[fg_admin]

Neo,

Thanks for that wonderful case. Adds a lot of authority to what we have been saying all along and is consistent with the Supreme Court in the lead post.

We agree with your analysis.

[fg_admin]

LETTER FROM SHERRY JACKSON, STILL IN PRISON BUT UNDER BETTER CONDITIONS

Posted 2010 Aug 25

The last of the paperwork was turned in on June 14th. The magistrate judge will do some kind of recommendation letter and then it goes back to the judge that sentenced me!! I didn't know that.

In the meantime, the prison system has to implement the second chance act. This act gives up to 12 months halfway house (early release) instead of only 6. It appears, based on the limited research that I have done since being back, that the process is still very subjective. However, it may be that instead of being released in spring or summer of next year it could be this year. I will try to research it more. The people here said that they will receive training on the act in mid August and then they will be able to give us a better answer as to how it will impact us.

My address is Sherry Jackson, 59085019, FCC Coleman Camp F119, P.O. Box 1027, Coleman, FL 33521.

Yes, the food is better and my system is getting back to normal. I didn't realize how much more walking I do here. I think I will probably lose 10 pounds very soon do to the heat and the walking. That will be good.

Tell everyone that although I am no longer close to home this place is better because of the food and the exercise, especially since I have my real gym shoes back. I don't know if I told you but I have not had a real pair of shoes on my feel in 7.5 months. I also, have been able to see my face and do my hair (there were no real mirrors, no blow dryers, curlers or real combs at the other places)

I will let you know as soon as I hear anything on the appeal or the second chance act. If you have time you may want to look it up on the web and see what you make of it. Thanks for all your care!!

[fg_admin]

No Safe Harbor on U.S. Gulf Coast – human blood tests show dangerous levels of toxic exposure ~ link ~ Even as BP and US government officials continue to declare the oil spill over at Mississippi Canyon 252 and the cleanup operation an unqualified success, for the first time blood tests on sickened humans have shown signs of exposure to high levels of toxic chemicals related to crude oil and dispersants. Some of the individuals tested have not been on the beaches, were not involved in any cleanup operations or in the Gulf water — they simply live along the Gulf Coast. Several of them are now leaving the area due to a combination of illness and economic hardship. As the media's attention has moved on and the public interest wanes, the suffering and hardship for people along the entire Gulf Coast of the United States from Louisiana to Florida continues to worsen. While BP and the government are scaling back cleanup operations and distancing themselves from legal liability for the environmental destruction, economic hardship, sickness and death resulting from the largest environmental disaster in our nation's history, the situation continues to deteriorate.

The use of the Corexit dispersant 9500 and the highly toxic 9527 by BP, with the approval and assistance of the US Coast Guard and EPA, has been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism. Never before has such a huge quantity of the toxic compound been used anywhere on the planet. Most countries including NATO allies ban it's use and will only grant approval as a last resort after other methods have failed. Britain has banned its use altogether. The NOAA provided extensive information summarizing other nation's policies in regards to Corexit after Senator Barbara Mikulski demanded the information from EPA administrator Lisa Jackson during congressional hearings in July. While the dispersant serves to break down crude oil on the surface and thus makes the oil invisible from the air, it is highly toxic and bioaccumulates in the marine food chain. In humans it is a known carcinogen and its use was widely condemned after Exxon/Valdez and the horrifying health effects on the populations exposed to it there. As it evaporates and becomes airborne, the toxic compounds have moved on shore, creating health impacts that, although apparently large from the numbers of people affected, the full extent is unknown. BP and the US government have effectively been performing the largest chemical experiment in history on a civilian population without their knowledge or consent.

Hydrocarbon levels that exceed safe exposure limits present in multiple areas ~ link

Inland fish kill near Destin, Florida ~ link

[fg_admin]

1. The first cite from Downes v. Bidwell is a DISSENTING opinion from Justice J. Fuller. Dissenting opinions are inadmissible. Only the majority opinion is relevant. This guy clearly doesn’t have a clue, which is why he is in the minority.

He also talking about taxes in the preceding paragraph:

Quote:

As the grant of the power to lay taxes and duties was unqualified as to place, and the words were added for the sole purpose of preventing the uniformity required from being intrinsic, the intention thereby to circumscribe the area within which the power could operate not only cannot be imputed, but the contrary presumption must prevail.

The MAJORITY opinion concluded that Puerto Rico was NOT within the “United States” and he disagreed, so he is obviously WRONG. Two opposing conclusions CANNOT simultaneously be correct.

2. The second case, [Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 US 141, 32 L. ed. 637, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 256], DOES NOT contain the language you cite. It must be in the headnotes. As I have already indicated, the headnotes are note evidence.

3. Let me emphasize ONE LAST IMPORTANT POINT about why you will NEVER find any caselaw that defines “United States” in the Constitution to include federal territory. Here is the the reason why, explained in Downes v. Bidwell by the dissenting opinion:

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; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside the independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers [of absolutism] as other nations of the earth are accustomed to.. I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous [SATANIC] change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.. It will be an evil [SATANIC] day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Minority opinion]

What the above dissenting opinion is alluding to is that:

3.1 The only way they can implement socialism and republicanism side by side at the national level and slowly migrate from one to the other is to have to mutually exclusive jurisdictions at the national level: one protected by the constitution (the republic), and one not (the socialist democracy).

3.2 In order to maintain this separation between the socialism and republicanism, they must maintain TWO separate “United States”: One within the protections of the Constitution within states of the Union (“United States***”), and the other connected to federal territory NOT protected by the Constitution (“United States**”).

3.3 If they EVER defined “United States” within the Constitution as ALSO including federal territory, then even federal territory would the have to be be protected by the Bill of Rights, in which case federal statutory law could no longer do MOST of what it does because it is clearly only intended for federal territory not protected by the Constitituion and beyond the limits of the Constitution. That is the ONLY way they can implement franchises, in fact, which are the heart of their SCAM. Otherwise, it would be treason to set up any government program that makes a business out of alienating rights that are supposed to be “unalienable”. An unalienable right is, after all, a right that you aren’t even allowed to give away to a real, de jure government. Even OFFERING you a bribe to give it away such as a socialist benefit would constitute TREASON. However, those on federal territory not protected by the Constitution aren’t under that restriction and everything for them is a privilege and a franchise.

3.4 If there were not two separate jurisdictions, then judges would no longer be able to play the context switch games between constitutional and statutory jurisdictions to kidnap your identity and move it imperceptably to federal territory devoid of constitutional rights. They would have to end the word games, because they would have no practical effect.

It was the above observations that caused us to begin researching the very subject matter of the meaning of “United States” in the constitution to begin with, over 10 years ago, and to mature it to such a refined state that it is at this point over the years.

Another quote from the majority opinion of the same case also explains why:

Quote:

“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to ‘guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government’ (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, ‘a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,’ Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

What they are essentially saying is that the territories are outside the protection of the Constitution, and hence, outside the “United States” as that term is geographically used within the Constitution. Territories CANNOT be outside the protections of the Constitution WITHOUT also being OUTSIDE the geographical “United States”.

Hence, I predict that you will NEVER find what you are looking for. You will NEVER find any majority opinion of any higher court that ever includes federal territory or territories within the geographical meaning of “United States” as found in the United States Constitution. You are going to beat your head against the wall for yet another ten years like we did and never find what you seek because it is simply incompatible with the globalist agenda that is quickly destroying america as we speak. No one in the government is EVER going to upset the gravy train of plunder they have going by redefining “United States” within the meaning of the Constitution. It violates simple laws of human nature: Never look a gift horse in the moth.

Good luck! You’re going to need MORE than a lifetime to find what you are looking for.

__________

IN CONCLUSION: You still haven’t produced evidence that my hypothesis is wrong that the “United States” as used in the Constitution, when used in the geographic sense, includes states of the Union and excludes federal territory. This subject has been studied carefully by thousands of people on the site for over ten years and NO ONE so far has disproven this one. I have shown you LOTS of cases to prove it, and you have provided NONE that disprove it. You aren’t going to win on this one. If you don’t win, it means:

1. There is nothing wrong with being a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, where “United States” includes states of the Union and excludes federal territory or any land under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

2. Fourteenth Amendment Conspiracy theorists are WRONG.

3. We are right that most of the harm being done is accomplished by confusing the constitutional and statutory contexts for geographic words, as shown in the following:

Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…atusOptions.pdf

4. The best way to fight the harm is to simply define all the geographic terms so carefully that there is not discretion left for silver tongued judges who want to get into your pants.

[fg_admin]

Jb,

You didn't clarify the source of your cites. They are USELESS without the source.

1. You state:

Quote:

” if a person is subject to the state jurisdiction they are Citizens of the States, and will only become citizens of the United States upon their application to that status.”

I don't agree with that. Making application doesn't CREATE the status of constitutional “citizen of the United States”. It is a product of the circumstance of the birth of the person. Making application is only a recognition of a status that was pre-existing.

2. You ask “If “United States” means “states of the union” then how are Indians, that are born in the territories of the United States “born within the United States”? and you quote Wong Kim ark, which says Indians are born in the geographical “United States”. The ANSWER is:

2.1 They DID NOT say within the “territory” of the United States or the “territories”, but “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, “. They said “territorial limits”, which is NOT the same as “territory” or “territories”. Hence, they could only be referring to the constitutional “United States” and the states of the Union comprising it and NO FEDERAL TERRITORIES.

2.2 All indians live on reservations within the borders of EXISTING states of the Union. THOSE states of the Union are in fact part of the constitutional “United States”, and therefore all indian reservations within their borders are ALSO part of the constitutional “United States”.

2.3 No indians not taxed have ever been born in federal “territories” such as Puerto Rico or Guam. There are not indian reservations within Guam or Puerto Rico, and there certainly weren't any at the time of Wong Kim Ark.

2.4 The legal definition of “territory” that I gave you from CJS confirms that any area subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress within the borders of a constitutional State does not qualify as a “territory” or “territories” in a legal sense. Hence, the indians, although born on land under exclusive federal control are NOT within federal “territories”, but within the constitutional “United States”, within a reserveration that is within a State of the Union.

Quote:

Ҥ1. Definitions, Nature, and Distinctions

“The word 'territory,' when used to designate a political organization has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and does not necessarily include all the territorial possessions of the United States, but may include only the portions thereof which are organized and exercise governmental functions under act of congress.”

“While the term 'territory' is often loosely used, and has even been construed to include municipal subdivisions of a territory, and 'territories of the' United States is sometimes used to refer to the entire domain over which the United States exercises dominion, the word 'territory,' when used to designate a political organization, has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and the term 'territory' or 'territories' does not necessarily include only a portion or the portions thereof which are organized and exercise government functions under acts of congress. The term 'territories' has been defined to be political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States, and in this sense the term 'territory' is not a description of a definite area of land but of a political unit governing and being governed as such. The question whether a particular subdivision or entity is a territory is not determined by the particular form of government with which it is, more or less temporarily, invested.

“Territories' or 'territory' as including 'state' or 'states.” While the term 'territories of the' United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress “territory” does not include a foreign state.

“As used in this title, the term 'territories' generally refers to the political subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several states.”

[86 C.J.S. [Corpus, Juris, Secundum, Legal Encyclopedia], Territories]

2.5 Note that Indian reservations do not exercise government under an act of Congress as indicated above, but rather govern themselves exclusively. Hence, they are NOT a “territory” as legally defined.

2.6. The word “territory” does not include ANY PORTION of a state of the Union. The reason is clear, which is that the Constitution forbids the national government from creating a state within a state, and a territory within the external limits of a state would satisfy that description. The only correct way to describe an area within a constitutional state that was ceded to the national government and under its exclusive control is a “federal area”, and NOT a “territory”. This is confirmed by the following federal report:

Federal Areas within the States

http://sedm.org/khxc…edAreasInStates

Quote:

“Territories' or 'territory' as including 'state' or 'states.” While the term 'territories of the' United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress “territory” does not include a foreign state.

Hence, indians born “within the territorial limits of the United States” which is also within the geographical limits of the “United States”, can only mean indians born on a reservation within the exterior limits of a Constitutional State, which state is within the constitutional “United States”, and which is not “territory” of the United States within the legal meaning. Since the constitutional State is within the geographical limits of the “United States”, then so are all of the indian reservations within it. Some states have multiple such indian reservations, and especially in the western United States.

3. I don't agree with the statement: “that “citizens of the United States” [Federal citizens] are to be free of State control so far as congress states. “

That's not true. I already provided you a quote to disprove that:

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 14^th 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]

_________________

I'm still correct. You are the one who is wrong on this subject, because, as usual, you aren't looking at the whole picture and are making unsubstantiated presumptions. You PRESUMED that “territorial limits” is the same as “territory”. WRONG!

Presumptions are not a substitute for evidence and are a violation of due process of law if they prejudice the rights of anyone, including us.

Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…Presumption.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

[fg_admin]

1. The quote you provided from Downes very carefully points out the CONTEXT by saying “in the international and domestic sense”, which means “United States*”, not “United States***”. They obviously were NOT talking in the constitutional sense because they used the word “international”, which is the TREATY context I mentioned earlier identired as “United States*”. That context is the COUNTRY, which consists of BOTH “United States**” (federal law) and “United States***” (constitution)

2. As far as what “or in any place subject to their jurisdiction” means, it depends on the context. In the thirteenth amendment, it means the territories and NOT the states of the Union. I don’t know of any other context, unless you can point one out. And I’m not going to presume. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. The Supreme Court mentioned that “THEIR JURISDICTION” used in the amendment did not include the constitutional United States. Look at Downes again.

Quote:

“The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude ‘within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,‘ is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union. To say that the phraseology of this amendment was due to the fact that it was intended to prohibit slavery in the seceded states, under a possible interpretation that those states were no longer a part of the Union, is to confess the very point in issue, since it involves an admission that, if these states were not a part of the Union, they were still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.’ Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to persons born in any place ‘subject to their jurisdiction.“

/i][url url=”http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Evidence/Q14.011.pdf”][i]Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)[/i][/url][i

By “UNION”, they can ONLY mean the Constitutional “United States” geographically.

3. Territories are NOT protected by the Constitution IN ITS ENTIRELY until they are admitted to the Union. Hence, they are not within the constitutional “United States” UNTIL they are admitted. The process of admission to the Union:

3.1 Changes their character from STATUTORY states to CONSTITUTIONAL States.

3.2 Changes them from “domestic” to “foreign” in a legislative sense in relation to the national government.

3.3 Adds them to the geographical context of “United States” within the meaning of the Constitution.

This was hinted at in Downes:

Quote:

“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to ‘guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government’ (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, ‘a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,’ Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

4. You are confused again. Incorporated means joining the Union. You are interpreting it to mean that an interim TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT has been established by legislative act of Congress. These are to COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things.

DON’T PRESUME! Presumptions are the weapons of tyrants, and you shouldn’t imitate your oppressors.

_______________

IN CONCLUSION: DO YOU or DO YOU NOT now believe, based on the overwhelming and completely consistent evidence presented by your own hand and explained by mine, that:

1. You are a “citizen of the United States” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, after considering that the amendment, according to Wong Kim Ark, was meant to include ALL RACES, including the white male that you are?

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.[/b][/u]”

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) ]

2. There is no longer any distinction between White males and any other race and therefore, that a “Citizen” in the original constitution and a “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendmentare are absolutely equivalent for all constitutional purposes?

In your answer to the above questions, please support them with ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. I don’t give a DAMN about your political opinion. ONLY EVIDENCE can be used to justify your position.

[fg_admin]

1. The cite identified as item four about the thirteen amendment was in error and has been fixed.

2. The POLITICAL paper you provided is NOT legal evidence. It is a statement of opinion not originating in the Superme Court about what the court COULD do, not what they actually SAID. It is not relevant. It refers to the Alvarez case but in making that statement, it is not quoting the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Rule of Evidence 610 says that all beliefs and opinions are NOT admissible as evidence. Hence, the entire paper is not really legal evidence of ANYTHING.

3. The quote from Downes about territories being within the United States is NOT compatible with the majority opinion in Downes. It is a dissenting opinion. In Downes, as I have already pointed out, Puerto Rico was ruled as NOT being within the “United States” within the meaning of the revenue clauses of the Constitution.

Quote:

“We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States[***] within the revenue clauses of the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional, so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case. “

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

Puerto Rico CANNOT be outside the constitutional “United States” for ONE purpose, and yet inside for any other purpose. It is WHOLLY outside the constitutional “United States”, which explains the additional language they had to add to the Thirteenth and Eighteenth Amendments to ADD territories.

Congress has always had the ability to reach territories legislatively, and all such territories, including unincorporated or inchoate states soon to become territories, are subject to exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and within the STATUTORY “United States” but not the Constitutional “United States”. Once again, the court was speaking in a generic and statutory sense, NOT in a constitutional sense. CONTEXT is everything, and you are again confusing the contexts.

4. Treaties are an entirely different context to the Constitution. In the context of international treaties, the United States government negotiates on behalf of the Nation. Hence, “United States”, IN THE CONTEXT OF TREATIES, means the COUNTRY and neither the Constitutional “United States***” nor the statutory “United States**”. That would be the FIRST definition of United States described in Hooven and Allison: “United States*”. Remember:

4.1 Constitution=”United States***”

4.2 Federal statutory law=”United States**”

4.3 Treaties = “United States*”

5. NO, the “United States” in the Thirteenth Amendment DOES NOT include federal territory, or else the language “or any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction” would not need to be added to the phrase “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. “, and the additional phrase would be redundant and unnecessary.

6. In the case of the Moore case, neither the Westlaw “Headnotes”, nor the “Syllabus” form a part of any court ruling. Only the majority holding is the actual ruling. Your cite is IRRELEVANT. The exact quote IN THE MAJORITY HOLDING you provided from the case must specifically reference the constitution, or else it is presumed to refer to the statutory context, which is the case in the vast majority of court rulings. Judges will frequently try to confuse the two contexts in order to usurp jurisdiction they do not have, so you must be VERY careful to avoid presumptions about what they mean by studying it carefully.

7. You don't understand what “unincorporated” means. It means that the territory becomes a member of the Constitutional “Union” and therefore “incorporated” only by being ADMITTED into the Union. ONLY by that method can geographical land be annexed to the definition of “United States” within the GEOGRAPHIC meaning of the Constitution. Since neither Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, nor Swains Island have ever done that, they remain UNINCOPORATED. All such UNICORPORATED territories and possessions are listed in Title 48 of the U.S.C.

You have a LOT to learn about how to do legal research, what constitutes evidence, and all the invisible presumptions you are making. If you don't watch out, you are going to dig yourself into a hole that you will never be able to get out of. Loose lips and undisiplined thinking will sink your ship.

[fg_admin]

1. I agree absolutely with that paper on the insular cases. They agree that “United States” EVERYWHERE in the constitution , when used in a geographic context, means states of the Union and excludes federal territory.

As far as “subject to THEIR jurisdiction” in the Thirteenth Amendment being the ONLY provision in the Constitution that incorporates territories rather than States, that interpretation is also correct and was explained by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows.:

Quote:

“The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude ‘within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,‘ is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union. To say that the phraseology of this amendment was due to the fact that it was intended to prohibit slavery in the seceded states, under a possible interpretation that those states were no longer a part of the Union, is to confess the very point in issue, since it involves an admission that, if these states were not a part of the Union, they were still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.’ Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to persons born in any place ‘subject to their jurisdiction.“

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

Yes, the Thirteenth Amendment also applies outside the constitutional “United States”, and the phrase “or in any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction” had to be added to extend its reach BEYOND the Constitutional “United States” to what your quote called “unincorporated territories”. My argument still holds that “United States” excludes federal territory within the Constitution, when used ONLY in a geographic sense, and the phraseology added in the Thirteenth Amendment to extend it to the territories is proof of that, just as the previous cite you made from Amendment XVIII (1919), in which “and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had to be added in order to extend the amendment to territories.

Note that I DID NOT say that there were NO PROVISIONS of the constitution that extended to federal territory, but rather that:

1. “United States” in a geographic sense as used in the constitution ALWAYS refers to constitutional states of the Union and excludes federal territory.

2. When they want to include territories, they must ADD additional language such as they did in Amendment XVIII and the the Thirteenth Amendment.

3. The only article of the constitution that refers specifically and ONLY to federal territory is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, as the Insular Case paper also says.

There was a long time lapse between the Thirteenth Amendment, and Amendment XVIII, and this may explain why there are TWO approaches to describing federal territory, and why the LATTER one is more clear:

1. “or in any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction”. Amendment 13

2. “and all territory subject to THE jurisdiction thereof”. Amendment 18

__________________________

2. The Moore v. People case was NOT obviously talking in a constitutional context, but rather a GENERAL context that also considers statutory law. They never even mentioned the constitution.

__________________________

3. Finally, as I keep saying, one can definitely be a constitutional “citizen of the United States” and yet NOT be a citizen of a constitutional state of the Union. Who might that be? People born in a constitutional state of the Union AND:

1. Domiciled abroad in a foreign country….OR

2. Physically present in a state who do not choose a domicile there.

Note that the domicile requirement within “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to THE jurisdiction” only applies to how nationality is conferred, not to the circumstances of those AFTER it is conferred. You can start out as a constitutional citizen by being born in a state, and then move to a foreign country. While IN the foreign country and domiciled there:

1. The locals will call you an American National and a alien.

2. In relation to the federal courts, you would be a “stateless person” with sovereign immunity from any federal judgment under 28 USC 1605. See:

http://famguardian.o…elessPerson.htm

3. In relation to the IRS, you would be a “nonresident alien”. See:

Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ienPosition.pdf

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

4. If you changed your domicile back to federal territory while domiciled abroad, you would be considered a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 26 USC 911 and 8 USC 1401, but ONLY if you ALSO were serving in a public office in the U.S. government AT THAT TIME. All “persons” and “individuals” in the I.R.C. are public offices and government instrumentalities, not private human beings. See:

The “Trade or Business” Scam

http://famguardian.o…usinessScam.htm

5. If you changed your domicile back to a constitutional but not statutory state of the Union while domiciled abroad, you would continue to be a nonresident alien.

______________

IN CONCLUSION: Everything you have provided simply confirms EVERYTHING I have said so far.

The real winner: our readers, who have exhaustive proof that everything we say on this website is absolutely truthful and accurate, and can be independently verified with overwhelming evidence by simply reading the law.

[fg_admin]

You didn't describe the whole context so it is difficult to decipher. However:

1. “United States” means states of the Union when used in a geographic sense.

2. “and all territory” adds federal territories and possessions.

3. “Subject to THE jurisdiction” means domicile, and it refers to the states of the Union Plus “all territory”.

4. The word “territory” as used in federal statutory law has a special meaning, and it means all areas NOT within the borders of a state. See:

http://famguardian.o…c/territory.htm

Hence, they are referring to the WHOLE country, consisting of the Constitutional United States AND federal territory COMBINED. That means it includes Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.

“Subject to the jurisdiction” is relative to the area referenced, and it means domicile. They referenced the constitutional United States PLUS “and all territory”, so they mean people domiciled in BOTH areas, because “subject to the jurisdiction” equates with domicile.

Here is a definition of “territory” from CJS to prove it:

Quote:

Ҥ1. Definitions, Nature, and Distinctions

“The word 'territory,' when used to designate a political organization has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and does not necessarily include all the territorial possessions of the United States, but may include only the portions thereof which are organized and exercise governmental functions under act of congress.”

“While the term 'territory' is often loosely used, and has even been construed to include municipal subdivisions of a territory, and 'territories of the' United States is sometimes used to refer to the entire domain over which the United States exercises dominion, the word 'territory,' when used to designate a political organization, has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and the term 'territory' or 'territories' does not necessarily include only a portion or the portions thereof which are organized and exercise government functions under acts of congress. The term 'territories' has been defined to be political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States, and in this sense the term 'territory' is not a description of a definite area of land but of a political unit governing and being governed as such. The question whether a particular subdivision or entity is a territory is not determined by the particular form of government with which it is, more or less temporarily, invested.

“Territories' or 'territory' as including 'state' or 'states.” While the term 'territories of the' United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress “territory” does not include a foreign state.

“As used in this title, the term 'territories' generally refers to the political subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several states.”

[86 C.J.S. [Corpus, Juris, Secundum, Legal Encyclopedia], Territories]

[fg_admin]

You're not troubleshooting it, because you aren't trying to find the answer yourself and independently BEFORE you post to these forums. You're forcing us to do all the work you should be doing. You should know by now that it is STUPID to ask anyone in the legal profession a question that you don't ALREADY have an answer for. If you don't figure that out, they will BLOW UP on the witness stand as a hostile witness and take your whole case down in flames.

Giving back means:

1. Posing the question to YOURSELF.

2. Finding all the evidence to support the answer YOURSELF.

3. Come up with your best answer.

4. Posting the question AND your answer and all the evidence supporting the answer to these forums.

5. Defending the answer in front of all forum participants.

You are forcing us to do steps 2 through 5, so you are STEALING. You are going to need ALL the above skills if the corrupt US inc ever gets you into a corner, because you know no attorney is ever going to let you do anything that would jeopardize his license, like, God forbid, locate and insist on the truth in the court record. We are trying to prepare you to be self-sufficient, and you keep sucking on OUR socialist tit. We don't need more socialists here, but independent thinkers who solve their own problems and post the results for the benefit of others. The thousands of pages of research on this site prove we have done that. When are you going to start adding SOLUTIONS that help others to this site instead of just taking what helps you personally or what saves you time.

The amendment you cited used “United states and all territory”, so it includes the constitutional states and territories COMBINED, which means THE WHOLE COUNTRY and no subset of the country. If they had just meant the Constitutional states only, they would have excluded “territory” from the amendment. As I keep saying, “United States”, in a GEOGRAPHIC sense ALWAYS means states of the Union and excludes federal territory. This amendment is the clearest proof of that, because they added the phrase “and all territory” after “United States” to ensure it applied EVERYWHERE in the COUNTRY.

By “country”, I mean the constitutional states of the Union and ALL territories and possessions. It is THIS country that being a statutory “national” refers to in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21).

You are not discerning the context. Context is EVERYTHING. That is why you continue to be confused. Understanding context requires that you:

1. REALLY listen to what we say.

2. Investigate what we say and check its accuracy and controvert it IMMEDIATELY if it is wrong, so the issue is permanently resolved and never has to be covered again. You keep forcing us to revisit issues because you refuse to deal with them as they are raised.

3. Don't answer back until you have investigated EVERYTHING and come up with your own answers. That is why schools give HOME WORK, so you have to learn to solve problems on your own and independently.

4. Read WHOLE court cases. You didn't read the whole case for all the cases you cited so far, did you?

5. Read it with your lips so it sinks in.

6. Stopping and asking yourself questions and writing them down as you read.

7. Highighting important parts of things your read to emphasize the key points.

…not just take quotes out of context, scratching your head, and then force someone like us to explain it all to you because you are too lazy to read the whole case or think critically yourself. Did you read the WHOLE Wong Kim Ark case? All 50 pages? NO you didn't, because you wouldn't be asking any of these questions if you had. Go big or stay home. Dont be lazy or impatient or dependent on anyone, including us. If you do, you are NOT sovereign. Sovereignty BEGINS with personal responsibility for all your choices and actions. All we are doing by hanging around here is rewarding and encouraging your laziness and dependency, which helps NO ONE.

We are here to teach people HOW to fish, not to fish for them. Grow up.

The reason the government has been allowed to get so big and so EVIL, is precisely because people like you dont' want to take personal responsiblity for solving their own problems before they drag someone else into it. See:

The Unlimited Liability Universe

http://famguardian.o…ityUniverse.htm

You have proven that you need a nanny government because you don't want to solve your own problems and want to force them on others or avoid them.

[fg_admin]

Yes.

The “United States” in the Constitution is used in TWO senses:

1. The government, or “United States**”.

2. The collective GEOGRAPHIC states of the Union, or “United States***”

When it is used ONLY in its GEOGRAPHIC sense, it means #2. Number 2 is the sense I have used it so far, and that is why I relate it to federal territory. #2 is also the sense it is used in the context of being a constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”, because citizenship is ALWAYS tied to specific territory.

When it is used in the sense of number 1, it means the corporation and public trust, but NOT a geographic place. In NO case however, is it EVER used in a geographic sense to include federal territory. The two examples you gave are #1 and they are not a geographic sense, but the Fourteenth Amendment and every reference to citizenship is the geographic sense, because constitutional citizenship is always tied to specific geography.

As you have already pointed out, “of the United States” implies OWNED by the corporation and therefore “belonging to”, not within any specific geographic limit. That is the same sense it is used in the phrase “national of the United States” in 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(:cool: and 8 USC 1408.

This is ALL covered in the Why a National pamphlet, section 2

http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf

WHEN are you going to to your homework so you don't have to needlessly STEAL our time. Sovereigns dont' steal and if they do, they cease to be sovereigns. What you are you going to give back in return?

[fg_admin]

They obviously mean “United States” to be the constitutional states, which they also call “several States”. The term “several States” is also found in the Constitution and therefore means constitutional states. Otherwise the phrase “State or Territory” would be redundant, because the only statutory states are territories.

They also use the phrase “all territory…not within the limits of existing States”. Federal statutory states ARE territory, so the only thing they can be talking about are constitutional states.

Come on. Use your little noggin. You are wasting our time. Do I look like your nanny?

As I keep saying, “United States” as used in the Constitution means the constitutional states and excludes federal territory. The supremes were saying that as late as 1901 in Downes v. Bidwell just cited. It hasn't changed since then, and if it did, you as the moving party bear the burden of proving with evidence that it did.

There is no conspiracy going on and the laws are constitutional. They are just abusing presumption, words of art, and statutory franchises to do what Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, which was to bring admiralty/franchise law within the borders of constitutional states. That's why we fought the revolution, and it has to happen again. They are doing it entirely and exclusively by confusing constitutional and statutory contexts and not defining which context they mean. It's a shell game whose object is to STEAL from you rather than protect you.

[fg_admin]

Technically, no. They are not defining the “United States” or the residency requirements incorrectly. The reason is because the U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell said:

1. The District of Columbia, before it became a district, was part of the Constitutional United States.

2. Even after the states of Maryland and Virginia ceded the ten mile district, the land so ceded did not cease to be part of the constitutional “United States”.

3. The district could only cease to be covered by consent of the state that ceded. Virginia took back their land, leaving only the Maryland portion, and Maryland never consented to remove the protections of the Constitution from the District. Hence, they still apply.

So my reference ot he District of Columbia being federal territory is not quite accurate, and I have gone back and replaced it with Puerto Rico. What I meant was Puerty Rico and Guam, and NOT D.C., are federal territory NOT protected by the Constitution.

Therefore, they are technically correct. Here is the language from Downes proving that:

Quote:

“Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L. ed. 98, was an action of trespass or, as appears by the original record, replevin, brought in the circuit court for the District of Columbia to try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general purposes on that District. 3 Stat. at L. 216, chap. 60. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in one as legislating [182 U.S. 244, 260] for the states; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under art. 1, 8, giving to Congress the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,’ which ‘shall be uniform throughout the United States,’ inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States [described in the Constitution]. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States. The fact that art. 1 , 2, declares that ‘representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . according to their respective numbers’ furnished a standard by which taxes were apportioned, but not to exempt any part of the country from their operation. ‘The words used do not mean that direct taxes shall be imposed on states only which are represented, or shall be apportioned to representatives; but that direct taxation, in its application to states, shall be apportioned to numbers.’ That art. 1, 9, 4, declaring that direct taxes shall be laid in proportion to the census, was applicable to the District of Columbia, ‘and will enable Congress to apportion on it its just and equal share of the burden, with the same accuracy as on the respective states. If the tax be laid in this proportion, it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax in proportion to the census or enumeration referred to.’ It was further held that the words of the 9th section did not ‘in terms require that the system of direct taxation, when resorted to, shall be extended to the territories, as the words of the 2d section require that it shall be extended to all the states. They therefore may, without violence, be understood to give a rule when the territories shall be taxed, without imposing the necessity of taxing them.'”

“There could be no doubt as to the correctness of this conclusion, so far, at least, as it applied to the District of Columbia. This District had been a part of the states of Maryland and [182 U.S. 244, 261] Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States[***]. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably. [/size]There are steps which can never be taken backward. The tie that bound the states of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could not be dissolved, without at least the consent of the Federal and state governments to a formal separation. The mere cession of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority of the states, but it did not take it out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. Neither party had ever consented to that construction of the cession. If, before the District was set off, Congress had passed an unconstitutional act affecting its inhabitants, it would have been void. If done after the District was created, it would have been equally void; in other words, Congress could not do indirectly, by carving out the District, what it could not do directly. The District still remained a part of the United States, protected by the Constitution. Indeed, it would have been a fanciful construction to hold that territory which had been once a part of the United States ceased to be such by being ceded directly to the Federal government.”

[. . .]

“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to ‘guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government’ (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, ‘a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,’ Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244(1901)]

Once the constitution attaches to specific land, Congress cannot, by legislation, DETACH it. Otherwise, the rights that it protects could and would become revocable privileges and would therefore no longer be “inalienable”. Notice they said that ceding D.C. to the federal government did not remove it from the “United States” as used in the Constitution. This is a tacit admission that “United States” MEANS states of the Union and excludes federal territory. This constraint is even applicable to places that CONTINUE to be territories. Once Congress grants a territory a “right” found in the Constitution, they can’t revoke it legislatively, without at least the CONSENT of the people in that territory. That is why they said: “The Constitution has attached to it IRREVOCABLY. There are steps that can NEVER be taken backward.”

To say that a territory is NOT protected by the Constitution is the equivalent of saying that it is NOT within the Constitutional “United States”. You should always think that way, based on the above.

As I keep saying over and over, the “United States” as used in the Constitution EXCLUDES federal territory. When is this issue going to be FINALLY settled and so we can put it to bed? It’s very frustrating to keep repeating myself. This conversation is going NOWHERE and I don’t wish to discuss it further. I am getting NOTHING out of it.

You could have discerned all of this on your own as we have, by simply reading what is on this site and reading the rulings of the Supreme Court, IF YOU REALLY CARED enough to learn it. No one taught us this stuff. We learned it by independent research, just as you must. Instead you FORCE us to teach you by making false accusations and keeping us on the defensive instead of earning the truth by the sweat of your own brow and study as we have. You don’t deserve to have the truth if you aren’t willing to learn and discern and study it yourself. The world, including us, owes you NOTHING. You are contributing NOTHING to these forums by continuing to ask questions, ignoring our answers, reasking them, making needless demands on our time, falsely accusing us of things we didn’t say, and adding no value in return. Nothing you have showed us is new or adds any value so far. These forums are for NEW discoveries and correcting errors to existing materials on this site. They are NOT for your use as a free personal tutoring tool so you can avoid your own study. That is an ABUSE of these forums. This sets a VERY bad example for others that we hope will not be repeated, because if it was WE WOULD HAVE NO LIFE.

[fg_admin]

1. No. You can be “natural born” and even a statutory citizen under 8 U.S.C. 1401 and NOT be a constitutional citizen. If you were born in Puerto Rico, a territory, and are domiciled there, you would be a statutory “citizen and national” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 but NOT a constitutional citizen. All it takes to have “nationality” is to be born ANYWHERE in the COUNTRY, including federal territory and the only exception is indians not taxed, according to Wong Kim Ark. If that Puerto Rico natural born person born on federal territory moves to AND CHANGES HIS DOMICILE TO a state of the Union, then he becomes a constitutional “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and is qualified for President. If he never LEAVES Puerto Rico to change his domicile to a constitutional state of the Union, he remains INELIGIBLE for President because he doesn’t meet the residence (domicile) requirement. The quote you provided agrees with this:

Quote:

Residence in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories and possessions does not qualify as residence within the United States for these purposes.

The only “United States” that makes sense in the above quote is the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States” in the context of President, and therefore states of the Union and NOT federal territory. The government is usurping its authority by confusing constitutional and statutory citizens by abusing words of art and confusing the constitutional and statutory contexts for terms, as I have repeatedly said.

2. No. The only thing it proves is that you aren’t looking at the WHOLE picture. Citizenship is a combination of NATIONALITY and DOMICILE. You must have BOTH to be President. If you aren’t domiciled in a constitutional state of the Union, then you aren’t a constitutional citizen or state citizen, and therefore are ineligible, because your domicile is OUTSIDE the constitutional “United States”. The quote above proves that by saying that territories don’t satisfy the residency requirement, meaning the DOMICILE prerequisite.

3. No. You are confusing NATIONALITY and DOMICILE. I already showed you two cases where the Supreme Court acknowedged that “United States” in the constitution MEANS ONLY states of the Union and excludes federal territory.

Quote:

“We are therefore of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States[***] within the revenue clauses of the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional, so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in this case. “

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

“As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution upon [FEDERAL] territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.”

[O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)]

Note the phrase “not part of the United States” within the…Constitution”. At the time, Puerto Rico was a TERRITORY, and hence NOT within the Constitutional “United States”. Same for the second quote, which uses the phrase “not part of the United States within THE meaning of the Constitution”, implying that there is ONLY ONE MEANING, and that meaning includes states of the Union and excludes federal territory.

The territories in your CRS quote simply prove that the candidate meets the NATIONALITY prerequisite and was “natural born” in the COUNTRY, but not the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States”. But you still have the DOMICILE in the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States” requirement to meet, and those in territories don’t satisfy the domicile requirement, as the quote shows. Hence, they are not “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION”, which as I have repeatedly said means DOMICILED within a state of the Union (and therefore the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States”) for the purposes of being a constitutional citizen. Those NOT domiciled in a state of the Union become NATIONALS and STATUTORY CITIZENS, but not CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENS. Please quit confusing the contexts. You can be “natural born” by being born ANYWHERE within the COUNTRY, to include federal territory. But you must be DOMICILED in a state of the Union to be “subject to THE jurisdiction”, because the Constitution ONLY relates to states of the Union and excludes federal territories.

If you disagree, show me the case of even one President who ran for President WHILE DOMICILED IN A FEDERAL TERRITORY (and therefore OUTSIDE the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States”) or in a state WHILE IT WAS A TERRITORY. It has NEVER happened and can’t lawfully happen because it would be like putting a foreigner (ala Obama) in charge of a country he doesn’t even live in.

4. Al Gore was eligible for president because when he RAN for president, he had a domicile in a constitutional state of the Union. Otherwise he would have been domiciled in a legislatively “foreign state” in relation to the “United States” within the constitution, which is ONLY the states of the Union and excludes federal territory. D.C. continues to be within the Constitutional United States, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell, even though it is not part of a constitutional State of the Union at this time.

5. I have ALWAYS said it is dangerous to use any word to describe yourself that is found in any federal law, and that includes “citizen of the United States” and “U.S. citizen”. It is MUCH better to use:

Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #002.001

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ffCitDomTax.pdf

I have said this OVER and OVER and you keep ignoring this. I even directed you to the form and asked you for constructive suggestions. No arguments there. HOWEVER, it really doesn’t matter what you call yourself, as long as you define it carefully enough and indicate what it DOES NOT include, and address both the STATUTORY and CONSTITUTIONAL contexts to leave no discretion to a judge or presumption to a bureaucrat. Then you have tied their hands from making presumptions about your status that could injure your rights or make you into a presumed SUBJECT of federal territorial law.

6 The Wong Kim Ark case has a wonderful explanation of the differences between NATIONALITY/ALLEGIANCE/POLITICAL STATUS on the one hand and DOMICILE on the other hand. The COUNTRY they are referring to is a state of the Union, by the way:

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 relied 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 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 [meaning STATE constitutional rights and STATE law], 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 [E.G. CONSTITUTIONAL 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.[in THIS case, FEDERAL LAW]‘ 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.

7. The above analysis is completely consistent with the status imputed to those who were born anywhere in America, but who are PRESENTLY domiciled in the District of Columbia and therefore federal territory. They said that such persons are NOT constitutional citizens within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said this precisely because “United States” as used in the Constitution EXCLUDES federal territory, as I keep saying, OVER AND OVER again, and which you never disagree with and therefore AGREE with.

Quote:

“The 1^st section of the 14^th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States

[fg_admin]

1. The cite from U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Insular Areas and Their Political Development, by Andorra Bruno and Garrine P. Laney, CRS Report 96-578GOV (Washington: Jun. 17, 1996), pp. 9, 21, 33 DOES NOT contradict our position. We have always said that being a constitutional citizen equates with being a STATUTORY “national”, and that there are at least three types of “nationals”. Read the Why a National pamphlet again.

Why You Are a “national”

http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf

Look at the diagram in section 10.8 and you will see that citizens of Puerto Rico ARE in fact “nationals”, and hence have “nationality”. That is the title of Title 8 of the U.S.C.: “NATIONALITY AND ALIENS”. They are also statutory “citizens and nationals of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. 1401. You are confusing contexts AGAIN:

1.1 A CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen of the United States” is a STATUTORY “non-citizen national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452.

1.2 A STATUTORY “citizen” is NOWHERE found in the Constitution, is a creation of Congress, and a franchisee.

1.3 The cite you provide refers to “natural born citizens”, which are found in the constitution and therefore relate to being a statutory “national”. Being “natural born”, according to Wong Kim Ark, means being born SOMEWHERE in the COUNTRY, including federal territory. You can be “natural born” without being born in a constitutional state of the Union.

1.4 A STATUTORY “citizen and national of the United States” in 8 USC 1401 INCLUDES the status of “national”, but as we said, it is only one of several types of nationals.

Read the Why a National pamphlet and you will understand. National is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. It is a construct of Congress that describes everyone born SOMEWHERE in the country, including federal territory. If you are born in Puerto Rico, then you are a statutory “national”, but you would also be a “national of the United States” if domiciled in the statutory “United States” per 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(:cool:.

I think you are confused, because you don’t understand the relationship between being a statutory “national” and a constitutional citizen. The diagrams in section 10 of the Why A National pamphlet should clear up that confusion. Anyone born ANYWHERE in America, including territories and possessions, is a “national”, but when I speak of a constitutional citizen, I mean a person:

a. Who is a statutory national.

b. Who is born somewhere in America, including federal territory.

c. Who is PRESENTLY domiciled with a constitutional but not statutory state of the Union. That is what Wong Kim Ark said “subject to THE jurisdiction meant”: DOMICILED somewhere in the Union, and if it is a constitutional citizen, somewhere in the CONSTITITIONAL states and therefore outside of federal territory.

d. Who is not the statutory citizen identified in 8 USC 1401, 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ), and 26 USC 3121(e).

The cite you provided does not fit that description and therefore, these people are not constitutional citizens as defined above. You are NOT considering all the prerequisites of being a constitutional citizen and thereby getting confused. Look at the diagrams and tables in section 10 and your confusion should be resolved. The tables consider BOTH domicile AND nationality or being a national TOGETHER. You are only looking at one of the factors.

REMEMBER: When I use the terms “constitutional citizen” and “state citizen”, they are equivalent. The Fourteenth Amendment ONLY talks about THESE citizens. It mentions NOTHING about what a citizen is within a territory or possession. That is why Congress had to invent the “national” term, define it, and create so many statutory statutes, such as:

a. “national” under 8 USC 1101(a)(21)

b. “national of the United States” under 8 USC 1101(a)(22)

c. “citizen and national of the United States” under 8 USC 1401

2. The United States v. Anthony case refers to the relation of state citizens to the state government, not state citizens in relation to the national government. Hence, it does not contradict our position.

3. You state: “TO DATE, I have NOT seen a single case claiming that a State Citizen has less rights than a citizen of the United States, only the opposite.” The less rights relates to what is enforceable in federal court, not to rights the state citizen actually has that can be enforced in other forums, such as state court. Of course they are less for the federal government, because they can’t supervise or play nanny with a foreign state and the Fourteenth AMendment only protects the peculiar discrimination put upon blacks and other races.

4. As far as Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886), so what? The fact that a right is enforced through a federal statute doesn’t make it congressional in origin. The important point is WHERE did the right originate. If it originated in the Constitution, then it is not a disability that it is enforced by congressional legislation. 42 USC 1983 is the example I showed where a right originated in the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore did not relate to statutory citizens. Don’t assume that all federal legislation automatically implies that you must be a statutory citizen to take advantage of. There are exceptions, and 42 USC 1983 is an example of a statute that a constitutional citizen can take advantage of without being subject to any other “act of Congress”.

5. As far as slaughterhouse, read the 48 page Wong Kim Ark case carefully. It explains clearly that “subject to the jurisdiction” means DOMICILED somewhere in the country, including a constitutional state, and therefore owing allegiance to the government of that place while physically there. It’s not worth arguing about semantics. The context is what is important.

6. As far as Jones v. Temmer, 839 F. Supp. 1226, once again, there are TWO sets of rights and TWO constitutions. They are simply saying that the Fourteenth Amendment does not enforce the state constitution upon the state officer in a federal court. Nothing more.

5. As far as Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829-30 (1971), as I said, Wong Kim Ark establishes what “Subject to the” means. That court cite once again is referring to the Fourteenth Amendment section 1, and the “subject to ITS jurisdiction” there means THE STATE and not the feds. How many times do I have to repeat that? This is really getting old.

In conclusion: Citizenship is a deliberately complex subject, and that complexity is being used to disguise the shell game and “kidnapping” that is going on that transports the legal identity but not the physical body of state citizens to federal territory against their will. You need to spend a lot more time reading the Why a National Pamphlet, because you aren’t looking at the WHOLE picture as we have for ten years. You are only looking at one tiny little piece of the puzzle under a microscope, being overly literal with the semantics, confusing which “its” they are talking about, because there are TWO, etc. That is always going to lead to unnecessary confusion. The only “ITS” used in the Fourteenth Amendment refers to a state of the Union, not the feds.

It is our opinion that everything the government does with the law is constitutional. The problem is not what the law says, but how it is misapplied, mis-enforced, and mis-interpreted in a way that destroys equal protection and injures people. We state this clearly on our About Us page, section 1:

http://famguardian.o…try/aboutus.htm

You are chasing a ghost if you think that anything the law says is unconstitutional. The problem are the word games that judges play, which are really the only thing they can do to expand their jurisdiction. All of those word games are destroyed and rendered ineffective when the following forms are attached to legal pleadings and used during discovery:

1. Federal Pleading Attachment, Litigation Tool #01.002

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Liti…gAttachment.pdf

2. Rules of Presumption and STatutory Interpretation, Litigation Tool #01.006

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Liti…ConstInterp.pdf

3. Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003

DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…atusOptions.pdf

Improving these forms is a far more useful expense of time than what you are pursuing.