fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Mark Yannone found dead
SOURCE: http://www.rense.com…eral86/mark.htm
Mark was a libertarian activist who also ran for political office. He is also the author of following HILARIOUS parody:
If the IRS Were Selling Used Cars
http://famguardian.o…SellingCars.htm
-
I was researching the word “nationals” in the DOS Foreign Affairs Manual and the following statements are VERY revealing:
Quote:7 Foreign Affairs Manual section 012(a)
a. U.S. Nationals Eligible for Consular Protection and Other Services:
Nationality is the principal relationship that connects an individual to a State. International law recognizes the right of a State to afford diplomatic and consular protection to its nationals and to represent their interests. Under U.S. law the term “national” is inclusive of citizens but “citizen” is not inclusive of nationals. All U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals. Section 101(a)(22) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) provides that the term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B ) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. U.S. nationals are eligible for U.S. consular protection.
[SOURCE: http://www.state.gov…ation/86556.pdf]
In thinking about this subject:
1. I was trying to piece together the relationship between a “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the “national and citizen of the United States” found in 8 USC 1401.
2. I was trying to explain to myself why they had to say “national AND citizen of the United States” in 8 USC 1401 rather than simply “citizen of the United States” just like the Fourteenth Amendment.
The above language in 7 FAM 012(a) reveals that if you are a constitutional “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States”, then automatically you are what the DOS refers to as a “U.S. national”. Throughout the FAM, they use the phrase “citizen of the United States” and “U.S. citizen” interchangeably. But the NEVER use the phrase “national and citizen of the United States” interchangeably with “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States”. Why then would they need to add the phrase “national AND” in front of “citizen of the United States” in 8 USC 1401? The answer is telling indeed.
In other discussions on these forums, it was concluded that:
1. The “United States” within the Constitution and within the Fourteenth Amendment includes ONLY states of the Union and incorporated territories.
2. The District of Columbia is an incorporated territory by virtue of having been inside Maryland before it was ceded.
3. Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are NOT incorporated territories.
4. Citizenship was extended to unincorporated territories by act of Congress because they were NOT included within the Constitution or the constitutional “United States” otherwise or under the Fourteenth Amendment.
See: http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=3951
Then I got to thinking:
1. What EXACTLY DID Congress “commute” when they bestowed citizenship upon unincorporated territories, because they STILL are not part of the Constitutional United States?
2. They couldn't have communited Constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment “nationality” or “national” status, so what exactly DID they communite to these unincorporated territories by legislative act?
7 FAM 1112(d) says the following on what constitutes CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship:
Quote:7 FAM 1112(d)
d. Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of “the United States” for citizenship purposes. The phrase “in the United States” as used in Section 1993 of the Revised Statues of 1878 clearly includes states that have been admitted to the Union. (See 7 FAM 1119 b.)
[SOURCE: http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf]
And it dawned on me that:
1. What CONgress commuted was STATUTORY and not CONSTITUTIONAL “nationality” and the STATUTORY RATHER THAN CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS of being a “national”. Hence, the phrase “national and citizen of the United States” in 8 USC 1401 means someone who obtained nationality and the STATUTORY but not CONSTITUTIONAL status of BEING a “national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) through an act of Congress RATHER than through the Constitution.
2. If Congress had not commuted “nationality” and “national” status legislatively, these people would remain merely “citizens” in the sense of having a domicile in the COUNTRY, but NOT “citizens” in the sense that they were members of the national body politic possessing “nationality”. So if you take “national” out of the phrase “national and citizen of the United States” in 8 USC 1401, one ends up with NO “national” or “nationality” STATUTORY status, no source for the status in the Constitution based on the statement above, and therefore in relation to the national government, they are mere “aliens” who furthermore would have to issue their OWN passports because Uncle can't and won't give them one.
3. Those who have CONSTITUTIONAL nationality would automatically be “U.S. nationals” because all “U.S. citizens” are “U.S. nationals”. What they really mean are all CONSTITUTIONAL “U.S. citizens” are nationals. But not all STATUTORY “citizens” are “nationals” unless and until Congress commutes nationality by Act of Congress. That is the foundation of the statement that kicked off this post.
That means “nationals and citizens of the United States” under 8 USC 1401 are not constitutional citizens, but they are still “nationals” who received nationality through Act of Congress INSTEAD of the Constitution. These people include those born within and domiciled within unincorporated territories ONLY such as:
1. Guam.
2. Puerto Rico.
3. Virgin Islands.
Those born in INCORPORATED territory such as D.C. therefore are not 8 USC 1401 “nationals and citziens of the United States”, because they didn't acquire nationality legislatively, but rather CONSTITUTIONALLY.
The above language confirms this conclusion:
“Under U.S. law the term “national” is inclusive of citizens but “citizen” is not inclusive of nationals. All U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals.”
Compare the analysis of the above with the STATUTORY definition of “citizen of the United States” found in the I.R.C., which 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ) says IS in fact an 8 USC 1401 citizen.
Quote:26 USC 3121(e)
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.
[SOURCE: http://www.law.corne…21—-000-.html]
__________________
26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen.
(b)…The term 'citizen of the United States' includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
So the ONLY real “citizen of the United States” occurring in both 8 U.S.C. 1401 AND the Internal Revenue Code is, in fact:
1. That found in 8 USC 1401.
2. NOT that found in the Constitution.
3. NOT that found in Fourteenth Amendment.
4. NOT that found in a constitutional state of the Union, because the term “State” above does NOT include such a “State”.
-
FreedomFighter89
Thanks for that feedback.
1. We are not responsible for sedm materials. If you want their materials corrected, you need to post in their forums, not ours, under “Errata”.
2. You can't be both a “citizen of the United States” AND “U.S. non-citizen national” under 8 U.S.C. 1408 and 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(:cool: at the same time. It's one OR the other and they won't issue BOTH certificates. See:
7 FAM 1141:
http://www.state.gov…ation/86758.pdf
Technically the “U.S. non-citizen national” at 8 USC 1408 is an ALIEN who must be naturalized to be treated as a “citizen of the United States” as confirmed by 7 FAM 1141(f) under the authority of 8 USC 1436..
3. We don't know how they are going to change the USA Passport Attachment, Form #06.007, because we aren't responsible for it. In the future, please pay much more attention to the author of the form so these forums don't get cluttered with irrelevant information. Every SEDM form indicates the author in the lower left corner.
-
1. You are making a false presumption:
Quote:If a Union state Citizen is a 14th Amndt United States* citizen, then how could he be a 'non-citizen' as in “non-citizen national”? This would be a conflict in terms if in fact they were the same thing, as it would mean that a Union state Citizen would be a 'non-national national.' I can see a judge calling this “frivolous” and completely without merit. Objectively I have to agree, thus I search for a more justifiable solution.The “United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment, we have established, includes the states of the Union AND incorporated territories, but does NOT include possessions or UNincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam. Hence, it CANNOT mean ALL of “United States*', but only a subset.
For Puerto Rico and Guam, NATIONALITY has been granted, but this was not done through the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather by Act of Congress. Hence, it is a civil status AND a political status IN THOSE CASES ONLY.
2. Here is another interesting tidbit. It looks like 8 USC 1452 is not the ONLY way to get a certificate of non-citizen national status! 8 USC 1502 says that certificates of non-citizen national status may be issued to “American nationals” who have not been naturalized for use in judicial proceedings in a “foreign state”. Sounds to me like that could include a state of the Union.
http://www.law.corne…02—-000-.html
Quote:TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part IV > § 1502§ 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state
The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate official channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.
Notice they don't say “U.S. national” as in 8 USC 1408 “U.S. national”. They also are referring to people not naturalized, which would be the status of those born within states of the Union outside the United States**. If you look at 7 FAM 1141(e), you see the following confirming language:
Quote:e. Certificate of Non-Citizen National Status: See INA 395 (8 U.S.C. 1502) and 22 CFR 50.10(a).NOTE: Only persons who acquired U.S. non-citizen national status pursuant to INA 308 (8 U.S.C. 1408) or Section 204 NA are eligible for such a certificate. The Department implements INA 359 (8 U.S.C. 1502) by annotating the person's U.S. passport to indicate that he or she is a non-citizen national and not a citizen, using endorsement code 09. (See 7 FAM Appendix B.)
Endorsement Code 09Text:
THE BEARER IS A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.
Explanation: Placed in a passport issued to a U.S. national who is not a citizen
[SOURCE: http://www.state.gov…ation/86758.pdf]
The following language is VERY revealing and unexpected in the above FAM section:
Quote:f. Naturalization of a U.S. Non-Citizen National:A person who is a U.S. non-citizen national may apply for naturalization as a U.S. citizen pursuant to INA 325 (8 U.S.C. 1436) and 8 CFR 325.
Apparently, even if you are a “U.S. Non-Citizen National” per 8 USC 1408 (born in American Samoa or Swain's Island), you still are NOT a Constitutional “citizen of the United States”…or else why would you need to be “naturalized” AGAIN. “Naturalization”, after all, is defined as the conferring of “nationality”, and a person who is ALREADY a “national” within the Fourteenth Amendment shouldn't need to be naturalized AGAIN!
Quote:8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(23) naturalization defined(a)(23) The term ''naturalization'' means the conferring of nationality [NOT “citizenship” or “U.S. citizenship”, but “nationality”, which means “national” of the “United States*”] of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
[NOTE: Compare with the definition of “expatriation”]
An 8 USC 1408 citizen is a non-citizen national AT BIRTH who is born in American Samoa or Swain's Island. It appears based on the above that he is regarded as a statutory “alien” per 8 USC 1101(a)(3) who must be naturalized in order to be issued a passport AND, once naturalized, they get a stamp on p. 24 of the passport in accordance with 8 USC 1502.
7 FAM 1141(f) says that the certificate may be issued to a INA 308 or 204 party. INA 308 is 8 USC 1408 and INA 204 is 8 USC 1154. See:
http://www.uscis.gov…190aRCRD&CH=act
http://www.law.corne…54—-000-.html
The other interesting thing is the 8 USC 1154 refers to “United States citizen”, which is NOWHERE defined in Title 8. Only “citizen and national of the United States” is defined in 8 USC 1401.
As far as citizenship within territories and possessions, the following article is very good:
http://www.state.gov…ation/86756.pdf
The above document says of the Virgin Islands the following:
Quote:7 FAM 1123.1(a)
a. The Virgin Islands of the United States come within the definition of “United States” given in Section 101(a)(38) INA. A person born there now acquires U.S. citizenship in the same way as one born in any of the 50 States. Section 301(a) INA applies.
But Virgin Islands is NOT an incorporated territory. Hence, citizenship must be acquired under the Fourteenth Amendment, but “ex proprio vigore” by extension.
IRS pub 519 refers to people resident in Puerto Rico as ALIENS, so from the above, it looks like:
1. “United States” means the Country for Title 8 and 8 USC 1101(a)(38).
2. “United States” in the I.R.C. means the District of Columbia only. THOSE “citizens of the United States” are in fact the government, while in Title 8, it means human beings.
3. Everyone not representing the U.S. government as a public officer is regarded as a nonresident alien under Title 26.
-
1. It looks like the definition of “State” has changed from Black's Sixth to Eighth. They changed it from THE PEOPLE as sovereigns, to the GOVERNMENT and their rulers. This is a distortion. Here is the Black's Sixth Definition:
Quote:“State. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F.Supp. 201 207, 208. The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moralitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F.2d 129, 130. In its largest sense, a “state” is a body politic or a society of men. Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp., 44 Misc.2d 636, 254 N.Y.S.2d 763, 765. A body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government. State ex re. Maisano v. Mitchell, 155 Conn. 256, 231 A.2d 539, 542. A territorial unit with a distinct general body of law. Restatement, Second, Conflicts, §3. Term may refer either to body politic of a nation (e.g. United States) or to an individual government unit of such nation (e.g. California).[…]
The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause, “The State vs. A.B.”
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1407]
The definition of “nation” in Black's Eigth used to be the definition of state. Hence, all sovereignty has been removed from states and placed with the national government. I don't buy the current definition, because it leads to paganism towards rulers and destroys the separation of powers. This is BULL CRAP.
2. You said: “If 8 USC 1452 is held to be a political context applying to United States*, then it does NOT apply to Union state Citizens, as they are citizens of the United States* through the 14th Amendment.”
I don't see why this is the case. “United States*” includes “United States**” and “United States***”.
3. I think “non-citizen national” is equivalent of “national” and both are political statuses. So, “alien”, “national”, and “non-citizen national of the United States*” can all be political statuses. Saying that one is a “non-citizen national of the United States*” would encompass those who are “non-citizen nationals of the United States**” and “non-citizen nationals of the United States**” because “United States*”=”United States***” plus “United States**”.
4. You can do what you want on the I-9 form and there is no harm done as long as it is fully explained in a mandatory attachment. However, the answer may lie in:
4.1 The Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual.
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/
4.2 The statutes and regulations from which the I-9 derives.
Title 22, CFR: http://www.access.gp…22cfrv1_09.html
Title 8, CFR: http://www.access.gp…/8cfrv1_09.html
4.3 The American Jurisprudence Legal Encyclopedia, 2d
4.4 The Dept. of State Website
None of the above have yet been examined, and they may point to the context. This debate probably will go nowhere until the above sources are thoroughly examined. Another fruitful area of inquiry might be to call or write the Dept of State:
http://famguardian.o…ship/112065.pdf
http://famguardian.o…ship/111812.pdf
http://famguardian.o…ship/111781.pdf
Whatever the case, if this ever ended up in court, the FIRST thing the judge or government prosecutor should be demanded to demonstrate is the definition of “United States” applying to EVERY citizenship status in Title 8, on the I-9 form, and in the statutes from which the I-9 form derives and if they refuse to meet the burden of proof and stick to is, the definitions provided on whatever attachment you used to the I-9 should have to stick in order to prevent prejudicial presumptions.
5. I just looked at the above sources and:
5.1 Here are the main regs: http://www.access.gp…22cfr40_09.html
5.2 22 CFR 40.2 says the following, which implies that “United States” means “United States*”:
Quote:TITLE 22–FOREIGN RELATIONSCHAPTER I–DEPARTMENT OF STATE
PART 40_REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO BOTH NONIMMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED
–Table of Contents Subpart A_General Provisions
Sec. 40.2 Documentation of nationals.
(a) Nationals of the United States. A national of the United States shall not be issued a visa or other documentation as an alien for entry into the United States.
(b) Former Nationals of the United States. A former national of the United States who seeks to enter the United States must comply with the documentary requirements applicable to aliens under the INA.
5.3 Here is a definition of “United States land borders”. Looks like it includes everything on the Canadian and Mexican borders, and the land on the other side of the borders is not federal territory. In this context, at least, they can only mean “United States*”
http://edocket.acces…r/8cfr101.1.htm
Quote:8 CFR 101.1(b) United States land borders.
An alien who establishes that, while a citizen of Canada or Newfoundland, he entered the United States across the Canadian border prior to October 1, 1906; an alien who establishes that while a citizen of Mexico he entered the United States across the Mexican border prior to July 1, 1908; an alien who establishes that, while a citizen of Mexico, he entered the United States at the port of Presidio, Texas, prior to October 21, 1918, and an alien for whom a record of his actual admission to the United States does not exist but who establishes that he gained admission to the United States prior to July 1, 1924, pursuant to preexamination at a United States immigration station in Canada and that a record of such preexamination exists.
5.4 “United States”. Includes the “several States”, but “State” is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(36) to include only territories.
SOURCE: http://edocket.acces…r/8cfr215.1.htm
Quote:8 CFR 215.1(e )
(a) The term alien means any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.
(e) The term United States means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Swains Island, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and all other territory and waters, continental and insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(g) The term geographical part of the United States means: (1) The continental United States, (2) Alaska, (3) Hawaii, (4) Puerto Rico, (5) the Virgin Islands, (6) Guam, (7) the Canal Zone, (8) American Samoa, (9) Swains Island, or (10) the Trust Teritory of the Pacific Islands.
-
EDITORIAL: Another Lindsey Springer Update from Prison. We didn’t write this.
_______________________________
Landon Springer here with an update on my dad’s battle for release from prison due to the IRS acting outside their authority (and, more importantly, U.S. law) regarding collection and assessment of taxes and penalties without tax districts or district directors. Here’s his letter:
Lindsey Springer here and offering an update for those of you paying attention to my cases pending before several panels of judges.
I first ask each of you who are prayer warriors to pray God’s mercy and grace shower over all the judges in any case, that they will grant the relief I have sought for over five years related to the PRA. I also ask you to pray the judges grant me relief regarding the abolished Internal Revenue Districts and District Directors offices that have not legally existed since late 1999 or early 2000.
It is obvious the issues are complicated because of the impact a decision would have on disclosures under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the impact it would have on how the Federal Government operates outside Washington without the districts previously established by law.
I pray for all the Government employees charged with opposing these issues. I do not think they realize that what they are saying is being recorded. Even the judge at my sentencing found “penatlyprotestor.org” was a web page advocating a change in the law. It is my humble opinion the web page was promoting the rule of law.
Although I strongly urge all to provide information on income regardless of your views, I also believe Congress intended the public to be protected from “penalties” when agencies do not comply with each disclosure requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
A great question to ask the statutory origin theorists is what does the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” mean to the public at Title 44, USC §3512(a), and isn’t the Paperwork Reduction Act a statutory mandate?
In 1927, when filing a tax form was to be excused from the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court said “if the Form of Return provided calls for answers the defendant was privileged from making…”–Sullwan v. U.S. 254 U.S. (1927).
The Government relies on cases that do not support any position that a tax return and a tax form are somehow exclusive of each other. I understand the Government does not like the public telling it what to do. Congress told all agencies what to do, and–as the Government Accountability Office reported in 2005–it is the public that Congress charged with scrutinizing agency forms.
Congress did not intend the ludicrous result that a person (if correct about the violations of the PRA, and is protected from any penalty based–or has its roots–in failing to file or deliver an information request form to the place “required by law,”) is made a criminal by some court which, after many years of not addressing the merits, decides the PRA claims are wrong.
This is how you know things are about to change.
My contentions regarding the absence of Internal Revenue Districts or District Directors are simple. What is a district? What is the difference between a district and a state? Why do “districts” exist in states? Once you answer for yourself these questions, you are well on your way to finding out the significance of all Internal Revenue Districts being abolished in 2000.
What if all Judicial Districts of the United States were “abolished” and no other law authorized others to exist outside the District of Columbia (hint, hint…)? If you will read Title 4, §72, you will see no office of the United States Government shall be exercised outside the District of Columbia “unless expressly provided by law” (and “by law” means “by Congress”).
We cannot afford to allow the United States to roam the 50 States without proper authorization by laws of Congress. If this is allowed to continue, the Constitution and its limited enumerated powers will be lost, and what will happen then?
Read your Tenth Amendment. Read Article I, Section 8, Cl. 17. And whatever you do, read your Bible and repent if necessary. “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray (repent)… I will hear their prayers and heal their land.” I’m ready for some land-healing; aren’t you? Thank you for your prayers and support. I could not have come this far without them. Please continue, as the time I am in is crucial.
You can PayPal at gnutella@mindspring.com or send support to:
Landon Springer
14690 S. 82nd E AVE, #5303
Bixby, OK 74008
Thank you for reading this and considering what you can do to help. It isn’t easy for me, Lindsey’s son, to ask you for money. I trust that it doesn’t offend you, as I also trust that you’re on his mailing list due to your interest in his journey.
However, as a web developer, I’ve been looking for ways I can contribute (besides typing up letters and blindly asking people I don’t personally know for money). I’ve developed a simple tool for creating and managing websites, and up until now haven’t considered offering it to more than a handful of people. I’d like to offer it to anyone on this mailing list, and a minimum of 50% of the proceeds will go to support Lindsey and the rest of our family. So if you’ve always wanted a website and/or always wanted to support my dad, well, now you can have both.
Please email me at landon.springer@gmail.com if you’re interested in the offer, or if you’d like to know more about our family’s situation. I’m trying to stay on top of all the responses I get. If I haven’t responded to you yet, don’t think that I’ve forgotten you. I’d like to personally thank everyone providing moral, spiritual, or financial support to our family during this trying time.
Thank you and God Bless,
Landon Springer
-
Basel III: The Global Banks at the Edge of the Precipice – Trillions of “Toxic Waste” in the Global Banking System
http://www.globalres…xt=va&aid=21099
The global “Too Big To Fail Banks” are so precarious that literally anything can trigger a collapse in the coming months.
I have read recent commentaries on Basel III posted to various renowned websites and financial publication, but they missed (or deliberately misled) the underlying message of the proposals, the implementation of which will be delayed till 2017 and some till 2019.
Basel III is pure spin and its timing was to assuage the deep-seated fears that there are no solutions in sight to save the fiat money system and fractional reserve banking.
THE PROBLEM
The major global banks are all under-capitalised and this was all too apparent when Lehman Bros. collapsed. Banks were borrowing so much and so recklessly to play at the global casino that when the bets went sour, they were staring at a black-hole in the $trillions. In fact the banks are all insolvent.
The problem was compounded when the central bankers (all are corrupt without exception) and regulators turned a blind eye to how bankers defined what constituted “capital” so as to circumvent the need to maintain the capital ratio.
THE CONFIDENCE GAME
At this moment, I cannot give a precise time-line as to how long the FED and the global central banks can prolong the confidence game, hoodwinking the public and sovereign creditors that all is well.
When confidence in banks evaporates for whatever reasons, the consequences will be ugly and there will be massive social upheavals across the globe.
The first indication that the game is up is when US treasuries are increasingly purchased by the FED to make up for the shortfalls by foreign creditors and to finance the ballooning US deficits.
All of a sudden, some entities may start to get real nervous and unload the treasuries, and the FED steps in to shore up treasuries. Then, the tipping point is reached and Hell breaks loose!
China is also part of this confidence game.
But, contrary to IMF and other renowned economists who are betting on China's and Asia's so-called economic strengths, I take the view that when US treasuries collapse, faith in all fiat monies will likewise evaporate and there will be massive capital flight to commodities, especially gold, silver and oil.
Asian stock markets will be devastated and there will be volatile gyrations in currency values.
Therefore, it is utter lunacy and recklessness for the Malaysian central bank (Bank Negara) and the government to even consider allowing the ringgit to be traded.
When confidence in dollar assets vaporises, China will be caught right in the middle. The third and final phase of the Global Financial Tsunami will devastate Asian economies and with it, the greatest depression in history will ensue.
Time Line?
Between now and anytime in 2011.
At the latest, 2012.
God help us.
-
Edgar Steele has a new advocacy website:
Free Edgar Steele
http://www.free-edgar-steele.com/
On the above website the following affidavit was filed with the court by Steele's wife, Cynthia:
http://www.free-edga…it_9_7_2010.pdf
She says her husband is being framed. We have attached the affidavit in case it conveniently disappears.
It looks like a guy named “Larry Fairfax” made an attempted murder against Steele's wife by planting a pipe bomb under her vehicle, stole some of Steele's precious metals, and falsely claimed that Steele put him up to it in order to frame Steele. Steele's own wife said he was a loving husband in her affidavit. The government looks like the perpetrator of this FRAUD, and that the conspired with Fairfax to frame Steele.
Below are some American Free Press articles about the Government conspiracy against Steele:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/ed_steele_237.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_ops_insiders_234.html
-
Admissions:
1. Admit Title 8 statutorily defines political statuses as well as civil statuses.
Admit.
2. Admit nationality determines political status while domicile determines civil status.
Admit.
3. Admit nationality is membership in a national body-politic.
Admit.
4. Admit the national body-politic of the United States* comprises the 50 states, Federal territories, outlying possessions, and the incorporated and unorganized Federal Territory called the Palmyra Atoll.
Admit.
5. Admit the national body-politic for the purposes of Title 8 comprises the “United States” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(38) and the “outlying possessions of the United States” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(29).
Admit.
6. Admit the term “alien” of 8 USC 1101(a)(3) statutorily defines the political status of a foreign national with regard to the national body-politic defined in number 5. above.
Admit.
7. Admit the term “national” of 8 USC 1101(a)(21) describes the political status of an American when the nation-state to which he owes allegiance is defined as the national body-politic defined in number 5. above.
Deny. His allegiance is to a “state” of the Union, which is lower case because it is foreign. His allegiance is therefore to the “United States***” and not the “United States*”, and more particularly to the PEOPLE of this region and not the government that serves them. THEY are the only real sovereigns, and THE PEOPLE are the sovereigns.
8. Admit there are multiple contexts and possibilities by which the term “United States” can be construed within Title 8.
Admit.
9. Admit that statutory civil status is predicated on domicile within or without the national body-politic.
Admit.
10. Admit the statutory civil status for a United States* “national” is defined in terms of the political subdivision of the national body-politic regarded in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) as United States**.
Admit.
11. Admit United States** is defined for the purposes of Title 8 to include the “States” of 8 USC 1101(a)(36) and the “outlying possessions of the United States” of 8 USC 1101(a)(29).
Deny. “United States*” as defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38), not “United States**”, nor does it define ALL the uses of the term “United States” in Title 8. Rather, it defines ONLY the “geographic sense”. It could also mean the GOVERNMENT sense or the POLITICAL sense (the entire country).
Quote:TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1101. [Aliens and Nationality](a)(38) The term ''United States'', except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
The ONLY definition that includes the “States” is “continental United States” in 8 CFR 215.1. “States” is not invoked within 8 USC 1101(a)(38)
12. Admit the statutory civil statuses of “nationals and citizens of the United States” of 8 USC 1401, “national but not citizen of the United States” of 8 USC 1408, “national of the United States” of 8 USC 1101(a)(22), and “non-citizen national” of 8 USC 1452 are all predicated upon the context and meaning of United States**.
Deny. “nationals and citizens of the United States” of 8 USC 1401, “national but not citizen of the United States” of 8 USC 1408, “national of the United States” of 8 USC 1101(a)(22) use “United States**” and “non-citizen national” uses “United States*”, WE BELIEVE, which is a political sense and not a geographic sense.
I think the “national but not citizen of the United States” found at 8 USC 1408 is an american national born in American Samoa and Swain's Island why the “national of the United States found in 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(:cool: is an American National who either was born in and continues to be domiciled in American Samoa or Swain's Island OR who was born or naturalized anywhere in America and changed their domicile to American Samoa and Swains Island.
13. Admit that within the same statutory civil status context of number 12. above, an “alien” of 8 USC 1101(a)(3) is also a valid statutory civil status for a Union state Citizen.
Deny. Alien, like “national” is a POLITICAL statuts within Title 8. They are OPPOSITES of each other. You can only have two political statuses under Title 8 and everything else is a civil/legal status. The title of Title 8 betrays this by calling itself “Aliens and nationality”.
14. Admit a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States* is a “national” of the United States*.
Admit.
15. Admit a Citizen of American Samoa is a “national” of the United States* pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21)
Admit.
16. Admit the nationality and political status of an American Samoan is identical to that of a 14th Amendment citizen or a United States citizen who procured nationality ex proprio vigore.
Admit.
17. Admit the only way a Citizen of American Samoa can be a non-citizen is in a statutory civil sense.
Admit.
18. Admit the term “non-citizen national” of 8 USC 1452 cannot be reconciled in terms of United States*, as a “national” of the United States* has the same political status as a 14th Amendment citizen.
Deny.
19. Admit that to regard the term “non-citizen national” as a political status in terms of United States* would create a contradiction between 8 USC 1452 and 8 USC 1101(a)(21), as a 14th Amendment citizen or one who procured that citizenship ex proprio vigore are each a “national” of the United States*.
Deny. “United States” in 8 USC 1452 is the “United States*”.
20. Admit that there is no way to reconcile the oft used non-statutory phrase “non-citizen national of the United States” for a Union state Citizen as said Citizen is both a Citizen of the United States*** and a citizen of the United States*.
Deny. “United States” in 8 USC 1452 is the “United States*”.
21. Admit usage of the non-statutory phrase “non-citizen national of the Unite States” has the practical effect of disqualifying a Union state Citizen from also utilizing that appellation, thus acting as a mechanism for discriminating between a Citizen of American Samoa and a Union state Citizen.
Admit. I wouldn't use anything connected with “United States” without clarifying it. I would call myself a “non-citizen national of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” but never a “non-citizen national of the United States”.
22. Admit maintaining a consistent context is important for applying statutory terms whether they be in a political sense or in a civil sense.
Admit, but “United States” appears to have multiple meanings in Title 8, so the statute writers sabotaged any possibility of that by using it in TWO contexts: “United States*” and the GOVERNMENT/”United States**”.
23. Admit the statuses proffered on Form I-9 can only be regarded at any given time with respect to only one meaning of the term “United States” as the terms relate differently under varied “United States” meanings.
Admit. It means “United States*” on the I-9 form because it is used mainly by statutory aliens under 8 USC 1101(a)(3).
24. Admit the term “non-citizen national” cannot be used in a political sense.
Admit. Because “citizen” is a statutory/civil sense in Title 8.
25. Admit the term “non-citizen national” of the United States as proffered on Form I-9 is a statutory civil status modified in a way to disqualify Union state Citizens from adopting that designation.
Deny. “United States” on the I-9 appears to mean “United States*”. Put an asterisk after “United States” and add a note to the form defining that “United States” means the country and excludes any and all statutory definitions.
26. Admit the proper context for establishing a Federal statutory civil status is ONLY United States**.
Deny. Terms on government forms are sometimes used in a political sense, such as the I-9, or in a statutory sense, such as tax forms.
27. Admit that in the context of United States**, the only proper appellation on Form I-9 for a Union state Citizen is “alien authorized to work”.
Deny. “United States*” appears to be the one intended on the I-9.
28. Admit that the mandates for an alien admission number only apply to a foreign national– who is also an “alien” with regard to United States**.
Deny. Applies to an alien with regard to “United States*” under 8 USC 1101(a)(3).
29. Admit that a Union state Citizen is a nonresident “alien” and there is no requirement for an alien admission number for a nonresident “alien”.
Admit. But Title 26 uses a DIFFERENT “United States” than either Title 8 or the I-9 form. It means “United States**”
30. Admit the two contexts of United States* and United States** are essential in ascertaining the proper meaning and context of the term “alien” of 8 USC 1101(a)(3).
Admit. For 8 USC 1101(a)(3), the alien relates to “United States*”. Otherwise, they would have to define MULTIPLE classes of aliens, and they don't.
_________________________
CONCLUSION:
It's DANGEROUS and PREJUDICIAL to describe oneself as an “alien” on any kind of immigration form, including the I-9. I would never do it. Here is one of MANY reasons WHY:
Quote:8cfr235(b) U.S. citizens.
A person claiming U.S. citizenship must establish that fact to the examining officer's satisfaction and must present a U.S. passport if such passport is required under the provisions of 22 CFR part 53. If such applicant for admission fails to satisfy the examining immigration officer that he or she is a U.S. citizen, he or she shall thereafter be inspected as an alien.
(d) Alien applicants for admission.
(1) Each alien seeking admission at a United States port-of-entry must present whatever documents are required and must establish to the satisfaction of the inspecting officer that the alien is not subject to removal under the immigration laws, Executive Orders, or Presidential Proclamations, and is entitled, under all of the applicable provisions of the immigration laws and this chapter, to enter the United States.
I would also never check any block that had a status associated with “United States” without at least:
1. Defining WHICH “United States” is meant or adding “..OF AMERICA” after the term “United States”….AND
2. Defining which status applies within Title 8.
Otherwise, all government recipients of the form will self-servingly presume a statutory status and a domicile on federal territory. The best way to handle it is to attach the following form to the I-9 and any other form that asks about citizenship and to write on the I-9 “not valid and FALSE without mandatory Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, 17 pages”:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ffCitDomTax.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
The federal government has tremendous power over CONSTITUTIONAL aliens; see Chai Chan Ping v. United States, 130 US 581 (1889); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 13 S. Ct. 1016 (1893); Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 73 S. Ct. 625 (1953); and Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 586, 587, 72 S. Ct. 512, 517 (1952). These are the SAME “aliens” found in 8 USC 1101(a)(3). The feds have jurisdiction over constitutional aliens EVERYWHERE in the country, not just on federal territory. Its a flat out DUMB idea, for those who want to escape federal jurisdiction, to:
1. Call themselves an “alien” on an immigration form.
2. Confuse themselves with a constitutional alien.
3. Call themselves an “alien” under 8 USC 1101(a)(3).
4. Call themselves an “alien” on a tax form without preceding it with “statutory” and relating it to the “United States**” as defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 USC 110(d), and not the “United States*”.
Remember: “alien” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3) and “alien” under the I.R.C. are two completely different things. Nearly EVERYONE files as an “alien” under Title 26 because the “United States**” is implicated. See 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3) for the definition of “individual”, which means ALIEN. See also 26 USC 7701(b)(4)(:cool:. The 1040 is for “individuals”, and EVERY individual is an alien. But under Title 8, “United States*” is implicated for the terms “alien” and “national”. Watch out for the context! I-9 forms relate to Title 8 status, not Title 26 status.
Even those domiciled in Puerto Rico and American Samoa, according to IRS Pub 519, are BOTH treated as “aliens” FOR THE PURPOSES OF TITLE 26 and NOT Title 8! But they AREN'T “aliens” under Title 8 of the U.S.C. or under 8 USC 1101(a)(3). Instead, they are statutory “U.S. citizens” per 8 USC 1401 and non-citizen nationals of the United States respectively. So the term “United States” described within the phrase “sources within the United States”, according to Pub 519, means THE GOVERNMENT and not “the geographical sense” as described in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 USC 110(d). For the amazing proof, see:
Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Section 6
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
-
SOURCE: http://www.techeye.n…nti-piracy-ploy
______________
Microsoft says it abhors Russian anti-piracy ploy
Curbing political dissent isn't game with Vole
14 Sep 2010 15:37 | by Dean Wilson | posted in Software Microsoft has spoken out against Russian attempts to suppress dissent with anti-piracy laws, saying that it “abhors” the practice.
Senior vice-president and general counsel for Microsoft, Brad Smith, said that the news that the Russian government had been using anti-piracy laws relating to Microsoft software to confiscate computers and otherwise persecute several non-government organisations (NGOs) in Russia was disturbing to read.
“Whatever the circumstances of the particular cases the New York Times described, we want to be clear that we unequivocally abhor any attempt to leverage intellectual property rights to stifle political advocacy or pursue improper personal gain,” said Smith.
He revealed that Microsoft is looking into the situation in Russia and is seeking advice from human rights groups. Microsoft is also bringing in an international law firm not connected with anti-piracy to conduct an independent investigation of the situation and advise accordingly.
“We're creating in Russia a new NGO Legal Assistance Program focused specifically on helping NGOs document to the authorities that this new software license proves that they have legal software,” he said.
Smith said that while Microsoft is keen to reduce piracy and counterfeiting of its software it must be done in a way that respects the fundamental rights of human beings.
External links
http://www.redorbit.com, http://www.techeye.net
Read more: http://www.techeye.n…y#ixzz0ze9ScwJq
-
Neo,
Thanks for assembling that synopsis, which consists of caselaw already cited on this site. Seeing it all in one place is helpful in putting the puzzle together for those who don't have time to read the extensive information available on the subject scattered throughout this gargantuan site.
-
1. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not to deny the states authority over anyone, but to deny a VIOLATION of equal protection and due process by states against state citizens and to leave state constitutional rights and federal constitutional rights otherwise INTACT. That is what the amendment itself says. We have been over this again and again. We even gave you a supreme court ruling that said the SAME THING, and you still go on blabbering your silly conspiracy theories.
Quote:“It would be the vainest show of learning to attempt to prove by citations of authority, that up to the adoption of the recent Amendments [the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment], no claim or pretense was set up that those rights depended on the Federal government for their existence or protection, beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the states—such as the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bill of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, and without that of the Federal government. Was it the purpose of the 14th Amendment, by the simple declaration that no state should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the states to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the states?We are convinced that no such result was intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the states, which ratified them. Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1872) , emphasis added]
Is your memory so short and so deficient that you conveniently forgot this case? If you want to piss us off, then just force us to keep repeating ourselves and we will get REALLY pissed off. When are we going to put this STUPID issue to bed?
2. Our position DOES NOT leave any room for error, mistake, or injury when interfacing with the government on government forms. We pointed you at:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ffCitDomTax.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
It says what we are and what we are NOT and leaves absolutely no wiggle room for any judge or bureaucrat and places them in default for a failure to deny. It specifically says the submitter is NOT a statutory citizen as described in 8 USC 1401 and therefore the recipient has no authority to presume or determine otherwise and that the submission is invalid if that presumption is made. The only part of it that you said you didn't like was the statement that the party was one of the TWO types of constitutional citizens, both of which have in common that they are a non-citizen national per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452. Now with your next set of answers, you are probably going to contradict yourself again by agreeing that no matter whether you are a “Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” under the Constitution, you are STILL a non-citizen national per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452. You are a walking contradiction who can't make up his mind and its foolishness to discuss anything further with you.
3. JB: Where are your answers to the last set of admissions before we lock this forum? If the next post by you does not contain answers, this thread will be PERMANENTLY LOCKED from adding further posts and the errant post will be DELETED.
-
That section needs to be updated. The article on “person” has been removed and the “person” they are referring to is a statutory “citizen and national of the United States” per 8 USC 1401, not a constitutional citizen. Thanks for pointing that problem out.
It's a never ending process keeping everything in that book consistent with everything else on the website.
If you want an article on “person”, see:
State Created Office of “Person”
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Sovereignty/OfficeOfPerson.htm
-
Jb,
1. Fourteenth Amendment section 5 creates a CONSTITUTIONAL right that is not a Congressionally created right, to sue state officers in a federal court for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process. That right is statutorily implemented in 42 USC 1583. As I showed from the Section 1583 publication of the Federal Juridicial Center, its origins are the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence it is NOT a congressionally created right or privilege, but a CONSTITUTIONAL right, so there is no disability in claiming it. That right protects all CONSTITUTIONAL but not STATUTORY “persons”, not just “citizens of the United States”. Hence it DOES NOT attach to the status of “citizen of the United States” and therefore does not come with any disability whatsoever. By your failure to deny this statement repeatedly made, you have already agreed to it and now are discrediting yourself by ignoring it.
2. It is a fact that you cannot obtain a passport or travel internationally unless you claim “nationality” in applying for a passport. A foreigner born in another country can be a citizen of a state without being naturalized here, and hence would not qualify for a passport. Hence, there is a disability FOR SOME PEOPLE claiming to be a state citizen WITHOUT claiming some form of national citizenship as well. That is why one must have some way to describe their national relationship, and your vocabulary doesn’t have a remedy for that problem.
3. Your cite from U.S. v. Anthony, 24 F. 829 is FALSE. There is no such case. See for yourself:
http://bulk.resource….gov/c/F1/0024/
4. There you go covering issues that you already agreed were settled. We already established earlier that corporations are “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that Fourteenth Amendemnt “citizens of the United States” include ONLY human beings. That fact was established in the annotated version of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Quote:“Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.14_______________________
14 Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D.La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable “to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or impairment by the law of a State.” Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (1869) . This conclusion was in harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869), to the effect that corporations were not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in Article IV, Sec. 2. See also Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (1912) ; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908) ; Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 U.S. 71, 89 (1928) ; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936) .
[Annotated Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Research Service.
Corporations are born in an ordinary sense as the case you provided indicates, but that is NOT the context we are discussing here. We are discussing what “born” means within the context of ONLY the Fourteenth Amendment in the case of a HUMAN BEING who is a “citizen of the United States”, and the case you cited didn’t refer to that context and therefore is IRRELEVANT. Quit quoting cases out of context.
5. The main subject that started off this thread has already been settled. You argued that you are NOT a Fourteenth Amendment citizen as a person domiciled in a state of the Union. This thread and your silence have established that:
5.1 A “citizen” in the constitution is a “national” under Title 8
5.2 The “citizen” or “Citizen” referenced in the constitution is NOT equal to the “citizen and national” mentioned in 8 USC 1401.
5.3 Fourteenth Amendment citizens are HUMAN BEINGS and not corporations.
5.4 The Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” INCLUDES ALL PEOPLE of ALL races, and therefore also includes the the white male “Citizen” of the original constitution. Therefore, if you claim to be a “Citizen” under the constitution, then you are AUTOMATICALLY ALSO a Fourteenth Amendment constitutional citizen.
5.5 That it is bad and dangerous to call oneself anything that could be confused with a statutory “citizen and national of the United States” as defined in 8 USC 1401. Consequently, one must carefully define both what they are and are not when submitting government forms.
Hence, this argument has already been won in our favor. The only thing you are arguing now is how to describe yourself. Even that issue has been settled, because the Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status that you reviewed does that too.
__________________
IN CONCLUSION:
Now you want to start that argument ALL OVER again. This is BULLSHIT.
1. When are you going to grow up?
2. When are going to quit confusing the statutory and constitutional contexts for the meaning of words? Context is everything.
3. When are you going to quit rearguing issues that have already been settled, such as the fact that the citizen in the fourteenth amendment is ONLY human beings?
4. When are you going to quit confusing NATIONALITY with DOMICILE.
5. When are you going to quit confusing POLITICAL jurisdiction with LEGISLATIVE juristiction?
6. When are you going to address the WHOLE context for citizenship, instead of only half of it? Meaning when are you going to address and apply the domicile issue EQUALLY with nationality? It’s hypocritical to agree that context is important, and then to ignore HALF the context for citizenship.
7. When are you going to quit confusing “United States*” in an international sense with “United States***” in a domestic/constitutional sense. The two are completely different and you keep trying to use “United States*” out of a constitutional sense to add regions to the meaning of “United States***” in the constitution that are NOT incorporated territories.
If you don’t address the other half of the equation, this thread will be locked because you are polluting it with irrelvant nonsense and unsubstantied presumptions that are clearly invalidated by unrebutted evidence already posted in this thread that you willfully ignore.
Are you A.D.D. or do you have Alzheimer’s? You seem to have a very short attention span and a nonexistent memory because you keep re-arguing issues that have already been settled and are unable to apply what has already been agreed to in the context of this interchange.
Because your pride prevents you from admitting you are wrong, we will close this forum with one last set of admissions. You must answer admit or deny to each question. The default answer for anything not answered is admit. If you don’t answer, not only is the default answer established for each question, but this thread will be permanently locked from further comments. If you answer deny, please include evidence to back up the denial. Even an deny answer that has not evidence to back it up shall be counted as an admit answer:
1. Admit that both “Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” within the constitution are statutory “nationals” as indicated in 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452.
2. Admit that “citizen of the United States” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment is a SUPERSET that includes “Citizen” white males AND people of all races, colors, and genders.
Quote:“By the language ‘citizens of the United States’ was meant all such citizens; and by ‘any person’ was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the state [not the federal government but THE STATE!]. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it. The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes, and conditions of men.‘ Id. 128, 129.[. . .]
The fourteenth amendment, by the language, ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ was intended to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race.“
[
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) ]
3. Admit that anyone born in and domiciled within a constitutional state of the Union is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”, BECAUSE that status incorporates the original “Citizen” AND people of all races, colors, and genders.
4. Admit that allegiance implies nationality and the statutory status of being a “national”.
5. Admit that “subject to THE jurisdiction” means the POLITICAL jurisdiction and NOT the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of the central government.
Quote:“In the Constitution of the United States the word “citizen” is generally, if not always, used in a political [rather than LEGAL or statutory] sense to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. It is also used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. “[Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.ed 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763]
6. Admit that “Citizenship” includes two components: NATIONALITY and DOMICILE.
Quote:In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: ‘The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.’ Page 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage rei ed on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: ‘The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,—one by virtue of which he becomes the subject [NATIONAL] of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.‘ And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which ‘the personal rights of the party—that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy— must depend,’ he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country (patria), and his ‘nationality,—that is, natural allegiance,’—’may depend on different laws in different countries.’ Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word ‘citizen,’ not as equivalent to ‘subject,’ but rather to ‘inhabitant’; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
7. Admit that a human being born or naturalized somewhere in the COUNTRY “United States*” who is without a domicile on federal territory is a “national” under Title 8 but not a “citizen” under Title 8.
8. Admit that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” is ONLY a human being and not a corporation.
9. Admit that the only type of “citizen” status that includes corporations is the statutory “citizen and national of the United States” found in 8 USC 1401.
10. Admit that “United States” when used in a geographic sense in the Constitution means the states of the Union and incorporated territories and excludes unincorporated territories.
11. Admit that the ONLY incorporated territory at this time is the District of Columbia.
12. Admit that Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Swain’s Island are NOT “incorporated territories”, and therefore, that the people who live there are:
12.1 Neither statutory “citizens and nationals” per 8 U.S.C. 1401 nor constitutional “citizens of the United States” per the Fourteenth Amendment.
12.2 Statutory “aliens” under both the I.R.C. and Title 8.
13. Admit that the statutory “citizen and national” per 8 USC 1401 is NOT the equivalent to the constitutional “Citizen” or “citizen of the United States”
14. Admit that the term “citizen of the United States” can have at least three different meanings, depending on WHICH “United States” is intended among the THREE United States identified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt.
15. Admit that a “citizen of the United States***” is a Fourteenth Amendment citizen.
16. Admit that a “citizen of the United States**” is a statutory “citizen and national of the United States” per 8 U.S.C. 1401 but NOT a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States***”.
17. Admit that “subject to ITS jurisdiction” means the “United States*” in an international sense and the “United States**” in a domestic sense. Hence, it could have TWO meanings, depending on the context.
18. Admit that being a “citizen” in a statutory context within 8 USC 1401 is based on domicile on federal territory.
If ANY of your answers contradict each other, please provide evidence justifying and explaining the conflict. DO NOT include opinions, but ONLY evidence.
Quote:“Opinions are like assholes: Everyone has one and they all stink.” -
1. The “United States” that DC and the territories were in was the “United States*” in an international sense, not the “United States***” in the constitutional sense. No harm done there.
2. There is no disability in being a citizen of the FEDERAL government. That type of citizen is, in fact, a statutory “non-citizen national”. The problem is being a statutory citizen of the NATIONAL government in the context of exclusive jurisdiction over territories. See:
http://famguardian.o…dies/USvUSA.htm
Don't confuse “federal” with “national”. Two COMPLETELY different things. Federal government deals with sovereign states. National government deals with community property called federal territory.
3. I haven't refused to answer any questions. I have explained all the reasons why your conspiracy theories are precisely that.
3.1 You have agreed through silence that Fourteenth Amendment rights are limited because they only deal with what the feds can enforce against STATE officers in their dealings with state citizens.
3.2 You have agreed that most rights are protected by state governments, state constitutions, and in state courts, rather than federal courts.
3.3 You have agreed that the fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection and due process and NOT the entire bill of rights, and that guarantee only extends to how state officers treat state citizens.
3.4 You agree that the Foureenth Amendment section 1 “citizen of the United States” deals ONLY with human beings and therefore CANNOT deal with any kind of statutory franchise. All franchises deal with public officers and artificial entities ONLY.
3.5 You agree that the Fourteenth Amendment citizen is a superset that includes the capital “C” citizen, per Wong Kim Ark.
3.6 You agree that the the main abuse the de factos are instituting is deliberately confusing statutory and constitutional citizens.
3.7 We both agree it is a dumb idea to refer to oneself as a “citizen” of any kind of “United States” on any government form without attaching the Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status to ensure we aren't made into a statutory citizen or victimized by presumptions.
3.8 You have agreed that context is important, yet you refuse to consider the whole context of the citizenship equation. You are only looking at nationality and refuse to discuss the real origin of both constitutional AND civil rights, which is domicile:
http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm
4. You continue to confuse POLITICAL jurisdiction with LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction. The Wong Kim Ark case deals with POLITICAL jurisdiction, which is NOT synonymous with LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction. This has been pointed out many times and you were silent and therefore agree. Political jurisdiction deals with national allegiance, nationality, and being a statutory NATIONAL. LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction deals with domicile and municipal rather than NATIONAL law. Two completely different things.