[fg_admin]

jb,

1. I don’t see a problem with any of the case cites you provide. They don’t contradict anything on this website that I am aware of or anything we have stated so far, so there is not controversy to settle or explain. If there is a controversy, then you as the moving party need to expressly point it out so it can be dealt with. We’re not going to guess what the problem is.

2. The cite from U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) is interesting, and obviously proves the existence of statutory “citizens of the United States**”, thus bolstering our position:

“The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.“

3. I don’t like having to repeat myself four or five times on an issue. That is the source of our frustration, which is that you don’t argue with what I said and therefore agree, but at the same time keep going back and reraising issues that were settled earlier by your silence. If you would quit forcing us to cover old ground, we would be less frustrated with you.

4. There is a difference between “its jurisdiction” and “its citizens”. They don’t appear equivalent at all and that issue isn’t worth worrying about or emphasizing as you have.

5. If everything we have said so far is uncontroverted and correct, then the distinctions between “its jurisdiction” and “the jurisdiction” won’t affect the outcome anyway, so why beat a dead horse? That seems to be the only thing left that you are arguing about.

6. We already pointed out that a citizen of the District of Columbia is NOT a constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment citizen. Aren’t you paying attention? It’s in previous posts within this thread and also in the Why a National pamphlet. Aren’t you even reading our materials? There you go again, forcing us to needlessly repeat ourselves and waste our time.

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]

SOURCE: http://www.independe…ocial-security/

______

History Lesson on Social Security Cards Your Social Security

Posted on July 25, 2010 by christopher Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9]

Franklin Roosevelt (D), introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary. Although it is still voluntary you must be willing to live without bank accounts, unless you know how to get around this BANK requirement. The government does not require non-interest bearing accounts to use Social Security Numbers. It is also nearly impossible to get a job without and SSN. Oh and of course there is 42 USC section 666(a)(13)(A) with requires you to give the Fascists an SSN to get any license issued by the State to Buy Or Sell.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program. It is now 15.3% Including the employer's contribution or if you are a taxpayer and self-employeed on the first $90,000.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. It is no longer tax deductible.

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, but under President Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed.

The truth is that if you keep and use a Social Security Number that you are MARKED and TRACKED by Public Servants. In other words you need that Mark aka SS card, to buy or sell.

How does it feel to be a voluntary slave?

[fg_admin]

SOURCE: http://www.azcentral…l#ixzz0y6k0YZ2f

______________

Wesley Snipes is calling for a mistrial in his tax evasion investigation.

OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1')

The 'Demolition Man' star – who was handed a three-year sentence by U.S. courts in April 2008 after he was found to have “willfully neglected” to file his income tax return – insists his trial wasn't fair because some jurors were prejudiced against him.

He has already been granted numerous postponements in starting his sentence, which was most recently due to begin on September 2.

In documents filed to a Florida court on Monday, Wesley claims his defense team received emails after the trial from two jurors who claimed three others “told us Snipes was guilty before they even heard the first piece of evidence.”

The 48-year-old actor believes this evidence should be enough to have a mistrial declared, but also further claims the U.S. government didn't disclose charges brought before his former accountant and a key witness against him, Kenneth Starr.

Kenneth was already under investigation for engaging in “criminal activities of conspiring to evade income taxes” with another client at the time of the actor's trial.

A new date for Snipes' incarceration will only be set after several pending motions in the case have been ruled on.

Read more: http://www.azcentral…l#ixzz0yDhz70yg

[fg_admin]

The nation is divided into those who work hard for the benefit of others, and the others who are hardly working – and enjoy those benefits.

That is inequitable, and should not be.

But as long as the electorate is composed of a majority of takers, the givers won't prevail AND the laws on bribery will chronically be violated as a matter of public policy.

[fg_admin]

1. I agree that a corporation can be a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, just as the case you provided indicates. BUT that same “person” CANNOT be and IS NOT, by the long list of cases I provided, a “citizen” within the meaning of that amendment.

2. NO, the cite from Wong Kim Ark does not do anything in your favor, because as I keep pointing out, “within ITS jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 refers to the constitutional STATE, and not the federal government. How many times do have to repeat this? It’s already been brought up at least four times and conveniently ignored or avoided by you and therefore admitted as being true under Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 8(b)(6).

3. The Why a National pamphlet DOES NOT state that corporations are not “persons”, it states that they ARE NOT constitutional “citizens”, which is and continues to be completely accurate and unrebutted and therefore truthful in your view.

4. STATUTORY citizens only have rights conferred by Congress, but CONSTITUTIONAL citizens do not exercise any privilege or franchise. As I said before, anything that cannot be taken away from you without your consent is NOT a privilege. And the Courts have repeatedly held that the government cannot unilaterally strip a man of his nationality without his consent. By “nationality”, I mean constitutional and not statutory citizenship.

5. You are trying to confuse constitutional and statutory “citizens of the United States”. In the future, please preface every use of the term “citizen of the United States” with the word “statutory” or “constitutional” so we know which one you are referring to. Otherwsie, you’re just as bad as the terrorists running the government and the courts that we are both fighting. Their main weapon is verbicide and words of art.

6. We didn’t set the RECORD straight, but your foggy and absolutely erroneous thinking on the subject of citizenship straight. Unclear thinking can land you in jail! If you don’t fix that, your own ignorance and presumption will put you in jail:

Quote:

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

[Hosea 4:6, Bible, NKJV]

7. Based on this conversation, our staff has FURTHER updated the following pamphlet, sections 3 through 3.3 and 15.3, to remove the confusion that you are obviously experiencing:

Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen

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

IN CONCLUSION: We here at FG have won this argument and have proven over and over that Fourteenth Amendment Conspiracy theorists are:

1. Presumptuous fools.

2. Needlessly discrediting freedom advocates within the legal community because of their erroneous views on citizenship.

3. Needlessly wasting valuable energy, resources, and attention of freedom lovers on insignificant and unimportant issues so as to impede overall progress.

4. Uneducated about the law.

5. Deserving of all the ridicule the courts hurl at them.

6. Interpreting caselaw out of context.

7. FALSELY PRESUMING that statutory and constitutional contexts of the following terms are equivalent when in fact they are NOT:

7.1 State

7.2 United States

7.3 “citizen of the United States”

8. DO NOT understand the most basic aspects of federal jurisdiction. See:

Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018

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

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

[fg_admin]

JB

You don't have a clue what a right is, do you? You ignored everything I previously said about the Fourteenth Amendment and here we are rearguing the same STUPID stuff.

1. The Bill of Rights, which is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, fixes the rights between the national government and people in the states. It is NOT and never has been a limitation between those same people in the states and their state governments. The state constitutions define the rights of state citizens in relation to their state governments, not the federal constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed because the states were disrespecting the rights of blacks under THEIR jurisdiction. As I showed you in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment guarantees ONLY due process and equal protection and does NOT require that the states honor the entire federal bill of rights in relation to people within their jurisdiction. Hence, most of the bill of rights, both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment are and continue to be NOT binding upon state governments. That doesn't mean that people don't have those rights who are Fourtenth Amendment citizens. It simply means that those rights are not guaranteed or protected against state encroachment in a federal court against a state officer.

You obviously don't understand the distinction I'm trying to make and keep rearguing it. You are using the case law out of context as a way to show that Fourteenth Amendment citizens don't have rights or that they lose rights by claiming to be Fourteenth Amendment citizens. That's hogwash. All that the cases you cited [Twining, Slaughterhouse, First national bank] prove is that the national government won't enforce the federal bill of rights in a federal court against a state officer that is violating them in relation to a state citizen. So what? You ought to go into a state court when you are suing a state officer and invoke the state constitution instead of the federal constitution if your rights are violated. You can still protect your rights in state court against a state officer and invoke the state constitution. You don't lose the right, you just have to go to a different court, forum, and venue to protect it. No love lost there.

2. As far as corporations being citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, you need to reconcile that ONE case with the long list I gave you from the Fourteenth Amendment Annotated. Here is the list that all agree that the citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is a human being and NOT a corporation. I have more cases on my side, so the weight of evidence is on my side. Here is the list again so you can search through them. I think the one you quoted is out of context:

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.

SOURCE: http://www.law.corne…tml#amdt14a_hd1]

What you did was use one of the above cases, the last case, to prove the OPPOSITE conclusion that the annotated fourteenth amendment stated, which is ridiculous. You're not reading the Fourteenth Amendment carefully enough. The case you cited said they were a “person”, not a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Apparently, you can be a “person” without being a “citizen” within the meaning of the amendment. Look at the text of the Amendment to see how they distinguish “persons” from “citizens”:

Quote:

Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A “person” within the amendment is someone with a domicile in a constitutional state who is therefore protected by the state. That entity can be EITHER an artifical being OR a human being. A “citizen”, on the other hand, is ONLY a human being and someone who, IN ADDITION to having a domicile in said state, is also a member of the political community and who participates in the administration of the government as a jurist and a voter. Hence, he or she (not IT, but he or she as a human being) is therefore an instrumentality of the state government and an extension of it. That is why 18 USC 201 identifies jurists as “public officers”…they are acting as an officer of the government in their capacity as jurists.

The above amendment speaks about TWO groups of people not one:

1. Persons;

2. citizens of the United States.

From reading the amendment, you can be a “person” WITHOUT being a “citizen”. Who would that be? How about:

1. Nonresident aliens

2. Resident aliens

3. Those who are state citizens but not federal citizens.

4. Corporations, which the above cases said were not “citizens” under the amendment.

5. Foreign governments who have property that is protected within the constitutional state.

“Persons” is a SUPERSET of “citizens”. All “citizens” under the amendment are “persons”, but not all “persons” are “citizens”. The cite you provided indicated that corporations were “persons”, not “citizens”.

At least do your home work before you clutter these forums with such dumb presumptions. Do I look like your nanny? That's what you're forcing me to be by doing the home work you don't seem to either be able or willing to do.

[fg_admin]

I don't claim to have civil rights. 42 USC 1983 is not a civil right, but a codification of rights originating from the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution, and NOT Congress. Even the U.S. SUpreme Court thinks you are wrong, and I agree with them:

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]

You are on the wrong side of this one, because the origin of the right claimed determines whether it is a franchise or civil privilege on the one hand, or an unalienable right on the other. Rights that are documented in the Constitution but do not originate there cannot be a “civil right”, franchise, or privilege as you call it. CONGRESS has to create the right, not the Constitution, before it can be a privilege or a franchise.

As the U.S. SUpreme Court admits above, AFTER the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, that amendment did not transfer the protection of rights from states to the federal government. Hence, it did not cause constitutional citizens to become franchisees and public officers of the federal government.

[fg_admin]

1. For the benefit of other readers and of posterity reading this debate AFTER the Why You Are a National Pamphlet is changed or updated later, the statement objected to by julius bragg is:

Quote:

Fourteenth Amendment Conspiracy Theorists who deny that they are “citizens of the United States” as described in the Fourteenth Amendment, indirectly, are admitting that the ONLY thing they can be or are is a corporation or artificial entity. Why? Because the ONLY type of “citizen” who is, in fact, expressly identified by the U.S. Supreme Court as a human being and NOT an artificial entity or corporation IS a constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”. We talk about this common freedom fighter fallacy in more detail later in section 15.3. Kinda ironic that ignorant freedom lovers who don’t read the law would do that to themselves, don’t you think?

Don’t just say its incorrect, but rather describe how to say what is said to make it truthful but preserve as much of what was said as possible. You didn’t do that, so you’re a whiner and we don’t need whiners.

We stand by this statement and it is correct. We both agree so far that there are only TWO classes of citizens: Statutory and Constitutional. We also agree so far that you can be one or the other, but not both. If you therefore say you are NOT a constitutional citizen but that you were born or naturalized here within America, then you are implying that the ONLY type of citizen left for you to be is a statutory citizen.

The above statement does not imply that a French Citizen is a corporation, and it doesn’t say anything about foreigners at all. It implies that if you say you are a citizen of anything American, and yet deny that you are a “citizen of the United States***”, then the only other thing you can be is a statutory citizen, a PRIVILEGED creation and franchisee of congress, and an artificial entity AS A “CITIZEN” of anything american. If you say you aren’t a constitutional citizen, then the only other thing you CAN be is a statutory citizen and subject of congress domiciled on federal territory. It doesn’t speak at all about foreigners, who are both statutory AND constitutional aliens, and therefore not even the subject of the above paragraph. Perhaps the following language could be added to clarify this intended precondition:

Quote:

Fourteenth Amendment Conspiracy Theorists born or naturalized in America BUT who still deny that they are “citizens of the United States***” as described in the Fourteenth Amendment, indirectly, are admitting that the ONLY other type of “citizen” they can be or are is a corporation or artificial entity. Why? Because the ONLY type of “citizen” who is, in fact, expressly identified by the U.S. Supreme Court as a human being and NOT an artificial entity or corporation IS a constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States***”. We talk about this common freedom fighter fallacy in more detail later in section 15.3. Kinda ironic that ignorant freedom lovers who don’t read the law would do that to themselves, don’t you think? Remember: Congress can only impose duties civilly upon things that it creates, and it didn’t create human beings, so the only thing they can therefore impose any kind of duty upon are are artificial entities such as corporations and franchises and the public officers who operate either. Those protected by the Constitution and who are therefore constitutional citizens are prohibited from involutnary servitude by the Thirteenth Amendment. Hence, by claiming you are not a Fourteenth Amendment Citizen then you cease to be a constitutional citizen and you become the statutory citizen mentioned in 31 USC 5314 who has a DUTY to violate their Fifth Amendment right of privacy and a DUTY under 26 CFR 1.6012-1 to file a tax return which also incriminates yourself.

In response to this, you will probably try to say that there are TWO types of Constitutional citizens: “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, and “Citizens” under the original constitution. As I have said, IT DOESN’T MATTER which one you call yourself because:

1.1 BOTH of them rely on the Constitutional meaning of “United States”, which is states of the Union and excludes federal territory….AND

Quote:

“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 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)]

[/size]

Notice that “upon territory which is NOT part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution”. The word “the” implies ONLY one meaning rather than multiple meanings, and the meaning obviously excludes federal territory. This is also confirmed in the following case, talking about a federal territory, by saying that it is NOT within the meaning of the “United States” as far as the constitution is concerned;

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)]

1.2 No court ruling I have ever read bothers to distinguish the Upper or Lower case citizen or even uses the upper case “Citizen” at all. Hence, IT DOESN’T MATTER what capitalization you use and you shouldn’t make a mountain out of a mole hill.

In fact, look at the following enactment from the Statutes at Large IMMEDIATELY AFTER the constitution was ratified and before the Fourteenth Amendment. EVEN THEN they used the lower case. IT DOESN’T MATTER and no court has ever or will ever make it an issue, so its IRRELEVANT and calling yourself simply a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen is all that is necessary:

http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX01.004.pdf

If you think the capitalization REALLY matters, show me EVEN ONE case or statute where the upper and lower case citizen are ever distinguished. THERE AIN’T NONE, DUDE! If you even raise this issue in court, you are going to look like [and you ARE, for that matter] the very Fourteenth Amendment Conspiracy Theorist spoken of above. They are going to think you’re a crackpot [and they just might be right!] and sanction you.

2. You very conveniently missed highlighting the most important aspect of the allegiance owed in Wong Kim Ark, which IS emphasized in the Why a National pamphlet:

Quote:

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States*, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

[U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]

2.1 “Their” is plural, and matches with “them”, and refers to states of the Union. The Supreme Court wrote that ruling, which is part of the United States, and yet they referred to THEIR instead of ITS or THE jurisdiction.

2.2 As Wong Kim Ark states, the type of jurisdiction created is ONLY POLITICAL jurisdiction, not legislative jurisdiction, because, as pointed out, the Constitution is a political and not a legal document that does not obligate human beings, but the States and Central governments to which it delegates power.

3. Being “completely subject” means being DOMICILED somewhere in the country and that you don’t owe allegiance to anyone but the “United States”, meaning you don’t owe allegiance to a foreign power at the time of birth. That is why the children of foreign ambassadors are excluded: Because their allegiance is divided between two countries. Here is what the supremes said:

The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here [the COUNTRY, not the statutory “United States”], is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.‘ It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.‘ Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92.“

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

4. I didn’t say the court in Wong Kim Ark misquoted the Fourteenth Amendment. Go back and read what I said again:

Quote:

3. The “subject to ITS jurisdiction” in Wong Kim Ark refers to a constitutional but not statutory state, and NOT the central government. Read the case and you will see that. Being domiciled within a constitutional but not statutory State is what makes one “subject to ITS jurisdiction”. Here is the text of the amendment:

Quote

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Here again is what that explanation relates to:

Quote:

“It is impossible to construe the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words ‘within its jurisdiction,'”

The “its jurisdiction” MEANS that of the constitutional and not statutory state of the Union, and NOT the federal government that is statutorily foreign in relation to said state.

4. Even the Wong Kim Ark case you beat on doesn’t prove your point. The chinese child who became an American citizen by being born in the “United States” was born to two Chinese nationals while in San Franchisco, California AFTER California became a state of the Union. The case said NOTHING about being born on federal territory.

5. The language of Wong Kim Ark settles the meaning of “United States” also. It means states of the Union. Here is the proof:

Quote:

“The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.‘ Id. 73, 74. ‘”

“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. “

If they had meant a statutory citizen, then they could not have used “citizen of the Union” or “jurisdiction of the state”.

6. Wong Kim Ark also states that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to bring people of ALL races into citizenship, not just blacks:

Quote:

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.’ Benny v. O’Brien (1895) 58 N. J. Law, 36, 39, 40, 32 Atl. 696.

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country [not the “United States**”, but the “COUNTRY”], including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger

[. . .]

But, as already observed, it is impossible to attribute to the words, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ (that is to say, of the United States), at the beginning, a less comprehensive meaning than to the words ‘within its jurisdiction’ (that is, of the state), at the end of the same section; or to hold that persons, who are indisputably ‘within the jurisdiction’ of the state, are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the nation.

7. Note also that in Wong Kim Ark, they said that quotes from the Congressional Record are inadmissible as evidence, just as I said earlier:

Quote:

Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the amendment to the Chinese race was considered and not overlooked.

[fg_admin]

This post is to report that this interchange has been very helpful in EXPANDING AND IMPROVING BUT NOT CORRECTING our documentation explaining citizenship. Based on it, our staff recently went back and added to the following document some of the key points of this discussion coming from our side of the debate:

Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitution but not Statutory Citizen

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

In particular, sections 3 through 3.3 were expanded and improved, and section 15.3 was added by our staff.

The reason these forums exist in the first place is to improve and expand our publications to make them more useful to our audience. This interchange has not revealed anything inaccurate about our research, but has revealed a better way to explain our position and more evidence to back it up.

Thanks to all for their participation in this important discussion. It has sharpened our sword and that of our members for battle even further.

[fg_admin]

1. A comment on the statement:

Quote:

“A Constitutional, but not statutory or 14th Amendment 'citizen of the United States'” and dont forget, a “federal” human being is just as bad as a corporation!!

As I keep staying, that approach works for white males over 21 years old, but not all people. All of the approaches developed on this site are intended for general use by the largest possible audience. Your approach obviously is not and therefore could not be advocated in all cases. It's also selfish only to think about your own situation and not about a remedy for EVERYONE. If you aren't a white male, such as a black or a woman, what would you use? The only thing you can use is what we advocate, which is:

1. A Constitutional but not statutory Citizen.

2. A non-citizen national per 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452

3. Subject to the POLITICAL and not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of the United States.

4. NOT a “national of the United States” or “United States national” per 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(:cool: or 8 USC 1408.

5. NOT a statutory “citizen” or “citizen and national of the United States” per 8 USC 1401, 26 USC 3121(e), or 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ).

6. NOT subject to the exclusive LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of any act of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.

7. NOT domiciled anywhere in the statutory “United States” as defined or referenced in any federal statute, meaning federal territory.

8. NOT representing any federal instrumentality as a public officer or engaged in a “trade or business” as defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(26).

The ONLY way to ensure one isn't victimized by presumptions is to describe BOTH what you ARE and what you ARE NOT. THAT is the approach taken in the following form, and it's the only thing that is really effective:

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

Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the above form to work for EVERYONE, not just the WHITE MALE capital “C” and “Citizen” that you are?

The ONLY place where all this debate REALLY matters is how our members describe themselves on a government form or to a court. If that isn't right, then all this expense of time is a huge waste. And if you don't at least care about THAT, you shouldn't even be here in the first place wasting our time in what we call “academic masturbation”.

2. I agree that you can't accept federal benefits, but I disagree that you can't claim to be a Fourteenth Amendment citizen or that any liablity attaches to it so long as you describe yourself as indicated above. As I have already said and proven with evidence, “United States” as used in the Constitution means states of the Union and excludes federal territory, when used in a geographical sense. Hence, whether one is an upper case Citizen or a lower case citizen, there is no connection to federal territory and therefore statutory citizenship. You agree with that determination because you haven't rebutted it or disproven the evidence presented so far on that subject. Arguing about capitalization or about the meaning of “United States” in federal statutes beyond that point is a HUGE waste of time.

[fg_admin]

1. The ONLY “States” mentioned in the Constitution are constitutional states and NOT federal territories or statutory “States” such as that in 28 USC 1332(e) mentioned earlier.

Quote:

It is sufficient to observe in relation to these three fundamental instruments [Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution, and the Treaty of Peace with Spain], that it can nowhere be inferred that the *251 territories were considered a part of the United States. The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states; and even the provision relied upon here, that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform 'throughout the United States,' is explained by subsequent provisions of the Constitution, that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state,' and 'no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.' In short, the Constitution deals with states, their people, and their representatives.

[. . .]

“The earliest case is that of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 2 L. ed. 332, in which this court held that, under that clause of the Constitution limiting the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to controversies between citizens of different states, a citizen of the District of Columbia [Meaning a STATUTORY “citizen and national of the United States” under 8 USC 1401] could not maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States. It was argued that the word 'state.' in that connection, was used simply to denote a distinct political society. 'But,' said the Chief Justice, 'as the act of Congress obviously used the word 'state' in reference to that term as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution , . . . and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.' This case was followed in Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L. ed. 825, and quite recently in Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 , 41 L. ed. 1049, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. The same rule was applied to citizens of territories in New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91, 4 L. ed. 44, in which an attempt was made to distinguish a territory from the District of Columbia. But it was said that 'neither of them is a state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution.' In Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343, 12 L. ed. 181, and in Miners' Bank v. Iowa ex rel. District Prosecuting Attorney, 12 How. 1, 13 L. ed. 867, it was held that under the judiciary act, permitting writs of error to the supreme court of a state in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question, an act of a territorial legislature was not within the contemplation of Congress.”

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

The above ruling occurred AFTER the Fourteenth Amendment and after the Fifteenth Amendment. Therefore the “State” to which you refer in Amendment 15 is ONLY a constitutional state and not a statutory state, meaning a federal territory. As I keep saying, “United States” as used in the Constitution means states of the Union and excludes ALL federal territory and therefore excludes all statutory “States” such as that appearing in 28 USC 1332(e).

2. The legislative branch is a political branch of the government and the Congressional Record is political speech. Political opinions such as the Congressional Record are NOT legal evidence per F.R. Evid. 610. Only the Statutes at Large WHEN ENACTED INTO POSITIVE LAW under 1 USC 204, are LEGAL EVIDENCE. Hence, no court could or should entertain the opinion of a Congresman as legal evidence of anything. I've seen rulings on this, but they escape me at this time. I already showed you what the U.S. Supreme Court thinks “subject to THE jurisdiction means”, and THEY said in Wong Kim Ark that it meant POLITICAL jurisdiction RATHER than LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction, and that it include a “state of the Union”. I don't give a damn about what a congresman thinks it means and neither do the Federal Rules of Evidence. That Congressman didn't write the Fourteenth Amendment, and the legislative intent such as that extracted from the congressional record ONLY becomes important when the discussion is ABOUT the ratification of the amendment. The interchange you quote doesn't fit that circumstance. Its IRRELEVANT and inadmissible.

An attempt to allow a court to be affected by political speech of another branch, in fact, violates the separation of powers by involving courts in “political questions”. Courts only go to the Congressional record when the language of the Amendment or statute is unclear. Ordinarily, the rules of statutory construction and interpretation and the CONTEXT are sufficient to reveal the intent. In the case of the Fourteenth Amendment, at least, it appears that this alone was sufficient for the courts to decide the meaning. None of the cases you cited went to the Congressional record, so it must have been irrelevant.

_____________________

IN CONCLUSION: You aren't confused at all. You are just trying to delay and avoid the inevitable and humbling admission that you are wrong and that you have wasted a ton of time defending what federal courts would call a “frivolous position” about the Fourteenth Amendment. If you had argued this idiotic issue the way you did in a federal court, they would have fined or sanctioned you and not even bothered to explain why you are wrong. At least I explained.

I've come at this issue from many different directions, and all the directions point to the SAME inescapable conclusions that are entirely consistent with themselves. Hence, what I propose must be the only truth. What you propose contradicts the references I have provided in many ways, and hence cannot be truth. I asked you for the proof you need to confirm you position and you can't provide it. All you can offer are presumptions. It's time to put up the white flag. I wish I had bet you some big money on this.

[fg_admin]

In reading the Annotated Fourteenth Amendment, check out the following language which agrees with the distinctions we are making between constitutional and statutory citizenship:

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) .

SOURCE: Annotated Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Research Service:

http://www.law.corne…tml#amdt14a_hd1

I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to adopt a citizenship that the courts have emphatically and repeatedly emphasized IN NO WAY is connected with the status of being a corporation. Isn't the main problem with the I.R.C. that all “taxpayers” in fact are instrumentalities and public officers of a federal corporation? What better way to disspel the myth that you operate in that capacity than to adopt the status of CONSTITUTIONAL but not STATUTORY citizen and to quote the above case showing that it means a HUMAN BEING and EMPHATICALLY NOT a corporation and therefore government instrumentality of any kind? You're trying to bite the hand that feeds you, DUDE!

ON THE OTHER HAND, the STATUTORY “citizen and national of the United States” DOES include corporations, and therefore artificial persons.

Quote:

“A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws [meaning STATUTES, meaning STATUTORY CITIZENS] of which it was created, and of that state or country only.”

[19 Corpus Juris Secundum, Corporations, §886]

Notice they use the phrase “under the laws of which it was created”, MEANING under the STATUTES and NOT the CONSTITUTION. All corporations are, in fact, statutory franchises and statutory privileges. They exercise PUBLIC rights rather than Constitutional rights, and they are a creation of Congress, not of the Constitution. That is why they are statutory citizens but not constitutional citizens: Because they are created in the image of their parens patriae, which is the government that granted the franchise and which itself is domiciled on federal territory in the District of Criminals. Here is an example:

Quote:

At common law, a “corporation” was an “artificial perso[n] endowed with the legal capacity of perpetual succession” consisting either of a single individual (termed a “corporation sole”) or of a collection of several individuals (a “corporation aggregate”). 3 H. Stephen, Commentaries on the Laws of England 166, 168 (1st Am. ed. 1845). The sovereign was considered a corporation. See id., at 170; see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *467. Under the definitions supplied by contemporary law dictionaries, Territories would have been classified as “corporations” (and hence as “persons”) at the time that 1983 was enacted and the Dictionary Act recodified. See W. Anderson, A Dictionary of Law 261 (1893) (“All corporations were originally modeled upon a state or nation“); 1 J. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America 318-319 (11th ed. 1866) (“In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation”); Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 154 (1886) (“`The United States is a . . . great corporation . . . ordained and established by the American people'”) (quoting United [495 U.S. 182, 202] States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1216 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.)); Cotton v. United States, 11 How. 229, 231 (1851) (United States is “a corporation”). See generally Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 561-562 (1819) (explaining history of term “corporation”).

[Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182 (1990)]

And here is a supreme court ruling admitting that coroporations are not CONSTITUTIONAL citizens.

Quote:

The first thing which strikes attention, in the position thus affirmed, is the want of precision and perspicuity in its terms. The court affirm that a corporation created by, and transacting business within a State, is to be deemed an inhabitant of that State. But the article of the Constitution does not make inhabitancy a requisite of the condition of suing or being sued; that requisite is citizenship. Moreover, although citizenship implies the right of residence, the latter by no means implies citizenship. Again, it is said that these corporations may be treated as citizens, for the purpose of suing or being sued. Even if the distinction here attempted were comprehensible, it would be a sufficient reply to it, that the Constitution does not provide that those who may be treated as citizens, may sue or be sued, but that the jurisdiction shall be limited to citizens only; citizens in right and in fact. The distinction attempted seems to be without meaning, for the Constitution or the laws nowhere define such a being as a quasi citizen, to be called into existence for particular purposes; a being without any of the attributes of citizenship, but the one for which he may be temporarily and arbitrarily created, and to be dismissed from existence the moment the particular purposes of his creation shall have been answered. In a political, or legal sense, none can be treated or dealt with by the government as citizens, but those who are citizens in reality. It would follow, then, by necessary induction, from the argument of the court, that as a corporation must be treated as a citizen, it must be so treated to all intents and purposes, because it is a citizen. Each citizen (if not under old governments) certainly does, under our system of polity, possess the same rights and faculties, and sustain the same obligations, political, social, and moral, which appertain to each of his fellow-citizens. As a citizen, then, of a State, or of the United States, a corporation would be eligible to the State or Federal legislatures; and if created by either the State or Federal governments, might, as a native-born citizen, aspire to the office of President of the United States-or to the command of armies, or fleets, in which last example, so far as the character of the commander would form a part of it, we should have the poetical romance of the spectre ship realized in our Republic. And should this incorporeal and invisible commander not acquit himself in color or in conduct, we might see him, provided his arrest were practicable, sent to answer his delinquencies before a court-martial, and subjected to the penalties *102 of the articles of war. Sir Edward Coke has declared, that a corporation cannot commit treason, felony, or other crime; neither is it capable of suffering a traitor's or felon's punishment; for it is not liable to corporeal penalties-that it can perform no personal duties, for it cannot take an oath for the due execution of an office; neither can it be arrested or committed to prison, for its existence being ideal, no man can arrest it; neither can it be excommunicated, for it has no soul. But these doctrines of Lord Coke were founded upon an apprehension of the law now treated as antiquated and obsolete. His lordship did not anticipate an improvement by which a corporation could be transformed into a citizen, and by that transformation be given a physical existence, and endowed with soul and body too. The incongruities here attempted to be shown as necessarily deducible from the decisions of the cases of the Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, and of the Cincinnati and Louisville Railroad Company v. Letson, afford some illustration of the effects which must ever follow a departure from the settled principles of the law. These principles are always traceable to a wise and deeply founded experience; they are, therefore, ever consentaneous, and in harmony with themselves and with reason; and whenever abandoned as guides to the judicial course, the aberration must lead to bewildering uncertainty and confusion. Conducted by these principles, consecrated both by time and the obedience of sages, I am brought to the following conclusions: 1st. That by no sound or reasonable interpretation, can a corporation-a mere faculty in law, be transformed into a citizen, or treated as a citizen. 2d. That the second section of the third article of the Constitution, investing the courts of the United States with jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different States, cannot be made to embrace controversies to which corporations and not citizens are parties; and that the assumption, by those courts, of jurisdiction in such cases, must involve a palpable infraction of the article and section just referred to. 3d. That in the cause before us, the party defendant in the Circuit Court having been a corporation aggregate, created by the State of New Jersey, the Circuit Court could not properly take cognizance thereof; and, therefore, this cause should be remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions that it be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

[Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co., 55 U.S. 80 (1852)]

A much later U.S. Supreme Court case decades after the above said the following about the citizenship of corporations, and this holding was after the Fourteenth Amendment:

Quote:

“…it is well settled that a corporation created by a state is a citizen of the state, within the meaning of those provisions of the constitution and statutes of the United States which define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Railroad Co. v. Railroad Co., 112 U.S. 414 , 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 208; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 178; Pennsylvania v. Bridge Co., 13 How. 518.”

[State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888)]

And what “courts” above are they talking about? Article IV statutory franchise courts administering statutory federal franchises. The following book establishes that all U.S. District Court are Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 statutory franchise courts and that they are NOT Article III courts dealing with CONSTITUTIONL RIGHTS. The “provisions of the Constitution” they are referring to is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, and since that provision deals with federal property, then it can only imply a franchise. Article III deals with RIGHTS rather than federal property, but there ARE NOT any Article III courts left except the District of Columbia. All the others, including U.S. District Courts, are Article 4, property and franchise courts. The income tax and social security franchises they are administering and the office filled by the “taxpayer” and all the rights attached to the office and the TIN License Number is the PROPERTY managed by these property courts.

What Happened to Justice?

http://sedm.org/Item…HappJustice.htm

So for the purpose of federal STATUTES, a corporation is a citizen, but even to this day, the above caselaw still holds that a corporation is NOT a constitutional citizen and that constitutional citizens EXCLUDE corporations and artificial persons and include ONLY human beings. This also now explains the following cite:

Quote:

Domicile and citizen are synonymous in federal courts, Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., D.C. Pa., 55 F.Supp. 981, 982; inhabitant, resident and citizen are synonymous, Standard Stoker Co. v. Lower, D.C.Md., 46 F.2d 678, 683.

[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 311]

DOMICILE on federal territory establishes CIVIL status and STATUTORY status and federal LEGISLATIVE rather than POLITICAL jurisdiction. Nationality does NOT. See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “taxpayer” require Your Consent

http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm

Those who are domiciled on federal territory are statutory “citizens and nationals of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 and therefore can also include corporations, but these same statutory citizens ARE NOT Constitutional citizens. That is why 28 U.S.C. 1332 is necessary in defining STATUTORY diversity and why the “citizen” they are referring to in that statute is NOT a constitutional but rather a statutory citizen:

http://www.law.corne…32—-000-.html

Notice that 28 USC 1332(e) defines “State” as a STATUTORY state, not a CONSTITUTIONAL state. The reason the above statute is necessary AT ALL is because Constitutional diversity and the Constitution itself DO NOT apply on federal territory. Otherwise, Article 3 Section 2 would and should cover such issues, but it DOESN”T:

http://caselaw.lp.fi…tion/article03/

I think I've beat this dead horse to DEATH. And I think that I've also proven in spades why Fourteenth Amendment conspiracy theorists are often and DESERVEDLY criticized by the federal courts and the federal government: Because they are presumptuous fools who don't understand the most basic aspect of the English language and the study of law. In real estate LOCATION is everything. In law CONTEXT is everything. The SAME word or phrase can have a completely different meaning because of the context. That is why a “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment can be so different from a “citizen and national of the United states” in 8 USC 1401, because it is a DIFFERENT “United States” in the two contexts and venues. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION is the word of the day.

[fg_admin]

1. The rights of state citizenship they are referring to are rights under the STATE consitution. THOSE rights are ONLY protected by the state created by that state constitution. Rights under the federal constitution and under state constitutions are NOT equal. Most state constitutions, in fact, grant MORE rights than the federal constitution.

2. If there was a violation of rights under the STATE constitution, the cites you provide are saying that they are not a “federal question” cognizable in a federal court under the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 or 42 USC 1983 and may ONLY be litigated in a state court. Neverthless, they are still “rights” within the state, and you still have standing to sue, but ONLY in the state court.

3. State citizenship can be just as much a “privilege” as that of being a federal constitutional citizen and therefore statutory “national”. Every state of the Union can place conditions, just like that of the central government, over who is permitted to be a STATE constitutional citizen of THAT state and that state only.

4. The “limited rights” of those who claim to be CONSTITUTIONAL but not STATUTORY “citizens of the United States” identified in the Fourteenth Amendment means:

4.1 The SUBSET of the bill of rights protected against encroachment BY STATE ACTORS that is guaranteed by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

4.2 NOT ALL of the federal Bill of Rights can form a cause of action against ONLY a state officer under 42 USC 1983 for a violation of rights. That doesn’t mean that the CONSTITUTIONAL state citizen does not HAVE those rights, but only that the federal courts are not empowered to hear a case in a federal court against a state officer for violating said rights under 42 USC 1983. INSTEAD, controversies over said rights, WHEN VIOLATED BY A STATE OFFICER must be heard ONLY in state court.

Remember: Rights are always in relation to government actors and not private persons. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on state and national governments, not on private parties. The only exception is the Thirteenth Amendment, which applies to EVERYONE including government actors. Why? Because not just government actors can engage in involuntary servitude. The Fourteenth Amendment applied MOST BUT NOT NEARLY ALL of the original federal bill of rights to the states, and that application was made necessary primarily because of the black situation.

If you are at all uncertain, read:

Section 1983 litigation, Litigation Tool #08.008

LITIGATION TOOLS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm

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

The above document starts off on p. 1 with the following:

Quote:

Title 42, § 1983 of the U.S. Code provides a mechanism for seeking redress for an alleged deprivation of a litigant’s federal constitutional and federal statutory rights by persons acting under color of state law.”

From the cases you cited, violation of POLITICAL rights such as voting and jury duty by a state officer would be an example of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. An example of such a violation would be a poll tax, which is unconstitutional. On the other hand, the Second Amendment is NOT one of the rights you can sue a state actor in a federal court for a violation of. The Annotated United States Constitution from CRS explains this.

Annotated Fourteenth Amendment

http://www.law.corne…14toc_user.html

Based on the above, the main thing the Fourteenth Amendment protects is:

1. Due process

2. Equal protection

Why? Because THESE are the things mentioned in the amendment itself, within section 1.

Quote:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any [CONSTITUTIONAL] State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Every other RIGHT of a state citizen domiciled in a foreign and statutorily “alien” [in relation to federal jurisdiction] state of the Union is only protected by the state constitution from encroachment by state officers acting under the “color of law”. Hence, the subset of rights protected by the federal courts from state officer encroachment is a small subset of the overall rights of human beings under either federal law or state law. It isn’t this way because the CONSTITUTIONAL citizen subject to such protection HAS NO RIGHTS, but rather that there are limitations on subject matters that the feds can protect you from in the government actors of your state. The reason the list of “nanny supervision” by the federal courts over state officers is limited, is to preserve the separation of powers, not because the people protected are franchisees or are domiciled on federal territory not protected by the constitution.

In other words, here is the federal philosophy:

“OK all you greedy and corrupt state officers. You didn’t protect the blacks and made them unequal to the whites, and you made them into property under state law. Consequently, we passed the Thirteenth Amendment to make them equal and the fourteenth amendment so we can play nanny over state officers when they violate equal protection or due process of people they are supposed to protect EQUALLY. Otherwise, if you as a state domiciliary are injured, you are going to have to go to your own state courts for protection.”

The U.S. Supreme Court admitted all this, when they said AFTER the Fourteenth Amendment was passed:

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]

[fg_admin]

1. ALL CONSTITUTIONAL “citizens”, whether capital “C” or lower case “c”, whether born here or naturalized from another country are EQUAL under the law. That is whole foundation of equal protection that is the backbone of the constitution. No favorites or “privileges”. They only become UNEQUAL by surrendering rights in exchange for privileges, and the only place they are ALLOWED to surrender such rights is when they are domiciled on federal territory not part of the exclusive jurisdiction of any state. That’s what an “unalienable right” is: A right that is incapable of being sold, bargained away, or transferred by any commercial process, INCLUDING a franchise. See:

Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033

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

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

2. Statutory “citizens and nationals of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 are equal TO EACH OTHER, but are inferior to CONSTITUTIONAL citizens. They don’t have rights and everything FOR THEM AND THEM ONLY is a privilege. By virtue of being domiciled on federal territory in the statutory but not constitutional “United States**”, they are the only ones subject to “acts of Congress” and live in the equivalent of what the U.S. Supreme Court describes as a “British Crown Colony”:

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.” [/size]

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

3. The “subject to ITS jurisdiction” in Wong Kim Ark refers to a constitutional but not statutory state, and NOT the central government. Read the case and you will see that. Being domiciled within a constitutional but not statutory State is what makes one “subject to ITS jurisdiction”. Here is the text of the amendment:

Quote:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

4. Even the Supreme Court admitted that those domiciled on federal territory in the District of Columbia are NOT “citizens” under the Constitution, and they said that AFTER the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Citizens of the District of Columbia are the main statutory “citizens and nationals of the United States” mentioned in 8 USC 1401. If 8 USC 1401 DOESN’T address those domiciled on federal territory, then what status under title 8 DOES? I can’t find any, but I know I definitely don’t EVER want to be confused with one of THESE:

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. Naturalization takes place in a federal building under the AGENCY of the Constitution. The right to naturalize originates in the Constitution, and hence the exercise of that right by the national government as an AGENT of the constitutional states is not a privilege.

2. The national government, AS AN AGENT of the “United States of America” performs naturalization, meaning the conveying of statutory “national” and constitutional “citizen” status. Naturalization is a foreign affairs function that states individually cannot do, but who act THROUGH the central government. The physical place that naturalization is conducted is immaterial. The important point is that the activity conveys a RIGHT ORIGINATING not from Congress or from statute, but originating ONLY in the Constitution itself and granted by WE THE PEOPLE rather than Congress. Hence it is NOT a privilege or franchise.

3. How many times do I have to keep saying the SAME thing: “United States”, as used EVERYWHERE in the constitution implies constitutional but not statutory states of the Union and excludes federal territory. I don't presume that “United States” in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment implies federal territory. Once again, for the THOUSANDTH time, “United States” in the Constitution means states of the Union and excludes federal territory.

4. The definition of “person” in Section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment is people domiciled in a constitutional but not statutory state of the Union. And “the jurisdiction”, as I have said many times, means the POLITICAL and not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of the United States. Hence, it can only mean a constitutional but not statutory “citizen of the United States”. The Constitution is a POLITICAL document, not a LEGAL document. Hence, it can only talk about POLITICAL and not LEGAL status. Hence, the “person” described is a POLITICAL and not STATUTORY “person”.

5. Yes, person IN THE CONSTITUTION can mean a constitutional and NOT statutory “citizen of the United States”. It EXCLUDES the statutory citizen mentioned in 8 USC 1401, which is a domiciliary of federal territory ONLY because it depends on the statutory and not constitutional “United States**”.

6. I am suggesting that:

6.1 “citizen of the United States” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment is a SUPERSET of the original constitutional “Citizen”.

6.2 The “citizen of the United States” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not indicate race, and therefore includes everyone, including the original Capital C citizen. The case last cited proves that. The fact that the cites you provided earlier indicated it was passed because of negroes does not mean that it ONLY applies to negroes. The Wong Kim Ark case earlier proves that.

6.3 Whether you are a Citizen or a “citizen of the United States” UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, you are eligible for POLITICAL office BECAUSE “subject to THE jurisdiction” suggests POLITICAL jurisdiction and not legislative jurisdiction. You can be subject to the POLITICAL jurisdiction without being subject to the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of Congress.

7. The authors of the Constitution and therefore the Sovereign are We the People, not the states or the federal government. Hence:

7.1 They are NOT obligated by any portion of the Constitution

7.2. They do not surrender rights to anyone. The servant cannot be greater than the master.

7.3 The constitution is a limitation upon those to whom authority is delegated, meaning states and the central government, and not the people in them.

Quote:

“In common usage the word `person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign.”

[U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530]

7.4 The only human being who can be or is LEGISLATIVELY (NOT POLITICALLY BUT LEGISLATIVELY) reached by authority delegated in the Constitution are people domiciled on federal territory not protected by the Constitution AND public officers who took an oath to support and defend the constitution. No one else is party or is obligated by it. See:

http://famguardian.o…r/NoTreason.htm