place in a common law court rather than a franchise court? The issue comes down to the defendent claiming a domicile in a Union state and the offense is arguing that the defendant’s domicle is in US2?  Is not a physical presence and intent and prerequisit for establishig domicile?   Unless it is determined that the defendent is a US2 citizen, does not the defendent have rights to use a common law court?   In common law courts, do not all crimes have to have a injured human being for there to be a crime?  

16. Since both nationality and domicle in US2 are called “citizen of the United States” and the goverrment forms never indicate whether “citizen” connotes domicle or nationalty and the forms never indicate which Unites States the citizenship is in reference to would there be an argument with grounds that the defendent was deceived by the goverment, which would be fraud since the defendent lost Rights, which is property. 

17. Could the covert nature of the whole Income tax system and undisclosure be grounds for fraud since the person unwittingly got a SSN because he needed work and private employers would not hire unless he had a SSN, or the dual meaning of “citizen of United States”, and of the word “citizen” was not disclose, and as a result of undiscolsure a person lost a lot of rights as a result?

18. Is there anyone good in common law and about the issues I am raising here who offers consultation?

[Don44]

7.   people domiciled in the outlaying possession are Non-citizens.  But people domiciled in US2 are citizens.  Therefore the outlaying possesson cannot be part of the US2.

 

10.   The answer to how to submit the SS-5 is found near the top of page 17.   There are two problems with the request in Resignation Form 1) it makes a request to replace and not ammend the records, which SSA cannot do and 2) it request the the CSP field be updated and pushed to the IRS.   This field would be updated automatically when the form is submit so this second request should be dropped.

 

12)  Yes, Divorce US2 would establish that your domicile is outside of the US2.    But who in the heck came up with the crazy idea of a domicile in “God’s kingdom on heaven and earth”? 

Here is a related issue to Voter’s registration –  Is the SSN assigned to artificial person and public office or is it assigned to the human being and public officer who fills the office?   If it is assigned to the public office then the voter’s registration could be correctly filled out to indicate that you have no SSN or DL since these were issued to the public office, which is a seperate legal person from the human being and public officer.   They would then generate an ID number rather than use a SSN or DL.   Now you would be able to vote and not be a US2.   Does anyone have any comments on this?  Would this be the proper way to complete the Voter’s Registration if you are a state citizen?

Also, would being registered as a voter that uses a SSN or DL number as an ID number be evidence of being a US2 citizen?

 

13)  page 19 is for state citizens.  page 18 is for US2 citizens.  Page 19 needs to be updated to replace “w4″ with W8BEN” and the line labeled W2 needs to be removed.

 

Don

 

.

[Don44]

Corrections

Form #06.002 Social Security Trust Indenture

Revision 8/11/2012

Aug 17, 2012

Dear FG,

Section 1 of the cover letter (page 13) uses the incorrect SS-5 block numbers:

• Item #3.2 references “Blocks 8 and 9” for the parent’s names but this is actually blocks 9 & 10 on the SS-5 form.
• Item #3.3 references “Block 2” for the mailing address but this is actually block 16 on the SS-5 form.
• Item #3.4 references “Block 3” for the Citizenship, but this is actually block 5 on the SS-5 form.
• Item #4 references “Block 3” for the citizenship data, but this is actually block 5 on the SS-5 form.

Regards,

Don

[Don44]

Dear FG or members,

I have composed a preliminary “Request to Replace and Not Amend Original SS-5 Application on File” cover letter to be used by a hypothetical person who has completed all the steps in Path To Freedom, but used an older version of Form #06.002, SS Compelled Trustee Resignation, which did not include the SS-5 form to establish inelegibility and to request that original SS-5 application on file be revoked. The purpose ot the letter is to explicitly request the the original SS-5 form on file be replaced with the enclosed SS-5 form to establish inelegibility and to request that the original SS-5 application on file be REJECTED. The attached letter is very similar to the cover letter that is currenty used by Form #06.002 with the following changes.

• Addressed to SSA only and not the IRS
• wrote a new introduction paragraph to the letter.
• Does not include the following items in the introduction section of the letter since these items deal to terminating participation in the SS program and that was already accomplished when form #06.002 was submitted. Items numbered 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 were eliminated
• modified the folloing items in the introduction section of the letter: 5, 10
• Does not include section 2 of the letter since that section makes a request to the IRS to change account number status prior to the account termination, which was accomplished when Form #06.002 was submitted.

I would be very interested in hearing any comments which you might have in how you might deal with this situation differently or how you might write this cover letter differently if you were the hypothetial person that the letter is meant for.

Thank you for your comments.

Regards,

Don

[Don44]

The attached file contains a few more corrections and comments concerning this form.

Many blessing,

Don

[Don44]

Your file Attachment function does not work. I tried to attach the file as both .docx and .doc and neither format is able to be attached. When I tried to cut and paste the file, most of the text got cut out. There are 119 corrects but only the first 11 appear when I do a cut and paste to the forum. I searched for a contact page and that link appears to be broken. Therefore, I am force to use the forum to communicate this issue to you (sorry). How can I get the correction file to you. Is there an e-mail address I can forward the file to?

Don

[Don44]

I am not certain that your file attachment function is working correctly as I do not see my file attachment in my original post on this subject. Therefore, I have cut and pasted the entire file content below in case you did not receive the file as an attachment.

Regards,

Don

---

Why You Are a “National”, “State National”,

and Constitutional But Not Statutory Citizen

Rev 3/18/2010, version downloaded on 2/21/2012

Dear Family Guardian:

Below are my correction/comments on “Why a National”, Form #05.006. Section 1 contains corrections. But very few of the corrections are for simple typo errors. Most of the corrections change the legal meaning of the text. Therefore, it is hoped that you will look these correction over carefully before implementing them.

Section 2 contains a few controversial issues that I do not agree. If you do not agree with my conclusions concerning these issues then please tell me where my analysis/reasoning is wrong. If you do agree, then form #05.006 will need additional changes to reflect your agreement with the issues that I raise here.

SECTION 1 – corrections:

• Page 19 line 7 – it would be helpful to further identify what is meant by the two different contexts. Perhaps you could add the following clarification sentence: “By “statutory context” we mean as used in federal statues and by “constitution context” we mean as used in common law, the U.S. Supreme court, or the Constitution.” Also, where does one find the common law definition of a word, outside of the constitution and U.S. Supreme court rulings? Does Black’s Law Dictionary contain common law definitions?
• Page 19 line 19 – replace “subject” with “resident”. Political status determines if you are a subject of the country (See page 32 line 40) while “resident is a status acquired under civil law.
• Page 20 line 52 – change “county” to “country” so that it reads as: “control everyone in the country”
• Page 22 line 20 – I feel that it is best for section 1.3 to just refer the reader to Path to Freedom. The Path to Freedom acts as the big picture, higher level of documentation to “glue” together, in the correct order, the various other documents to be read and the active steps to be taken. The points mentioned in section 1.3 are all already covered in Path to Freedom. Taking this two level approach in documenting the sovereign steps/issues will help ease the document maintenance effort. Therefore, replace “the following options are available:” with “see Path to Freedom, SEDM Form #09.015, a complete simplified checklist and curricula for restoring sovereignty and freedom.” Delete the rest of section 1.3.
• Page 24 table 1 – Table 1 appears in section 2 titled “The Three Geographical Definitions of the United States”. The tables describes both US** and US*** in terms of a geographical area but US* is not described in geographical terms. I assume (but I do not know) that geographically the US* consists of the area of US** in union (mathematical set theory) with the area of the US***. Is my assumption correct? Is there any known authority that describes what the US* is geographically?
• Page 27, starting on line 14 until the end of section 2 – this portion of section 2 is about the government United States** and is further discussed in section 11.1 as the corporate United State****. It seems like it would be best to integrate all the information about the corporate United States**** into one section instead of spreading it out. That way only one consistent name will be used to refer to the corporate United States**** and the idea can be fully developed in one place. The book will be easier to read if various topics are not spread out through the book but instead organized into their own sections. I think a good way to organize chapter two is into three sub-sections: “The 3 geographical United States”, “The 2 political jurisdictions/nations within the United States*”, and “The corporate United States****”.
• Page 30 before line 25 – insert the following introduction sentence to tie the section title with the section contents: “Statutory citizenship is a legal status that designates a person’s domicile while constitutional citizenship is a political status that designates a person’s nationality.”
• Page 31 line 25 – insert “(a domiciled foreign national)” after “THIS is the REAL “citizen””
• Page 32 line 45 – I am not sure about this item #6 is correct. But constitutional rights attach to land while statutory rights attach to one’s status. Therefore, I think the following corrections are needed: delete the phrase “personal and” and change “CONSTITUTIONAL” to “statutory civil” so that it reads: ‘Your municipal rights, meaning statutory civil rights, associate with your choice of legal domicile, not your nationality.. . “
• Page 32 line 51 – replace “Nationality” with “constitutional”. Also, please clarify which “United States” is intended here. All three “United States” identified in Hooven & Allison are a country so qualifying “United States” with the word “COUNTRY” does not distinctly identify the intended U.S. Perhaps the intended one is “United States*”.
• Page 32 line 52 – replace “Domicile” with “Statutory”

[Gardina v. Board of registrars, 160 Ala, 155] – shown page 39 line 37 –

Quote:

“There are then under our republic form of government [states of the Union] two classes of citizen, one of the United States[***] and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident [a domiciled person] of the District of Columbia [outside of the states of the Union]; both classes of citizen [USA and state] usually exist in the same person.”

This case shows that a person looses one of the two classes of constitutional citizenship by being domiciled outside of the United States***. Since one can have only one permanent domicile but multiple temporary dwellings, it is a clear that the resident they are referring to is someone who has established a domicile within the District of Columbia and without the United States***.

• [Miller Brothers Co v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)] – shown on page 50 line 35 – “Thus the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence [residence and domicile are used interchangeable in this case], more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides [domiciled], the fact of residence [domicile] creates universally reciprocal duties [e.g. contractual duties] of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes”. Permanent domicile, but not temporary dwelling, creates contractual duties.
• [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 244] – shown on page 59 line 40 – says: “a person is a “citizen of a state” if he or she is a citizen of the United States[***] and a domiciliary of a state of the United States[***]”. It does not get any clearer than this authority.
• [Sharon v. Hill, 26 F. 337 (1885)] – shown on page 93 lines 21-27 – this case says: “citizen of the United States[***] is, under the amendment [14^th], prima facie a citizen of the state wherein he resides [more than mere presence in the state is needed to become a citizen of the state], cannot arbitrarily be excluded therefrom by such state, but that he does not become a citizen of the state against his will [he must consent to a domicile in the state that he resides in to obtain citizenship there], and contrary to his purpose and intentions to retain an already acquired citizenship elsewhere [if he were to consent to a domicile in the state he resides in, he would lose his state citizenship previously acquired elsewhere]. The amendment [14^th] is a restraint on the state, but not on the right of the person to choose and maintain his citizenship or domicile [we choose our state citizenship by choosing a domicile within the state].”
• [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36., 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)] – shown on page 94 line 48 – “Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States[***] without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States[***] to be a citizen of the Union.” The word “reside”, as defined in Merriam-Webster, means to occupy a place as one’s legal domicile.
• [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)] – shown on page 354 of “Know Your Rights”, (Form #10.009) – “The question in now settled by the fourteenth amendment [states of the Union] itself, that citizenship of the United States[***] is the primary citizenship in this country; and that State citizenship is secondary and derivative, depending upon citizenship of the United States[***] and the citizen’s place of residence” This case only confirms that “residence” is a requirement of state citizenship. Unfortunately, there is no hint of which type of residence they are talking about here.
• [U.S. Constitution, 14^th Amendment] – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States[***], and subject to the [political] jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States[***] and of the state wherein they reside.” The constitution defines a “citizen of the United States***” as a person born or naturalized in the United States*** and subject to the political jurisdiction thereof. The constitution defines a citizen of a state as a “citizen of the United States***” who “resides” within the state. The word “reside”, as defined in Merriam-Webster, means to occupy a place as one’s legal domicile.

Quote:

Reside – 1 a : to be in residence as the incumbent of a benefice or office b : to dwell permanently or continuously : occupy a place as one's legal domicile

[Merriam-Websters, 11^th edition]

Note: both Black’s 2^nd Edition and Bouvier’s 6^th Edition do not contain a definition for the word “reside”.

Quote:

RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q.v.) There is a difference between a man's residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally transient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75.

2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and

transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character.

3. In some cases the law requires that the residence of an officer shall be in the district in which he is required to exercise his functions.

Fixing his residence elsewhere without an intention of returning, would violate such law. Vide the cases cited under the article Domicil; Place of

residence.

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856]

RESIDENCE. Living or dwelling in a certain place permanently or for a considerable length of time. The place where a man makes his home, or where he dwells permanently or for an extended period of time.

The difference between a residence and a domicile may not be capable of easy definition; but every one can see at least this distinction: A person domiciled in one state may, for temporary reasons, such as health, reside for one or more years in some other place deemed more favorable. He does not, by so doing, forfeit his domicile in the first state, or, in any proper sense, become a non-resident of it, unless some intention, manifested by some act, of abandoning his residence in the first state is shown. Walker's Estate v. Walker, 1 Mo. App. 404.

“Residence” means a fixed and permanent abode or dwelling-place for the time being, as contradistinguished from a mere temporary locality of existence. So does “inhabitancy ;” and the two are distinguishable in this respect from “domicile.” In re Wngley, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 134.

As they are used in the New York Code of Procedure, the terms “residence” and “resident” mean legal residence; and legal residence is the place of a man's fixed habitation, where his political rights are to be exercised, and where he is liable to taxation. Houghton v. Ault, 16 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 77.

A distinction is recognized between legal and actual residence. A person may be a legal resident of one place and an actual resident of another. He may abide in one state or country without surrendering his legal residence in another, if he so intends. ,His legal residence may be merely ideal, but his actual residence must be substantial. He may not actually abide at his legal residence at all, but his actual residence must be his abiding place. Tipton v. Tipton, 87 Ky. 243, 8 S. W. 440; Hinds v. Hinds, 1 Iowa, 36; Fitzgerald v. Arel, 63 Iowa, 104, 18 N. W. 713, 50 Am. Rep. 733; Ludlow v. Szold, 90 Iowa, 175, 57 N. W. 676.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, 2^nd edition]

RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856]

RESIDENT. One who has his residence In a place. “Resident” and “inhabitant” are distinguishable in meaning. The word “inhabitant” implies a more fixed and permanent abode than does “resident;” and a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 11, 32 Am. Dec. 423.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, 2^nd edition]

ISSUE 2

Section 17.2, titled “Legal Profession Contradictions”, makes a few comments on how to best describe yourself to avoid confusion or false presumptions. 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(21) is a general definition of “national” as being someone who owes permanent allegiance to a state without specifying which state. Therefore, it would reason that if someone wanted to apply this this section of code to describe themselves, they would need to specify the specific state that they are a national of to avoid any confusion or false presumptions. For those who were born in and reside in a constitutional state and are therefore a constitutional state citizen/national, they could refer to themselves as simple a ‘California “national” ’ which would imply both a state “national” and a “national” of the USA since all state citizens are also citizens of the USA. Referring to one as a ‘California “national”’ would be an easy way to describe yourself that would also avoid false presumptions as indicated in item #6 in section 17.2. However, for those who were born in a constitutional state but are domiciled outside of the US*** (such as in God’s Kingdom in heaven and earth) these people would be “nationals” of the USA only but not a state “national”. Therefore, in contrast to what is stated in item #5 of section 17.2, I feel that these people would need to append a suffix onto “national”, to describe themselves in a way that avoids any false presumption about the specific state that they are a national of. After all, 8 U.S.C. ∳1101(a)(21) defines what a national is in general terms without specifying a specific state. If you do not specify a specific state yourself, then you are forcing government officials to make a presumption and their presumption will most likely be detrimental to your freedom. Possibly the best way to add a suffix would be to put only the word “national” in quotes, as “national” is the term that is defined by 8 U.S.C. ∳1101(a)(21), followed by a phrase to specify the state such as: ‘ “national” of the United States of America’. Another alternative way to describe yourself could be a ‘United States of America “national” ‘ as suggested in item #6 of section 17.2 for a state national; but in this case, the state is the Union formed by Article of Confederation and mentioned in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution.

ISSUE 3

The folks at both SEDM and Family Guardian have done some wonderful and important work. No doubt the staffs at both SEDM and Family Guardian are busy and must prioritize their tasks. But for a book that discusses nationality/citizenship it would seem important that the book would be clear on what nations/states are contained within the US* since national/citizen is a title given to designate the members of a nation/state. Within several SEDM/Family Guardian books, including Why a Nation, there appears contradictions and confusion over whether or not the US* and the US*** is a state/nation. I believe that this confusion started from 1793 ruling shown on page 26 [Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793)]. In any case, some text in the SEDM/Family Guardian material say that the U.S.* is a state/nation and the U.S.*** is not a state/nation while other text say the reverse. It is important to get this right and to avoid contradictions because it will avoid confusion to your readers, making the topic easier to understand, and it will avoid loss of creditability to SEDM/Family Guardian books.

My conclusions are:

• The US** and the US*** are states/nations – I located two later authorities (1874 and 1889), listed below, that contradict Chisholm v. Georgia and make it clear that the USA is a sovereign nation/state. Since these are later cases, would these not overturn Chisholm v. Georgia on this issue? Also listed below is a 1901 case that indirectly tells us that the US** is a nation. Also, section 6 identifies national for both the USA and the US**
• The US* is not a state/nation. I do not have any authority which tells us whether or not the country US* is a state/nation. But if you think about what state/nation is, there is not one body politic for the US* and there is no one government for the US*. In the US*, there is one central government, but the central government has two capacity, one as the federal government of the USA maintained under the Constitution with all of its restrictions; the other as the national government of the US** maintained by Congress outside of the Constitution. Who are the citizens/national of the US*? No nationals for the US* is identified in section 6

[Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)] – shown on page 66

Quote:

“There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [99 U.S. 162, 166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.”

“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject’, ‘inhabitant’, and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States[***] before the adoption of the amendment [14^th] it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation [of the United States***], and what were afterwards admitted to membership.”

[ . . . ]

“Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-member of the nation[of the United States***] created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation[ of the United States of America], and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.”

This case tells us that the United States*** is a nation and that the title used to designate a member of the United States*** is “citizen”. The citizens of United States*** owe allegiance to the United States*** in return for protection from the United States***.

[Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)] – shown on page 113

Quote:

“While under our constitution form of government [the Union of states or the United States***] the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States[***], in their relation to foreign countries and their subject or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence [The nation of the United States*** is a sovereign state] and security throughout its entire territory. The power to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the states, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship, are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the constitution itself [The nation of the United States*** is a sovereign state] and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations. As said by this court in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 413, speaking by the same great chief justice: ‘That the United States[***] form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects is the government of the Union. It is their government, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to [130 U.S. 581, 605] be in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes her government is complete; to all these objects, it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.”

This case tells us that the United States*** is a sovereign state/nation

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)] – shown on page 37

Quote:

“The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments [there are two nations within this country]; one [nation, the United States***,] to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other [nation, the United States**,] to be maintained by Congress outside independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers [of absolutism] as other nations of the earth are accustomed to.”

This case is indirectly telling us that the United States** is a nation by comparing it with “other nations of the earth”.

other – 1 b : being the one or ones distinct from that or those first mentioned or implied

[Marriam Webster’s 11^th edition]