fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
1. I don’t claim to possess civil rights. All such rights attach to domicile on federal territory. Where did I claim that I had civil rights? More presumption. No doubt, those who claim civil rights are not protected by the constitution.
2. I didn’t say that the statutory laws connect ONLY to “citizen of the United States” IN THE CONSTITUTION. I said the “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment is not the same as the “citizen and national of the United States” in 8 USC 1401 because of the context. I said that “United States” in federal statutes limits itself to federal territory and “United States” in the Constitution limits itself to states of the Union and EXCLUDES federal territory. Hence, a “citizen of the United States” in the Constitution is a white underage male, black, or woman domiciled in a constitutional and not statutory state, while a capital “C” citizen is a white male domiciled in a constitutional and not statutory state.
3. The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t mention race, hence, all those born or naturalized in the constitutional but not statutory “United States**”, REGARDLESS OF RACE, are “citizens of the United States***”.
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,’ in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the states of the Union are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States[***].'”[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), emphasis added]
4. We don’t advocate claiming to be a Fourteenth Amendment citizen on any government form, but rather a constitutional but not statutory citizen and a non-citizen national under federal law, as indicated in 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452. We think its a dumb idea to describe oneself any way OTHER than the way the following form does it:
Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ffCitDomTax.pdf
That’s why we keep steering you back to the above and demanding that you focus your criticism on IMPROVING the above form to prevent any presumptions of a statutory “citizen” connection found in 8 U.S.C. 1401. We don’t need more whiners and critics, but help in improving what we and others would use to protect their rights when compelled to fill out government forms.
5. I have NOT refused to address the lower case “c” citizen.
5.1 I said that Constitutional citizens as a whole include lower case “c” and upper case “C”, and that TOGETHER, these two groups are citizens of states of the Union, which collectively are called the “United States***” in the Constitution.
5.2 I said that the lower case c includes women, blacks, and underage white males because of amendments introduced from the Fourteenth Amendment on.
5.3 I said that the upper case C citizen is white males ONLY.
6. Your “of the United States” is relative to the context, once again. The case you cite refers to the statutory “United States**” and therefore federal territory. We already proved that “United States” in the constitution means states of the Union and excludes federal territory. Hence, “of the United States” means states of the Union and excludes federal territory within the Fourteenth Amendment and everywhere else in the Constitution.
7. The reason for the language “same meaning as the 14th Amendment”, and NOT “same meaning as throughout the Constitution!” is because the Fourteenth Amendment violation of rights BY A STATE ACTOR applied to the lower case citizen and it is THAT citizen and only that citizen which was the subject of the statute sought to be enforced, which was 42 USC 1983. That statute affords a remedy for a constitutional but not statutory citizen to sue ONLY a state officer for a violation of private rights and it was implemented as an outgrowth of section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, it was NOT a civil right, “public right”, privilege, or franchise, because it was conveyed by the constitution rather than Congress. Civil rights are rights that DO NOT appear in the Constitution but instead originate ONLY in acts of Congress.
8. In the Baldwin case you refer to the “privilege of voting”. That privilege is not granted in the constitution directly and that is why it is a privilege. That privilege, by cases cited earlier, is a form of “elective franchise”. It can be revoked when one is convicted of a crime or felony. That is why such a privilege cannot be granted in the constitution and must therefore be a franchise and a public right that is revocable. I never referred to voting as a right. That is ALSO why voters are referred to as public officers in 18 USC 201: Because they are franchisees. I referrred to maintaing one’s constitutional citizenship and statutory “non-citizen national” status as NOT a privilege and NOT revocable. Please don’t drag irrelvant caselaw into the converstaton. Political rights such as jury service and the right to vote are “derivative franchises” that have nationality and GOOD CONDUCT as a prerequisite. To vote you must BOTH be a national AND not be a convicted felon.
9. You’re not reading our materials. We DO think that state citizens are statutory but not constitutional aliens in respect to federal jurisdiction. See:
Why you are a “National”, section 10.1
http://famguardian.org/Publications/WhyANational/WhyANational.pdf
10. You are wrong about rights given by Congress. Things given by Congress are, under most circumstances, statutory privileges and franchises, obviousely. HOWEVER, when congress enacts a statute by virtue of authority directly conveyed by the Constitution such as 42 USC 1983, then it is not a privilege or “civil right”, but the protection of a right granted by WE THE PEOPLE and ALREADY established and recognized in the constitution itself. Nothing granted in the Constitution can be or is a privilege of any kind, nor is it revocable at the whim of Congress. ONLY “public rights” and statutory franchises NOT originating in rights created in the Constitution are revocable and therefore privileged.
Quote:“The Monroe Court resolved two important issues that allowed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to become a powerful statute for enforcing rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment [RATHER than Congressional grant].”[Section 1983 Litigation, Federal Judicial Center, p. 2
SOURCE: http://sedm.org/Liti…_Litigation.pdf]
-
Naturalization pertains to nationality and that of being a statutory “national”, as I already showed. Show me a statute, regulation or court ruling that:
1. Identifies TWO types of naturalization.
2. Identifies TWO types of “nationals” who are naturalized.
3. Identifies a birth certificate as a naturalization device to an extraconstitutional “nation” associated with federal territory.
4. Identifies a fourteenth amendment “citizen of the United States***” with a statutory citizen.
YOU CAN’T. Don’t be posting presumptions in these forums. That’s bullshit. We want EVIDENCE, not presumption, in these forums.
And please quit arguing that there is a distinction between “citizen of the United States” and “Citizen” within the CONSTITUTION. We AGREE WITH YOU that there is a difference. We also agree that they are different subsets of people from among people in the states of the Union. WE DON’T CARE about this issue and you are right, and it simply doesn’t affect any of the issues we have repreatedly argued. What is important is:
1. WHICH “United States” do they mean in the constitution, and we have already proven that THAT United states is states of the Union and EXCLUDES federal territory. If you disagree, show me a case in which “United States” as used in the Constitution is interpreted to include federal territory. YOU CAN’T. If the “United States” means states of the Union and excludes federal territory, then whether you are a lower case “c” or an upper case “C” citizen under the constitution, the BOTH types of citizens are citizens by virtue of being state citizens not domiciled on federal territory and therefore NOT subject to federal statutory civil law. Therefore, arguments about capitalization at that point are MOOT.
2. The issue is the CONTEXT: Statutory or Constitutional.
3. Proving that the “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment EQUALS IN ALL RESPECTS the statutory citizen at 8 USC 1401. We have proven that they are NOT the same.
You have NOT rebutted any of the above with evidence and therefore agree with all the above pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(6).
Hence, you’re WRONG and you are evading admitting defeat.
EVERY CASE you have offered as proof so far, when it talks about “citizens of the United States” ALWAYS:
1. Mentions a constitutional and NOT statutory context
2. Associates the type of citizenship with CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship.
3. Refers to the word “naturalization” and therefore REALLY means “national” and “nationality” but NOT “citizen” in a statutory context.
4. Places permanent residents in a privileged status but not statutory “nationals”.
Hence, all you are doing is agreeing with us with everything you have offered so far and indirectly conceding defeat.
-
The way to get around this is to show this law to the mailbox place and ask for a Private Mail Box (PM:cool: instead of a P.O. Box. The form is only for PO boxes, not Private Mail Boxes. A “PO Box” is the real franchise. But all franchises regulate the exercise of PUBLIC rights, not private rights. A PRIVATE mail box is an example of that which cannot be regulated.
If the ignorant clerk won't listen:
1. Open a box that ONLY accepts delivery from other than the postal service.
2. Contract with the owner of the store to be part of the store and an officer of the store. The 1583 doesn't have to be filled out for THE STORE. Only for customers of the store. Change your status from customer to part owner. The thing you are owner of is physically located in the store. Throw something small in the corner of the store that you own and leave it there so you are part owner of the store and therefore aren't required to have the form filled out on you.
3. Fill the 1583 out not on yourself, but on an entity you represent, so your personal information isn't connected with the box.
4. Have someone else open the box who doesn't care about being a federal slave and pay them for the privilege. Then have them hand you the key and pay electronically.
Come on. Use your common sense. If you want to be free, you are going to have to be creative and think for yourself. Stop thinking like a slave by letting covetous lawyers do all the thinking for you.
-
Juliusbragg,
I wanted to clarify the following cite from your earlier post:
Quote:Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.I downloaded and read all the cases in the above cite, and it is clear that you quoted them out of context as usual to prove a sinister motive that doesn’t really exist. Collectively, the cases establish the following:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen of the United States***” [which is statutory “national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21)] status is indeed a privilege, but ONLY for aliens seeking naturalization. It is NOT a privilege for those who already have it. Rights are irrevocable, and indeed, nationality is irrevocable unilaterally by the government. Hence, we are talking about rights rather than privileges. If being a constitutional citizen and statutory national were revocable, it would at that point be a privilege. Rights can’t be taken away, but privileges can.
This is clarified by the language you cite: “Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper.” The “attainment” is that of a statutory “national” and nationality, not statutory “citizen” status. That is what “naturalization” is defined as in federal statutes: Conferring nationality, not “citizen” status under federal statutes.
Boyd was declared an alien, and all aliens are privileged. This is confirmed by the law of nations:
Quote:“Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.”[The Law of Nations, Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 213, p. 87]
SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…ip/Resident.htm
Yes, it is and always has been a privilege for an alien to attain CONSTITUTIONAL citizenship, by which I mean “nationality” in a statutory sense.
2. The citizenship they are talking about in Boyd clearly means that of a “national” and not a statutory citizen under federal law:
Quote:“Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen, and relator’s position is that such adoption has neither been sought nor obtained by respondent under the acts of congress in that behalf.[. . .]
“Manifestly the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal, or otherwise, as may be provided. “
[Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 162 (1892)]
3. Naturalization is statutorily defined as the process of conferring “nationality”, not statutory “citizen” status under federal statutes:
Quote:Naturalization. The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. 8 U.S.C.A. §1401 et seq..In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Individual naturalization must follow certain steps: (a) petition for naturalization by a person of lawful age who has been a lawful resident of the United States for 5 years; ( 😎 investigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine whether the applicant can speak and write the English language, has a knowledge of the fundamentals of American government and history, is attached to the principles of the Constitution and is of good moral character; (c ) hearing before a U.S. District Court or certain State courts of record; and (d) after a lapse of at least 30 days a second appearance in court when the oath of allegiance is administered.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1026]
4. The case of In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283 confirms that it was talking about a Swiss national who was an statutory “resident alien” and “permanent resident”, and YES, naturalization and therefore “nationality” and therefore the statutory status of “national” was recognized as a privilege ONLY FOR HIM. All aliens are privileged, but a “national” is NOT privileged.
Quote:“The Constitution of the United States, in Article I, Section 8, cl. 3, entrusts to the Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Congress, from the beginning of this country’s history to the present time has responded to this authority, and the predominant principle pervading all of the Congressional pronouncements pertaining to naturalization is that the status of citizenship of the United States is a privilege; and, being a privilege, the Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. Likewise, the Congress is equally free to grant certain benefits [privileges/franchises] to aliens with the condition that acceptance of such will render the recipient permanently ineligible to later seek naturalization.”[. . .]
* * * the important feature of this section is the distinction made between aliens admitted for “permanent residence” and aliens who remained in the United States in a status other than that of a permanent resident. Permanent resident aliens were treated like citizens in that they had the same unqualified obligation to render military service as did citizens. Only aliens not in permanent residence were privileged to be relieved of military service if they so requested. Id. at 176-177 (Emphasis supplied)
[Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283 ]
All privileges and the franchises that grant them attach to a statutory and not constitutional “status”. That “status” is “permanent residence” or “permanent resident”. Nowhere in any of the cases you cited did they ever associate CONSTITUTIONAL citizen or a statutory “national” with a STATUTORY status that attaches to privileges.
Notice once again they are talking about “naturalization” which is the process of conferring NATIONALITY rather than statutory “citizen” status, and that this “nationality” is a privilege for Thanner, who was an alien. In the case of Swiss National Thanner, they use the word “benefits”, and hence franchise. Obviously, he is privileged.
5. Don’t confuse being a “citizen” under the CONSTITUTION with being a “citizen” under federal law or federal statutes. A “citizen” under the Constitution is a “national” under statutory law. A “citizen” under statutory federal law is NOT equal to a “citizen” under the Constitution. 8 U.S.C. 1401 even distinguishes the two characteristics by defining a “citizen of the United States” UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES as ALSO having the character of a national IN ADDITION to being a “citizen”. Why would there be a need to associate the two if they were, in deed, equivalent?
Quote:8 U.S.C. §1401 Nationals and citizens of the United States:The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
The “United States” they are talking about above, is the STATUTORY rather than Constitutional “United States**”, and that is why they had to add the “national” designation to the definition. They can’t legislate civilly for the constitutional “United States***” because of the separation of powers, and the above is civil legislation.
It’s just like the analogy you used with Corevettes. They are NOT interchangeable. The biggest problem with the freedom community is that they confuse contexts, CONSTITUTIONAL v. STATUTORY, and think they are equivalent. THEY ARE NOT. THIS little word game is behind most of the abuses by corrupt federal judges and federal courts. This one little word game is totally defeated and prevented by using the following forms at depositions and attaching to your pleadings:
1. Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. Rules of Presumption and Statutory Interpretation, Litigation Tool #01.006
http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm
See also:
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 6.1
http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf
We ARE NOT arguing that being a statutory “citizen” under federal law is NOT a privilege. It is not only a privilege, but a franchise. What the courts try to do to convert CONSTITUTIONAL rights into STATUTORY privilege is to confuse the two contexts. For an example of such a privilege, see 31 USC 5314. That statute requires the STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” to incriminate and report itself. THAT privileged statutory “citizen” can ONLY be a federal instrumentality AND a public officer franchisee. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional to regulate private rights of human beings protected by the Constitution and would violate the Fifth Amendment. THAT statutory “citizen” is a citizen by virtue of the fact that it is a public office representing a corporation, and all corporations are citizens of the place of incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. Agency as a public officer and franchisee is what accomplishes the switch in “choice of law” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17( 😎 and makes the issue a “federal question” cognizable in a federal instead of state court. That switcheroo, which is usually accomplished through judicial verbicide, is the thing you have to stop and we have stopped it with the above.
6. Before you quote more cases out of context, at least download and read the WHOLE thing. This is what corrupt judges and government prosecutors do. We’re not supposed to immitate our oppressors here, but rather take the high ground.
-
1. I don't lose anything by being wrong either, if I am wrong. This thread has demonstrated that our approach is and always has been the following, regardless of one's view on citizenship, and this approach is designed to ensure that there is no downside:
1.1 Refer to oneself as a national of their state and not of the United States.
1.2 To not even say one is a citizen of a state, unless we prefix it with “constitutional but not statutory” and include the state name, because all civil law is law for government and I don't work for the government.
1.3 To NOT use the word “citizenship” at all, and instead to use domicile or nationality to avoid confusing ourselves with a statutory citizen.
1.4 To not use the phrase “United States” in the same sentence with “citizen” in describing oneself.
1.5 When people ask is if we are a “citizen of the United States”, then we ask them which of the three United States they mean and whether they mean a constitutional or statutory citizen. This very quickly shut up a U.S. attorney who tried to enjoin this site. See:
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 6.1
http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf
1.6 To attach the following to all government forms filled out:
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
1.6 When referring to constitutional citizenship, to refer to oneself as a “national” and not a “citizen” under federal law pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452, and to do so ONLY when applying for a passport so that we are not confused by the passport people with a statutory U.S. citizen. The DS-11 is designed to trap people into the statutory citizen status and our article on how to apply for a passport suggests putting in the “U.S. citizen?” block NO. See:
http://famguardian.o…orAPassport.htm
1.7 When in court, to use the following document to remove ALL DISCRETION from the government or judge in using citizenship verbicide to kidnap you and transport you to the federal zone:
Rules of Presumption and Statutory Interpretation, Litigation Tool #01.006
LITIGATION TOOL PAGE: http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Liti…ConstInterp.pdf
The above approach avoids the kind of controversy you keep reigniting in these forums that is largely irrelevant. That approach is also summarized in:
Developing Evidence of Citizenship and Sovereignty, Form #12.002
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Libe…Citizenship.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
You don't appear to be paying attention to the approach advocated on this website, which is why you keep revisiting the same tired issue in a way that can't and won't affect how we describe ourself, regardless of the outcome.
2. We can't find your cite on 82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760. You might want to post it here.
3. As pointed out several times before, we dont' argue that the two things: capital c or lower case C have ALWAYS been the same, but at this time they are. The amendments we cited have made them the same AT THIS TIME, but as they were being developed or before they were introduced, they were NOT the same.
4. We can and already have determined why “subject to THE jurisdiction” was used in the Fourteenth Amendment rather than subject to THEIR jurisdiction. It is because it covers ONLY the states of the Union and refers only to political and not legislative jurisdiction.
Quote:“In the Constitution of the United States the word “citizen” is generally, if not always, used in a political [rather than LEGAL or statutory] sense to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. It is also used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. “[Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.ed 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763]
The Thirteenth Amendment refers to states of the Union as “THEIR jurisdiction”, which means it doesn't apply on federal territory, as we said before. This relationship is also demonstrated graphically in the Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status form linked above. When are you going to pay attention to research that has already been done instead of quoting cases out of context and revisiting the same irrelevant issues? It's a waste of time for you to force us to review research that you haven't read but already addresses the issues. These forums are for either pointing out errors in EXISTING research on this site or sharing NEW research, not a free tutoring service for people who are too lazy to read and learn what has already been done.
5. We both agree and always have agreed on how to describe one's citizenship to avoid the statutory “U.S. citizen” privileged status, and to prevent judges from confusing statutory and constitutional contexts. We are arguing an irrelevant point, because if it doesn't affect behavior at some point, then it's moot. You haven't explained how your approach, if adopted, would substantially change our approach here, and until you do, you're wasting our time on pointless debate. A much more useful approach would be to point out problems with the Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status form that would encourage false presumption or mischief by judges to steal from people and how your approach would change what is on the form, if adopted.
6. The Elk v. Wilkins cite proves our point by saying “owing THEM direct and immediate allegiance” rather than “owing IT direct and immediate allegiance”. This can only mean the states of the Union and not the central government. Hence, they are talking about constitutional and not statutory citizens owing allegiance to the “United States***”, meaning the collective states of the Union. Constitutional citizenship was the issue in that case because Elk was an indian in a foreign state not subject to the laws of the state.
7. Where did the definition of civil rights come from? You didn't identify the source. Everything you cite should identify the source because these forums are a mock court that must follow the rules of evidence. Everything cited should have what is called a “chain of custody” so that it can be verified.
-
1. I am not basing my position on only one case. Look at the table of authorities in:
Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf
2. Yes, this matter is important and worth spending extra effort on.
3. I already established that when used in a constitutional context, the lower case c in the Fourteenth Amendment included Blacks, women, underage white males. As distinguished from the upper case C Citizen, which was only white males.
3.1 The Fourteenth Amendment made blacks constitutional but not statutory lower case c citizens.
3.2 The Ninteenth Amendment added women.
3.3 The Twenty Sixth Amendment added underage voters.
See:
http://www.law.corne…ncon/index.html
This conclusion is consistent with the content of 42 USC 1982, which was passed pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment and says:
Quote:TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1982§ 1982. Property rights of citizens
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
I'm not going to reargue the lower case c issues. It's already been agreed to if you look over the previous discussion.
4. The cases you cite do not indicate whether they pertain to statutory or constitutional citizens. You as the moving party who reinitiated this controversy have the burden of showing they pertain to constitutional citizen and hence contradict what has been established so far, because we both agree that statutory citizenship is a privilege and that one should avoid calling themselves a U.S. citizen. I think they pertain only to statutory citizenship. But I will withhold my judgment until you prove that they pertain to constitutional citizenship. Now get to work.
The following definition establishes that any use of the term “citizenship” in federal court really means domicile, which means they are referring ONLY to the statutory context and NOT the constitutional context. If they were referring to the constitutional context, then “nationality” is the more approprate term.
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]
Hence, all the cites from federal court that you provide simply confirm that they are NOT referring to the constitutional context for the word “citizen”.
I agree with the cases you cite insofar as they describe statutory citizenship, but not constitutional citizenship.
-
Juliusbragg
There you go again. It is already established as an undisputed fact in this long interchange that:
1. “Subject to THE jurisdiction” means the political and not legislative jurisdiction.
2. “Subject to ITS jurisdiction” means the legislative and NOT political jurisdiction.
3. The ONLY meaning of “United States” implied in the Constitution is the states of the Union and the territories are purposefully excluded. Hence, a “citizen of the United States”, whatever capitalization, means a citizen of one of the 50 states and excludes those domiciled on federal territory.
4. There are TWO central governments: FEDERAL and NATIONAL. Those domiciled on federal territory are statutory citizens. Those domiciled in a state are constitutional citizens. The last quote you provided referred to the FEDERAL and not NATIONAL government, and hence is consistent with everything that I have said here. See also
http://famguardian.o…dies/USvUSA.htm
You're wasting your time and still haven't disproven the above.
-
Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court…. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owes her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those that compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there. We should be getting so sick of all of this nonsense. The USA has finally become the laughing stock of the world.
Links are included below
http://www.supremeco…iles/09-724.htm
http://www.supremeco…es/08-10382.htm
http://www.supremeco…les/08-8145.htm
http://www.supremeco…iles/09-581.htm
http://www.supremeco…iles/09a381.htm
-
Laurence,
Thank you so much for sharing how our materials have affected you. We pray that all will be exposed to and act upon the content of that memorandum in particular, and our site in general, because the world would be a MUCH better place than it is now if everyone did.
-
Soteriologist,
We will pray for you.
Corrected information returns themselves count as “returns”. That is why they call them “information returns”. The 1040 and 1040NR are not necessary if the corrected information returns and a criminal complaint is filed as far as we understand. Members who use our materials are required to send them in annually if false information returns are being filed in their name against the fraudulent public officer straw man. See:
Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…ErrInfoRtns.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
If you request your imf records, you will find out some VERY interesting information about those supposed “penalties” They don't appear in the record and therefore are BOGUS and FRAUDULENT and intended to deceive you. They aren't real liabilities, only a political device to scare you. See:
http://sedm.org/Item…r/MFDecoder.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
Your experience explains why:
1. We only file a particular way ONCE to test it out, before we do it for multiple years. That way, the damage is minimized if they don't like it and we have a chance to improve before more years are affected.
2. We don't recommend using IRS forms. Their mission statement says they can only help “taxpayers”, and all their forms are for “taxpayers”.
3. We can't and don't put identifying numbers on the form. Only in the corrected information returns and even then, they are identified as “NONTAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS”. Sounds like you did.
4. We attach a criminal complaint against the filer of the false information return. See:
Corrected Information Return Attachment Lettter, Form #04.002
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5. We use a custom claim form with corrected information returns attached. See:
5.1 Federal Nonstatutory Claim for Return of Unlawfully Withheld Earnings, Form #15.001
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5.2 http://famguardian.o…/NRFedClaim.htm
6. We attach the:
Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201.
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7. We file a form 56 with it, and file in the name of the IRS commissioner, because his omission in correcting the information return and return the unlawfully withheld earnigns is the reason we are compelled to file to begin with. When compelled illegally to do something, the courts have repeatedly held that the actor is not the compelled person, but the origin of the duress.
Did you do all these things? Note that we DO NOT file returns for anyone or advice in the preparation of statutory “returns”, but this is what we would do if we were compelled unlawfully to file. Our Prohibited Activies in section 12 of the following, in fact, prohibit filing returns for others or advising in the filing of them, and hence, this post counts as nonfactual speech on this subject. See:
http://famguardian.o…try/aboutus.htm
Obviously, this will take litigation in state court under the common law and NOT the I.R.C. We hope you are ready for it, because:
1. It's unlawful to levy more than 15% even on a “taxpayer”.
2. Penalties are unlawful on a nontaxpayer. See:
Why Penalties are Illegal for Anything but Government Franchisees, Officers, and Agents, Form #05.010
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. It's unlawful to levy against those not engaged in a public office in the U.S. government. The frivolous list you mention doesn't address this issue. That list limits itself to “employees”, but the real party levied is an instrumentality of the government that is a public office per 26 USC 6331(a), not just statutory “employees”.
4. The collections are based on fraudulent information returns which should have been corrected. Failure and omission in correcting them by the Commissioner of the IRS causes the commission of the crime of impersonating a public officer in the U.S. government.
5. IRS claiming you have a penalty liability is fraudulent, because it isn't in your master file.
6. The list of frivolous arguments is not legal evidence, because not signed under penalty of perjury as required by 26 USC 6065. Hence, you have been deprived of legal evidence giving “reasonable notice” of the conduct expected of you by the de facto government. This is a HUGE due process problem.
-
Chris
Welcome to the club. We have been studying this stuff carefully for over ten years and we still learn new things every day. Maybe that is why they call it “practicing law”…because you can never really know everything in a subject as deep as this. That, in fact, is what makes it such an interesting subject to study. Information technology, incidentally, is the same way.
-
Chris,
Welcome to the forums.
1. The World Service passport is mentioned on our passport page in the yellow area at the top:
http://famguardian.o…orAPassport.htm
We know people who have obtained this, and it works, but not always, during travel. Haven't heard anything bad about them.
2. The I9 issue is discussed in:
Federal and State Tax Withholding options for Private Employers, Section 21.9
http://famguardian.o…teWHOptions.pdf
You could have found the above yourself by using our search function. Please in the future click on “SEARCH” in the upper left corner of our opening page in the future before posting your questions here:
Thank you for clarifying who the band really is for neo.
-
EDITORIAL: Sent to us by a reader about the above post. We didn't write the information below the next line.
___________________________
Obama is a CIA tool. Looks like his mama was too.
All this world travel. All the connections. ZERO paperwork — anywhere…
http://www.a-w-i-p.c…-s-cia-pedigree
No wonder he bowed to the Saudi king on his first overseas trip after becoming prez.
I remember the Prayer Day thing — very strange….Just who is this guy?
He's also the one who –first time — gave the Chinese formal ceremony at White House….So again who is this man? Communist? Socialist, Muslim????
___________________________________
Obama's CIA Pedigree
08/09/10 Wayne Madsen
CIA Deputy Director Stephen Kappes, President Barack Obama and CIA
Director Leon Panetta outside CIA headquarters in April. (AFP/Getty)url=”http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/”]Wayne Madsen Report[/url] / [url url=”http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/08/the-us-obama”]OpinonMaker[/url WMR previously reported on President Obama's more than one year employment by a CIA front operation, Business International Corporation, Inc. (BIC) of New York after his graduation from Columbia University in 1983.
However, the State Department's recent revelation in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that the pre-1965 passport files of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham Soetoro, were destroyed in the 1980s, has re-ignited suspicions that Obama's mother worked for the CIA under non-official cover (NOC) cover in Indonesia while married to Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, a retired colonel in General Suharto's CIA-backed ranks. Soetoro and Dunham married in 1965 after meeting at the University of Hawaii. That same year, the CIA-backed Suharto launched an anti-Communist coup that saw leftist President Sukarno eventually ousted from power and up to one million suspected Communists, including many ethnic Chinese Indonesians, massacred by government troops. Obama recently lifted a ban on U.S. military support for the Indonesian Red Beret KOPASSUS special operations forces imposed after the unit committed human rights abuses in East Timor in the late 1990s. The 12-year ban, imposed by the Clinton administration, was maintained by the Bush administration.
In 1967, Dunham moved with six-year old Barack Obama to Jakarta. In 1966, as Suharto consolidated his power, Colonel Soetoro was battling Communist rebels in the country. Dunham moved back to Hawaii in 1972, a year after Obama left Indonesia to attend school in Hawaii, and she divorced Soetoro in 1980. Soetoro was hired by Mobil to be a liaison officer with Suharto's dictatorship. Soetoro died in 1987 at the age of 52. Ann Dunham died in 1995, also at the age of 52. Obama, Sr. died in an automobile accident in Kenya in 1982 at the age of 46. Obama, Sr. attended the University of Hawaii courtesy of a scholarship arranged by Kenyan nationalist leader Tom Mboya. Obama and Dunham married in 1961, however, Obama, at the time, had a wife back in Kenya. Obama and Dunham officially divorced in 1964, the same year Dunham married Soetoro.
Obama, Sr. met his old friend Mboya, the Kenyan Minister of Economic Planning and Development, shortly before Mboya was gunned down by an assassin in Nairobi in 1969. Kenya's autocratic president Jomo Kenyatta was viewed as being behind the assassination of Mboya, a would-be rival for the presidency. Mboya was 39 when he was assasinated. Obama, Sr. testified at the trial of Mboya's accused assassin and shortly thereafter, Obama, Sr. was the target of an attempted hit-and-run assassination attempt.
Files released by the State Department on Dunham's name-change passport application lists two dates and places of marriage to Soetoro: March 5, 1964, in Maui and March 15, 1965, in Molokai — almost a year's difference. In her 1968 passport renewal application, Barack Obama's name is listed as Barack Hussein Obama (Saebarkah). In passport renewal and amendment applications filed from Jakarta, Dunham uses two different names: Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro and Stanley Ann Soetoro.
Dunham again applied for a passport from Jakarta in 1981 while working for the Ford Foundation. Her New York-based boss at the time was Peter Geithner, the father of Obama's Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Dunham also worked in rural villages in Java for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which was and remains notorious for conducting CIA operations around the world.
Ann Dunham and President Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., a native of the British colony of Kenya, met in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii in 1959. The teaching of Russian in Hawaii, which hosted a number of US military bases and intelligence operations, is significant since a Russian language class during the height of the Cold War would normally attract a majority of U.S. intelligence professionals.
At the time Dunham met Obama, Sr. in Russian-language class at the University of Hawaii, the CIA was engaged in major covert operations in Asia, including attempted assassinations of Asian leaders. In an August 1975 article in Penthouse by former New York Times reporter Tad Szulc reported on two high-level planned CIA assassinations that were turned down by the 'highest levels' at the White House in the late 1950s: '. . . senior CIA officials proposed the assassination of Indonesian President Sukarno as part of a broader plot to overthrow his left-leaning government. At least one American pilot, employed by the CIA, was captured by Sukarno's forces during the coup attempt. To kill Sukarno, the CIA, according to intelligence sources, planned to fire a shell from a ceremonial 105-mm cannon in front of the presidential palace while Sukarno spoke from a balcony.' The CIA finally succeeded in ousting Sukarno in 1965, with the help of Barack Obama's step father.
Szulc also wrote: “In 1958, a plot was concocted to kill China's Premier Chou En-lai during a visit to Rangoon, Burma. This was at the beginning of the Soviet-Chinese split, and apparently the CIA reasoned that Chou's death would aggravate the developing split. The notion was that Chou was a moderate and thus posed an obstacle to a possible Soviet-Chinese confrontation. Furthermore, intelligence sources said, the CIA planned, by the dissemination of 'disinformation' through intelligence channels, to lead the Chinese to believe that Chou was killed by the Russian KGB. This murder plot, which was also stopped by Washington, provided for a Burmese CIA agent to place untraceable poison in a rice bowl from which Chou was expected to be eating at a government dinner in his honor. This particular kind of poison, intelligence sources said, would have acted within forty-eight hours and there would be no trace of it if an autopsy were performed. The plan was countermanded at the last moment.”
As WMR previously reported, “At the same time he was attending Occidental [College in Los Angeles, 1979-81], Obama, using the name Barry Soetoro and an Indonesian passport issued under the same name, traveled to Pakistan during the U.S. buildup to assist the Afghan mujaheddin. WMR has learned from informed sources in Kabul that Obama has been extremely friendly, through personal correspondence on White House letterhead, with a private military company that counts among its senior personnel a number of Afghan mujaheddin-Soviet war veterans who fought alongside the late Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood.
In 1981, Obama spent time in Jacobabad and Karachi, Pakistan, and appeared to have an older American 'handler,' possibly a CIA officer. WMR previously reported that Obama also crossed the border from Pakistan and spent some time in India. At the time of Obama's stay in Pakistan, the country was being built up as a base for the anti-Soviet Afghan insurgency by President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and later by President Reagan's CIA director William Casey. Obama has suspiciously refused to release his transcripts from Occidental or Columbia University and he has remained cagey about his post-Columbia employment with BIC.”
In early 2008, when employees of The Analysis Corporation, a CIA contractor headed up at the time by Obama's current deputy national security adviser John O. Brennan, a former CIA official, were illegally accessing Obama's State Department passport files, WMR reported: “An informed source has told WMR that Obama's tuition debt at Columbia was paid off by BIC. In addition, WMR has learned that when Obama lived in Indonesia with his mother and his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, the 20-year-old Obama, who was known as 'Barry Soetoro,' traveled to Pakistan in 1981. He was hosted by the family of Muhammadmian Soomro, a Pakistani Sindhi who became acting President of Pakistan after the resignation of General Pervez Musharraf on August 18, 2008. WMR was told that the Obama/Soetoro trip to Pakistan, ostensibly to go 'partridge hunting' with the Soomros, related to unknown CIA business. The covert CIA program to assist the Afghan mujaheddin was already well underway at the time and Pakistan was the major base of operations for the CIA's support.”
WMR also reported: “Dunham Soetoro was in Indonesia when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Barack Obama visited Lahore, Pakistan, where his mother worked as a 'consultant,' in 1981. According to a declassified Top Secret CIA document titled 'Worldwide Reaction to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan,' dated February 1980, Indonesia became a hotbed of anti-Soviet students demonstrations after Moscow's invasion of Afghanistan. The report states, 'Indonesian students have staged several peaceful demonstrations in Jakarta and three other major cities. They have also demanded the recall of the Soviet Ambassador because of remarks he made to a student delegation on 4 January and have called for a severance of Soviet-Indonesian relations.'”
Obama's mother was in Lahore as a consultant for the Asian Development Bank, a perfect NOC job at the time the CIA, under William Casey, was beefing up its covert presence in Pakistan to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, known to Obama as “Toot”, began working for the Bank of Hawaii in 1960, a year after her daughter met Obama, Sr. and in 1970 she became one of the first female bank vice presidents. Madelyn Dunham retired from the bank in 1986. It is suspected that the Bank of Hawaii acted as a financial vehicle for CIA operations in Asia and the South Pacific.
The Bank of Hawaii has, according to published reports, been linked to a number of CIA-connected operations in the Asia-Pacific region, including links to the Indonesian Lippo Group and Mochtar Riady's contributions to the presidential re-election campaign of Bill Clinton; American International Group (AIG) — bailed out by Obama; the CIA's Nugan Hand Bank in Australia; another CIA-influenced bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and an affiliate bank in the Cook Islands, Commercial Bank of Commerce Cook Islands, Ltd. (CBCCI) in Rarotonga – which in the 1980s were funneling money to South Pacific islands to counter Soviet influence in the region; the USAID officer in Suva, Fiji, William Raupe, who was actually a CIA official cover agent; global bullion trader Deak International; European Pacific investments; and a CIA front company in Honolulu called Bishop Baldwin Rewald Dillingham Wong (BBRDW), Ltd., which maintained financial and political links to Asia-Pacific leaders, including Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India, Suharto in Indonesia, the Sultan of Brunei, the chiefs of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service – which acted on behalf of the CIA in South Pacific small island states, and maintained slush fund accounts in the Cayman Islands, the Cook Islands, Spain, and South America. The CIA cut-out, which took over the assets of the collapsed Nugan Hand Bank in Australia, also used actor Jack Lord, from Hawaii 5-0 fame, on its promotional material as a way to “open doors” and maintained close links with the US Pacific Command based in Hawaii.
In the 1960s, the Bank of Hawaii began opening up branches all over the Pacific: Palau, Guam, Yap, Ponape, and Kosrae. It also bought the Bank of American Samoa and the First National Bank of Arizona and had gained significant, if not fully controlling, financial stakes in the Bank of New Caledonia, Bank Indosuez in Vanuatu, National Bank of the Solomon Islands, Bank of Queensland, Bank of Tonga, and Bank Indosuez Niugini in Papua New Guinea, Bank Paribas Polynesia. The Bank of Hawaii also opened up branches in Suva, Saipan, and Tokyo. By the time Madelyn Dunham retired in 1986, the bank was also deeply connected to John Waihee, the first Native Hawaiian governor of Hawaii, elected in 1986. The CIA's BBRDW and an affiliate, Canadian Far East Trading Corporation, also maintained close links with Waihee and Governor George Ariyoshi.
When Barack Obama graduated from the private Punahou High School in Hawaii in 1979 and transferred to Occidental College in Los Angeles, Eugene Welch was the CIA's station chief in Hawaii. Punahou High School was also the alma mater of another US Senator, Hiram Bingham III of Connecticut, who was said to be the inspiration for Indiana Jones, the movie character popularized by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. At the time, the CIA was engaged in a major recruiting campaign, including on college campuses, after Admiral Stansfield Turner, the CIA director, was ordered by President Jimmy Carter to clean up the agency after previous scandals.
The CIA's Hawaii-based Asia-Pacific financial operation appears to have been the brain child of retired CIA deputy director for intelligence Ray S. Cline, a proponent of the CIA's paying pro-American strongmen around the world large sums of cash to ensure their loyalty, including Mobutu Seso Seko of Zaire, King Hussein of Jordan, Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan, General Lon Nol of Cambodia, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, and Marcos. Helping to assist these operations was Madelyn Dunham who was in charge of the Bank of Hawaii's secretive escrow account business. During her grandson's presidential campaign in 2008, Madelyn Dunham refused all media interview requests. She died in Hawaii two days before her grandson was elected president. With the death of Toot, the early chapters of the life of Barack Obama, Jr, his father, mother, and step-father also went to the grave.
At the time Obama's mother and father met in Russian language class in Hawaii, the CIA was embarked on an aggressive covert campaign in Asia, one that involved starting a Soviet-Chinese war and aiming to assassinate Sukarno of Indonesia. The CIA was similarly involved in an aggressive covert war with the Soviets in Africa, vying for control of the continent's newly-independent states. In the world of the CIA there are no coincidences.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written for several renowned papers and blogs.Madsen is a regular contributor on Russia Today. He has been a frequent political and national security commentatoron Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. Madsen has taken on Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on their television shows. He has been invited to testifty as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government.
As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.
Madsen is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO), and the National Press Club. He is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker.
-
EDITORIAL: Here is what one reader sent us as commentary on the above situation.
________________________
We give thanks to God that the Nov 2 elections are suspended and the rubber stamp in congress and senate can continue to assist the illegal alien in the white house with the demise of this republic sooner than later. Yes that is correct. For the continuity of government, I predict there will be no Nov 2 elections. Then all of the predatory foreign commercial agents will run out of money and the nightmare will be over, the country will look like the last 15 minutes of the movie Spartacus, and we the remnant can set about the restoration of lawful government. Can you imagine being asked by the IRS for the shipping list of buyers of a book because the buyers might be terrorists? With that logic in mind one could conclude that Nancy Pelosi is equipped to be a whore; and the IRS needs a list of all of her associates for determining if she is a whore earning undeclared income with trust assets. If she does not cooperate, just disregard the first and fifth amendments, then she must be a whore who has made undeclared income and we need to get the IRS to lien her up, levy her, and steal all her stuff. Hhmmmmm. Sounds logical to me. You know I have seen logic like this in the past. You know, invoke your right of remaining silent and suffer 100 times the abuse reserved for the truely guilty, and all without due process. Treatment always reserved for slaves. Hmmm. I seem to remember being trapped in catholic schools and being physically and mentally abused by whores in penguin outfits who hour by hour employed this type of Jesuit logic.
O K boys and girls it appears that “Change” is a euphemism for NAZI Germany of 1936 thru 1945. Voice concern about an administrative scheme and artifice that does not follow the de facto administration public policy of using the constitutions and statute as a guide, then become victimized by services, agencies, and bureaus that do not have any actual delegation of authority. No wonder when one asks one of the pretty people, and pretty people are a class of residents who are members of a group of at least half of the vote that the illegal alien in the white house received from the election, when asked: “Did you do this to us?” because they are so pretty, they can never say “yes but I was confused,” or “yes, but I was seduced,” for they are too pretty; but they do get that “I am about to puke” look in their eyes. My point is: What society of citizens, congressman, what senator, what president of a communitarian welfare benefit trust which has as its public policy, see the attached title 5 USC 559 footnotes containing verbiage requiring the de facto administration to follow as a guide the old constitutions and statute wherein de facto administrative service bureaus are prohibited from conducting tyranny under the color of law because someone figured out the scheme and artifice for stealing the wealth of the people and has written about it, would allow the destruction of a man by tyranny and abuse under color of law and do nothing to stop it? Do you see it now? The entire administration has gone rogue. That is why we must be in favor of all that the change makers want so that the end will come sooner than later. Conflict gives them life energy. Embrace their tyranny and encourage their crimes and they will disappear like cigarette smoke. Encourage Cornyn and Hutchinson to steal the retirement, the 401's, and the IRA's of the pretty people and I guarantee you they will never be stupid ever again. Seek the truth in these last 29 months so that we can do what is necessary for the restart. Support Phil Hart and buy his book.