U.S. Code

[fg_admin]

RESPONSE:

Perhaps a further refinement of the term “statutory citizen” is in order based on your comment.

1. “statutory citizen” is defined on this website to mean every reference to the word “citizen” in every act of congress OTHER than in Title 8. Title 8 acts as a substitute for the Constitution for the purposes of only citizenship within the territories. Fourteenth Amendment citizenship is NOWHERE described in Title 8.

2. Statutes in title 8 are not necessary to define or authorize citizenship for people in states of the Union:

“Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside. See, e.g., Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922) (Holmes, J.) (“If a thing has been practiced for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it[.]”); Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) (“It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use . . . . Yet an unbroken practice . . . is not something to be lightly cast aside.”). And while Congress cannot take away the citizenship of individuals covered by the Citizenship Clause, it can bestow citizenship upon those not within the Constitution’s breadth. See U.S. Const, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (“Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory belonging to the United States[**].”); id. at art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (Congress may “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . ..”). To date, Congress has not seen fit to bestow birthright citizenship upon American Samoa, and in accordance with the law, this Court must and will respect that choice.16″
[Tuaua v. U.S.A, 951 F.Supp.2d. 88 (2013)]

Note the following in the above:
“If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. ”

3. All statuses in Title 8 are therefore political statuses, but the political status imputed is not that mentioned in the Constitution. The constitution does not apply on federal territory with the exception of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

4. All titles of the U.S. Code other than Title 8 and which are CIVIL in nature limit themselves to domiciled parties against whom statutory civil law may be enforced per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). Thus, all such parties must be physically present and domiciled on federal territory to civilly enforce. See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

5. Perhaps the Disclaimer for this site needs to have “statutory citizenship” defined per the above.

[fg_admin]

REBUTTAL TO ABORTION ARGUMENT ABOVE:

1. Right to abortion has nothing to do with a woman’s right to control her own body. The woman is controlling TWO bodies: her own and the one inside of her.

2. Murder of the OTHER body inside of her can never be a right.

3. Yes, a woman can control her body to PREVENT murder by not having intercourse, but after the act, if she doesn’t want to commit murder, then she loses control over her body until the OTHER body inside of her is born and not murdered.

4. This isn’t really an argument about controlling one’s body. Making a man a slave for life to support a child is the same as a woman being a slave for the same reason. You never hear women argue that men should not be slaves for life to support a child after a divorce the same way a woman would have to support the child she doesn’t want, so this isn’t a valid argument.

4. For proofs of the above, see:

4.1 The Most Important Questions About Abortion
https://youtu.be/AMwkQVpy98A

4.2 Unborn Babies Are Children, Not a Choice
https://youtu.be/GmYcxjrTrmE

[fg_admin]

See also:

Is Larken Rose Evil or Are “We” Still Trapped in a Leader/Follower Paradigm?
https://youtu.be/J2higDF8enM

[fg_admin]

Dcormier

Welcome!

The Sovereignty Menu at the very top has the Path to Freedom. It says in big letters “START HERE”. This document is also at the very top of our Sovereignty and Freedom Page:
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Freedom.htm

So this is where to start.

FYI: There is no such thing as a “sovereign citizen”. On this site, we call those “sovereignty advocates”. This is covered in:

Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Sections 2 and 5.7
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebFalseArgSovereignty.pdf

The above is in the Sovereignty menu at the top.

[fg_admin]

Since the lead post, Stefan Molyneux has moved all of his original Youtube content over to LBRY.  The index to all of his podcast broadcasts at the link below also now has links to his new LBRY video content as well.

https://www.freedomain.com/all-podcasts/

With the above index, we have restored some but not all broken video links to his content.  More over time.

[fg_admin]

The Real Reason Walmart Wants You to Pay This Way

Walmart locations across the nation are now asking customers to use credit cards or debit cards when making purchases. The reason? A coin shortage is changing the way they are doing business. While cash is still accepted at all Walmart stores, many self-checkout registers now only allow customers to pay with a card.

Turns out, the COVID-19 outbreak has led to a growing concern of a severe coin shortage for many retailers across the country.

“Like most retailers, we’re experiencing the effects of the nation-wide coin shortage,” spokesperson Avani Dudhia said in a statement via KXTV. “We’re asking customers to pay with card or use correct change when possible if they need to pay with cash.” Walmart isn’t the only national chain to launch a new payment policy due to the coin shortage.  Kroger recently announced they will no longer be giving out coin change to their customers. That money is now added to customers’ loyalty cards and automatically applied to their next purchase.

The coin shortage is very real, and many grocers are limiting the total number of coins being exchanged by simply rounding up or down on amounts owed.  Why is this happening? Well, it seems that the long arm of the coronavirus pandemic hasn’t simply affected the supply of meat, produce, and seafood these days.

The supply chain and circulation patterns for coins have been “significantly disrupted” by the coronavirus pandemic, according to a statement from the Federal Reserve. Banks that typically provide boxes of rolled coins for this very purpose are very low in supply. “What’s happened is, with the partial closure of the economy, the flow of coins through the economy has… kind of stopped,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell told CNBC last month. “The places where you’d go to give your coins and get credit… those have not been working.”

“Coin deposits from depository institutions to the Federal Reserve have declined significantly, and the U.S. Mint’s production of coin also decreased due to measures put in place to protect its employees,” the government explained. “Federal Reserve coin orders from depository institutions have begun to increase as regions reopen, resulting in the Federal Reserve’s coin inventory being reduced to below-normal levels.”

As a result, grocery stores and supermarkets are having to come up with new solutions to unexpected problems. Walmart, Kroger, and Midwest-based grocery chain Meijer ha stopped taking cash altogether at its self-scan lanes due to the coin shortage, requiring all shoppers to use debit or credit cards instead. Others are simply rounding to the nearest quarter or total-dollar value.  So don’t be surprised if you’re at the grocery store and your bill is $45.78, but your cashier asks for $45.75 to limit the coins that need to be exchanged. And for more great grocery shopping advice, make sure you’re up to speed on The Single Worst Thing You Can Ask at the Grocery Store Right Now.

[fg_admin]

Jay Atkisson’s tactics are described at:

Who’s Who in the Freedom Community, Form #08.009, Section 4.3
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhosWho.pdf

We wish you the best of luck.  This man is seriously deranged and has been slandering the freedom community for years.

[fg_admin]

FOLLOWUP ARTICLES:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/internet-archive-ends-emergency-library-early-to-appease-publishers/

http://blog.archive.org/2020/06/10/temporary-national-emergency-library-to-close-2-weeks-early-returning-to-traditional-controlled-digital-lending/

[fg_admin]

We contacted Hamilton435.  We want to clarify the following about the non-citizen national process he used:

1.  He followed the Moonshine Still process:
http://www.coppermoonshinestills.com/id71.html

We warn people about the dangers of the above process in the LINKs to the above page on the following forms:

1.1  Taxation Page, Section 7.1
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm#Correct_Civil_Status

1.2  Law and Government Page, Section 5.1
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LawAndGovt.htm#Correct_Civil_Status

2. The above process says you should provide an SSN, which we do NOT recommend.

3.  He provided an SSN on the application.  Therefore, he falsely indicated that he was lawfully participating in the Social Security program.  See the following for proof that state nationals cannot lawfully participate:
Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf

If you KNOW that you are not eligible and provide a number anyway, indirectly you are admitting that you are defrauding the government and committing a crime.

4. 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i) indicates those who use or provide an SSN are PRESUMED to be STATUTORY “citizens and residents of the United States”.  Therefore, whatever he attached to the form about his citizenship status was contradicted by the use of the SSN.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/301.6109-1

Based on the above, by using an SSN on an application and stating they are NOT a citizen, the ONLY other thing they can be under 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i) is a “resident alien”.  BAD IDEA!

5.  We told him that if we were in his situation, we would contact the Department of State Headquarters and amend his passport application to correct his mistake.  We would do that by indicating that the Social Security Number was not lawfully issued, should be removed from their records, and include the USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007, and request that the application be amended to include that form:
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

6.  Only Compliant Members can use the above form.

As a general matter, we DO NOT recommend the Moonshine Stills method of getting a passport.  It is fatally flawed because of the way it handles SSNs and as explained above.  Readers should instead use the following SEDM forms to avoid these pitfalls.

1.  Getting a USA Passport as a “state national”, Form #10.012 and 10.013
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

2.  USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007
https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

If you are unfortunate enough to disregard our warnings and apply for a passport with an ILLEGALLY issued SSN that is therefore invalid, the following form on the SEDM site can be used to amend or update the original application:

Passport Amendment Request, Form #06.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/PassportAmendReq.pdf

[fg_admin]

Sotomayor’s dissent violates enacted law on the subject.  See:

8 U.S. Code CHAPTER 14—RESTRICTING WELFARE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR ALIENShttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-14

The pertinent text from the above:

8 U.S. Code § 1601.Statements of national policy concerning welfare and immigration

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next

The Congress makes the following statements concerning national policy with respect to welfare and immigration:

(1)

Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes.

(2)It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States that—

(A)

aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations, and

(B)

the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.

(3)

Despite the principle of self-sufficiency, aliens have been applying for and receiving public benefits from Federal, State, and local governments at increasing rates.

(4)

Current eligibility rules for public assistance and unenforceable financial support agreements have proved wholly incapable of assuring that individual aliens not burden the public benefits system.

(5)

It is a compelling government interest to enact new rules for eligibility and sponsorship agreements in order to assure that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national immigration policy.

(6)

It is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.

(7)

With respect to the State authority to make determinations concerning the eligibility of qualified aliens for public benefits in this chapter, a State that chooses to follow the Federal classification in determining the eligibility of such aliens for public assistance shall be considered to have chosen the least restrictive means available for achieving the compelling governmental interest of assuring that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national immigration policy.

[fg_admin]

For your information, the Department of State recognizes “American Nationals”, meaning state nationals, for the purposes of “Certificates of Nationality” under 8 U.S.C. 1502.  See:

Why You Are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Section 1.6.1
https://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf

Why shouldn’t they recognize these same people as “non-citizen nationals” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21)?

[fg_admin]

Your question is quite open-ended and and general so as to be not susceptible of a specific answer. Remember:  These forums are intended as a mock court.  There must be a case or controversy before relief can be granted.

Those who disconnect from the statutory jurisdiction of the government in the place where they physically reside are “non-residents”.  They remain subject to the common law and are protected by the constitution, and have not waived the protections of the constitution by subjecting themselves to any civil statute.  If you want to know how it plays out, look at books and caselaw that address “nonresidents” or “non-residents”, or “nationals”.

As far as denying utility services to those who have disconnected legally from the state, that would be an equal protection and equal treatment problem covered by the Fourteenth Amendment.  The government cannot discriminate against those who refuse to legally associate or become privileged “residents”.  They must treat all in their jurisdiction equally.  See Form #05.033:

https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EqualProtection.pdf

Nonresidents are covered in the following book:

A Treatise On The Law of Non-Residents and Foreign Corporations (OFFSITE LINK)-Google books
http://books.google.com/books?id=eIhAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover

The above link comes from:

Law and Government Topic, Section 9.3:  Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LawAndGovt.htm#Extraterritorial_Jurisdiction

[fg_admin]

You can read about attorney Oscar Stilley on his blog, which he maintains online through a third party while he is in jail:

https://oastilley.wordpress.com/

[fg_admin]

1. There is no statutory definition of “U.S. national”.  Therefore your question is ambiguous.

2. The closest thing to it is:

2.1  8 USC 1408: “national but not citizen of the United States at birth”

2.2  8 USC 1452(b):  “U.S. non-citizen national” or “non-citizen national”, or “national, but not a citizen”.  This is the one who gets the endorsement on the passport.

2.3  8 USC 1101(a)(22)(B):  “a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”

3. We are not aware of anyone other than people in U.S. possessions getting the “U.S. national” endorsement.  We have spoken to people from possessions who received the endorsement, in fact.

4.  No one who is a state national has submitted evidence to us proving they received the endorsement.

5. The people eligible for the endorsement are listed in 8 USC 1452, but not clearly distinguished from state nationals there.

6.  The courts have frequently held that state nationals are “U.S. nationals” or “nationals of the United States OF AMERICA”.  See:

Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 10.4.5
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf

7.  The state department official position of what a “U.S. national” is based on who they have so far issued the endorsements for “U.S. national” to is that they are those found in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(B), 1408 and 1452, and that all these people are those in a possession, even though this conflicts with the court cases listed in the step above.  Their position is therefore unsupportable with evidence from a legal perspective.

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL:  Facebook definition of “Dangerous individuals and organizations”

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/dangerous_individuals_organizations

_________________________
2. Dangerous Individuals and Organizations

Policy Rationale

In an effort to prevent and disrupt real-world harm, we do not allow any organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence, from having a presence on Facebook. This includes organizations or individuals involved in the following:

Terrorist activity

Organized hate

Mass or serial murder

Human trafficking

Organized violence or criminal activity

We also remove content that expresses support or praise for groups, leaders, or individuals involved in these activities. Learn more about our work to fight terrorism online here.

We do not allow the following people (living or deceased) or groups to maintain a presence (for example, have an account, Page, Group) on our platform:

Terrorist organizations and terrorists, which include:

Any non-state actor that:

Engages in, advocates, or lends substantial support to purposive and planned acts of violence,

Which causes or attempts to cause death, injury or serious harm to civilians, or any other person not taking direct part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, and/or significant damage to property linked to death, serious injury or serious harm to civilians

With the intent to coerce, intimidate and/or influence a civilian population, government, or international organization

In order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

Hate organizations and their leaders and prominent members

A hate organization is defined as:

Any association of three or more people that is organized under a name, sign, or symbol and that has an ideology, statements, or physical actions that attack individuals based on characteristics, including race, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation, serious disease or disability.

Mass and serial murderers

We consider a homicide to be a mass murder if it results in four or more deaths in one incident

We consider any individual who has committed two or more murders over multiple incidents or locations a serial murderer

We make these assessments based upon the information available to us and will generally apply this policy to a mass or serial murderer who meets any of the following criteria:

They were convicted of mass or serial murder.

They were killed by law enforcement during commission of the mass or serial murder or during subsequent flight.

They killed themselves at the scene or in the aftermath of the mass or serial murder.

They were identified by law enforcement with images from the crime.

Human trafficking groups and their leaders

Human trafficking groups are organizations responsible for any of the following:

Prostitution of others, forced/bonded labor, slavery, or the removal of organs

Recruiting, transporting, transferring, detaining, providing, harboring, or receiving a minor, or an adult against their will

Criminal organizations and their leaders and prominent members

A criminal organization is defined as:

Any association of three or more people that is united under a name, color(s), hand gesture(s) or recognized indicia, that has engaged in or threatens to engage in criminal activity, including (but not limited to)

Homicide

Drug trafficking

Arms trafficking

Identity theft

Money laundering

Extortion or trafficking

Assault

Kidnapping

Sexual exploitation (covered in <href=”https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/safety/child_nudity_sexual_exploitation”>section 7 and section 8)

We do not allow symbols that represent any of the above organizations or individuals to be shared on our platform without context that condemns or neutrally discusses the content.

We do not allow content that praises any of the above organizations or individuals or any acts committed by them.

We do not allow coordination of support for any of the above organizations or individuals or any acts committed by them.