[fg_admin]

SOURCE: http://www.justice.g…x/txdv10476.htm

___________

LOCAL BUSINESSMAN AND TAX ATTORNEY SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR TAX EVASION

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice announced that two men were sentenced to prison today for their involvement in a complex tax fraud scheme concocted to avoid paying federal income taxes.

Lindsey Kent Springer, 44, a Kellyville, Okla., businessman, and Oscar Amos Stilley, 46, an attorney from Fort Smith, Ark., were each sentenced by U.S. District Judge Stephen P. Friot to 180 months in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal. Both men were found guilty in a jury trial last November of all counts with which they were charged in a grand jury indictment returned in March 2009. The counts were conspiracy to defraud the United States and tax evasion, and Springer was additionally charged with failure to file tax returns. Neither Springer nor Stilley have filed an income tax return since the late 1980's.

Springer used the name Bondage Breakers Ministry to solicit and receive money. His stated purpose for Bondage Breakers Ministry was “to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service.” Stilley, an attorney and tax advisor, assisted Springer's tax evasion scheme through a variety of means. Stilley maintained an interest bearing account, called an Arkansas IOLTA Foundation Trust account, which lawyers use to deposit and hold client funds. The pair used the IOLTA account and various other devices such as cashier's checks, check cashing services, money orders, cash and other means to conceal Springer's actual income and avoid creating the usual records of financial institutions. Springer told IRS employees that all funds he receives are gifts and donations to his ministry, and that he does not have any income. He also stated he does not provide any services for payment. There were numerous transactions involving hundreds of thousands of dollars between Springer and Stilley that flowed through the IOLTA account, such as $166,000 paid out in August 2005 to purchase a motor home titled in the name of Springer and his wife, and a September 2005 payment of $25,813 to purchase a Lexus automobile titled in Springer's name.

“This conviction serves as yet another reminder that individuals who break our nation's tax laws face serious consequences,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division John A. DiCicco. “Citizens who comply with our tax laws can be assured that the United States vigorously prosecutes those who choose to violate them.”

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma Thomas Scott Woodward added, “The investigators and prosecutors in this case worked diligently to uncover the illegal activities of Springer and Stilley, and they did an outstanding job of presenting the evidence which resulted in the convictions and sentencing of the defendants. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma will continue to vigorously prosecute flagrant offenders of the nation's tax laws in an effort to make the system fair to all.”

“The harsh sentences these individuals received should serve as a stern warning to others, who are on a similar path of criminal non-compliance with the tax laws,” said Andrea Whelan, IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent-in-Charge of the Dallas Field Office.

The prosecution of the matter was handled by the Department of Justice Tax Division Trial Attorney Charles O'Reilly and Northern District of Oklahoma Senior Litigation Counsel, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Snoke. The investigation was undertaken by the Tulsa Office of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.

[fg_admin]

JuliusBragg,

Thanks for the great info. I don't know why you would expect to be attacked for it. As a matter of fact, we just posted it on the website:

1. Direct link. Includes all links referenced on page as well:

http://famguardian.o…erignStates.pdf

2. Added the above link to:

Sovereignty and Freedom Page, Section 8.2

http://famguardian.o…dom/Freedom.htm

We have always had suspicions that the content of the section in the Flawed Tax Arguments document may be inaccurate, but no one up to this time has been able to offer EVIDENCE to prove it wrong. That is the main purpose for these forums, in fact: To improve our research for the benefit of ALL. We are always open to changing our mind when presented with credible evidence, and what you pointed us to is a very good start in that department. We aren't saying its right or wrong, but only that we are going to study it carefully and reach our own independent conclusions.

[fg_admin]

jb,

1. I didn’t say that only white males can be “State Citizens”. I said that only white males can be “Citizens” under the United States Constitution. But even if one isn’t born or naturalized in the United States, they can STILL be State Citizens, subject only to the provisions of state law. An example would be an alien from a foreign country who becomes a state citizen under the laws of a state but who is never naturalized in this country.

2. I didn’t argue that your position of insisting that you are not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” as a WHITE OVERAGE MALE is erroneous, but that it is inappropriate for OUR audience. You agreed with the following assertions, because you didn’t argue with them:

2.2. I also want to point out the following limitations upon your approach to the Fourteenth Amendment that limit its usefulness and applicability to a small subset of those that our official UNCHANGED position can reach:

2.2.1 It makes those who use it look like a racist.

2.2.2 It is limited to WHITE OVERAGE MALES. It would not be useful for blacks, women, or UNDERAGE WHITE MALES.

2.2.3 It confers NO DEMONSTRABLE ADDITIONAL RIGHTS that WHITE males did not possess at the founding of the country.

2.3. Our position, in contrast:

2.3.1 Can be used by ANYONE and EVERYONE who claims to be a state citizen.

2.3.2 Does not result in a surrender of ANY right that a WHITE MALE OVERAGE “Citizen” in the original Constitution has.

2.3.3 Avoids a lot of controversy and confusion that is pointless, and makes the advocate look like a conspiracy nut.

2.3.4 Can be used simply and reliably by people with far less legal knowledge, because it is LESS complex and less controversial.

2.3.5 Keeps the focus where it belongs, which is on GOVERNMENT VERBICIDE and WORD GAMES that destroy rights and violate due process of law. See:

3. You are free, and even encouraged to exercise as much caution and precaution as you like to establish the status you wish to hold out and to define how you want to relate to the pagan terrorists that run the federal mafia we suffer under at this time. One can never be too cautious in that regard. But your approach, as we point out above, would NOT work for everyone because you are, in fact, a white OVERAGE male. Fewer than half the people out there at this time fit your description. For everyone ELSE, there is our materials, which work for ANYONE and EVERYONE born or naturalized anywhere in the American Union. Our materials would lose most of their public appeal if we catered only to the much more limited audience who satisfy your circumstances.

4. We didn’t take this as an assault on FG, but a way to improve the quality of what we have to offer. Everyone benefits by having very knowledgeable and interested people such as yourself going over our materials, policies, and forms with a fine tooth comb. I’d rather have YOU doing it NOW than to discover much later that they are flawed during an inspection by a judicial officer or employee of the Department of Justice. THANK YOU.

Our goal is not to WIN per se, or to be “right”, but to converge on the naked truth distilled down to its barest and simplest essentials and packaged in such a way that it can be used in a legal or administrative setting without contest or adverse consequence. You have helped greately in that regard. THANK YOU. The essence of genius is SIMPLICITY, according to Einstein, and we want to keep things as SIMPLE and GENERAL as possible, so you don’t have to get a phD in law by home study to be free. That is the path we have been forced to follow in producing the enormous volume of materials on this website.

The prosecution rests its case. Will the minority of WHITE CITIZEN LAND OWNING, SLAVE OWNING, WOMAN OWNING, RACIST GENTLEMEN sitting on the jury please render their BIGOTED verdict?

Oh, and BY THE WAY: We just synopsized all of this wonderful interchange into the following location and posted a new version of the document indicated. Enjoy!:

1. Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 8.1

http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf

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

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

[fg_admin]

jb,

1. Should I assume that you agree with our answer in 6? Remember: In the absense of an express denial supported by EVIDENCE, YOU ADMIT. I win according to YOUR rules! F.R.C.P. 8(b)(6).

2. I also want to point out the following limitations upon your approach to the Fourteenth Amendment that limit its usefulness and applicability to a small subset of those that our official UNCHANGED position can reach:

2.1 It makes those who use it look like a racist.

2.2 It is limited to WHITE OVERAGE MALES. It would not be useful for blacks, women, or UNDERAGE WHITE MALES.

2.3 It confers NO DEMONSTRABLE ADDITIONAL RIGHTS that WHITE males did not possess at the founding of the country.

3. Our position, in contrast:

3.1 Can be used by ANYONE and EVERYONE who claims to be a state citizen.

3.2 Does not result in a surrender of ANY right that a WHITE MALE OVERAGE “Citizen” in the original Constitution has.

3.3 Avoids a lot of controversy and confusion that is pointless, and makes the advocate look like a conspiracy nut.

3.4 Can be used simply and reliably by people with far less legal knowledge, because it is LESS complex and less controversial.

3.5 Keeps the focus where it belongs, which is on GOVERNMENT VERBICIDE and WORD GAMES that destroy rights and violate due process of law. See:

Meaning of the words “includes” and “including”

http://famguardian.o…c/Includess.pdf

4. You stated that we have not provided a description of WHO the “exceptions or uncommon people” are that are state citizens but not “citizens of the United States”. Do we have to do EVERYTHING? The least you could do is try to take a stab at WHO that would be based on your obviously superior legal abilities. Those exceptions are:

4.1 “Citizens”, who are WHITE MALES who continue to distinguish themselves with this status and who REFUSE to adopt the “citizen of the United States” status adopted later. That condition, apprently and sadly, continues to describe YOU. This was identified in our earlier post….AND

4.2 Aliens born in a foreign country who are citizens of a state of the Union but who were never naturalized.

5. You truthfully stated that at the very least, this debate has demonstrated that the subject of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship is a frequently controverted subject in the courts. This exchange has been useful in demonstrating:

5.1 WHY it is controverted, which is that those who controvert it or argue that they are NOT Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” in fact, DO NOT understand the context, or the nuances of the subject and are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

5.2 That disputes over the subject are used by the government to distract attention away from MUCH more important and central issues, like what a “trade or business” is and how they can force you to occupy a public office without your consent without violating the Thirteenth Amendment.

5.3 That those who make a mountain of the mole hill that is this subject are what the government truthfully and accurately calls “conspiracy nuts” and little more.

Thank you for your participation and advocacy. Even if we HAD lost this debate, we still won because of what we learned participating in it, defending, and explaining our position. You have a lot of value and knowledge to add to these forums. We especially value people who claim to have read EVERYTHING on this website. That task alone is monumental in scope and demonstrates the degree of commitment you have to the subject matter.

Please don’t take the result of this debate personally or abandon the forums because we were able to take a prize out of your mouth.

Finally, this has been a wonderful, educational exchange that will form the basis for innumerable enhancements to the information on this site on the citizenship subject. We don’t intend on changing any aspect of our position, but in the future we will explain and defend it MUCH better than we have in the past. In all battles in the courtroom, words and evidence are the only weapons. We now have a WHOLE NEW ARSENAL of weapons we can use, and our debate opponents (but not real life opponents 🙂 ) even helped us craft those weapons, no less!

We earnestly invite any other readers who can find flaw with our approach to provide evidence refuting it. Looks like jb has exhausted his whole bunker full of ammunition, and that bunker is conserable and admirable.

[fg_admin]

Jb,

1. The disagreement results in WHAT I am saying is “essentially equivalent”:

1.1. I am saying the RIGHTS of “Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” are effectively equivalent AT THIS TIME.

1.2. I am saying that “citizens of the United States” AT THIS TIME are a SUPERSET of “Citizens” and that “Citizens” is a SUBSET of “citizens of the United States” WHEN ALL AMENDMENTS AND LEGISLATION UP TO THIS POINT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

1.3. I am not saying their NAME or their GENESIS is equivalent.

1.4. I am not saying that they were ALWAYS equivalent IN POLITICAL RIGHTS, but that they have EVOLVED to be equivalent AT THIS TIME.

1.5. I am not saying that they apply to the same CONTEXTS. “Citizen” applies to the relationship between the national government and the state citizen. “citizen of the United States” applies to the relationship between the constitutional state governments and THEIR citizens.

2. I asked you for cases AFTER both the 15th and the 19th Amendment. You violated my request by citing cases before the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920's. That means the following cases have to be excluded:

Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.

Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29.

2. You are correct, that if you remove the amendments and legislation passed after the 14th Amendment, the RIGHTS of either would not be equal. I never argued otherwise.

3. You cite Colgate v. Harvey to establish that fourteenth amendment citizenship is “paramount and dominant”. It was overruled by Madden v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940).

4. The following case proves my point that “Citizens” are a subset of ALL PERSONS found in “citizens of the United States” AT THIS TIME. The following wasn't ALWAYS true, but it is now because of the evolution of the Constitution with additional amendments and federal legislation:

Quote:

Privileges and immunities of “citizens of the United States,” on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or as specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States.”

[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78. ]

“citizens of the United States” NOW, but not ALWAYS, includes ALL PERSONS, when all amendments and legislation up to this point is taken into account.

a. It adds blacks. (15th Amendment)

b. It adds women. (19th Amendment)

c. It adds any white males that you would call “DUMB ENOUGH” to convert to the status voluntarily.

3. It EVEN adds underage WHITE MALE voters! (26th Amendment)

“Citizens” in the Constitution includes ONLY the white male OVERAGE subset of “ALL PERSONS”. And by “persons”, I mean CONSTITUTIONAL “persons” and exclude statutory “persons” domiciled on federal territory, such as “taxpayers” under Title 26 or Social Security participants under Title 42.

5. You suggest that:

“If by 1897 99% of the white men declared their status as citizens, this case reads true. In fact, what is an example of one of the “exceptional” or “uncommon” people they are referring to?? Perhaps a State citizen who failed to join the membership??”

What you really mean to imply is that those WHITE MALE OVERAGE “Citizens” who refused to convert to “citizens of the United States” are the only exceptional case where “state citizens” and “citizens of the United States” are not equivalent. On that point, we disagree with you. As we said, all “Citizens” are white males. “citizens of the United States” is a SUPERSET of “Citizens” that ADDS to that status:

5.1 Blacks. (15th Amend.)

5.2 Women (19th Amend.)

5.3 People 18 years of age or greater (26th Amendment), INCLUDING underage WHITE MALES.

White men are STILL included in the “citizen of the United States” category, because if they are underage voters and WHITE, they are covered by the 26th Amendment ALSO. That Amendment ALSO mentions “citizens of the United States”.

6. You ask how “subject to THEIR jurisdiction” can only mean states of the Union and not include federal territory and cite Downes v. Bidwell as your authority. The answer is that:

6.1 It appears that the USSC added “subject to THE jurisdiction” to the Thirteenth Amendment “as a matter of policy and not law”, even though the words don't appear there.

6.2 If the SC hadn't done this, they would have made the feds look like IDIOTS and HYPOCRITES for invading the southern states because they were practicing slavery, and yet CONTINUED to practice it themselves ONLY ON FEDERAL TERRITORY.

6.3 If Congress had enacted the Thirteenth Amendment properly, they would have used the phrase “subject to THE jurisdiction”, instead of “subject to THEIR jurisdiction”.

6.4 The ONLY consenting parties to the U.S. Constitution are “The Sovereign States”. Territories are neither parties to it nor are even mentioned in it. Hence, territories and possessions cannot be within the meaning “subject to THEIR jurisdiction” as NON-consenting parties and separate sovereignties.

6.5 AFTER the southern states had been conquered by the north but BEFORE they rejoined the Union, they were federal territory and “subject to THE jurisdiction” but not “subject to THEIR jurisdiction”. However, they were not permitted to rejoin the Union unless and until they ratified the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and hence recognized and consented to the prohibition upon slavery. Hence, it doesn't matter whether “subject to THEIR jurisdiction” includes federal territory, because they couldn't restore their statehood without being part of THEIR jurisdiction and recognizing the slavery prohibition.

I don't see anything that establishes that the STATUTORY “person” in 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ) who is “subject to ITS jurisdiction” is equivalent to the CONSTITUTIONAL “person” in 42 USC 1981(a) that is “subject to THE jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence they are NOT equivalent and a statutory “citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 and 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ) is NOT equivalent. Hence, you AGREE with us on the main point of debate here. We've already settled the argument and we have devolved it to irrelevant minutia.

Touchet.

[fg_admin]

Neo,

The cite you reference provided by jb is from: Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). We quoted it also if you look at our earlier posts in this topic.

In the recent and previous debate we had about the 8 USC 1401 “citizen and national”, you were the opponent. Now you’re on our side. The tables have turned. What a relief that is!

The last thing people usually develop in the maturation process of learning a new subject is an understanding of the COMPLETE context of specific things. To understand context requires simultaneous awareness of a broad and diverse spectrum of subjects so that the puzzle can be pieced together. Those other subjects often are not directly related to the subject sought to be understood. Understanding context is crucial to problem solving skills and self government. I’m sure you understand this as a military instructor. Most people in the freedom community never develop enough knowledge to properly understand context because:

1. They pursue freedom issues for the WRONG reasons, such as selfish commercial reasons instead of religious reasons. Hence:

1.1. They only focus on tax issues.

http://famguardian.o…htm#CITIZENSHIP:

1.2. They only focus on commercial subjects.

http://sedm.org/Form…icyDocs/UCC.pdf

2. They ignore citizenship issues. Citizenship is THE MOST IMPORTANT subject you can learn about in law.

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

3. They don’t develop legal research skills adequately, and therefore don’t have a way to critically evaluate what others are telling them.

http://sedm.org/Libe…galResearch.pdf

4. They are too busy or lazy or selfish to study subjects not directly related to the one they are investigating.

If you hang around here long enough AND if you follow the following document, you will NOT have any of the above problems and no one in the government will ever be able to knock you off your horse or terrorize you with your own legal ignorance in front of a judge, jury, attorney, or government prosecutor:

Path to Freedom, Form #09.015

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

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

Quote:

“Be diligent to [investigate and expose the truth for yourself and thereby] present yourself [and the public servants who are your fiduciaries and stewards under the Constitution] approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word [and the deeds] of truth. But shun profane babblings url=”http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm”]government propaganda[/url], tyranny, and [url url=”http://famguardian.org/Publications/FederalUsurpation/FederalUsurpation.pdf”]usurpation[/url for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message [and their harmful affects] will spread like cancer [to destroy our society and great Republic].”

[2 Tim. 2:15-17, Bible, NKJV]

jb,

Thanks for acting as a surrogate in developing arguments against Fourteenth Amendment Conspiracy Theorists. This was a very important subject that we wanted to develop further. Now we have all the tools needed for dealing with it.

[fg_admin]

jb,

All the cases you just cited occurred during a period of time when the early “Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” were still different because the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments were not yet passed. As we pointed out, the two statuses since then have been made equivalent for all practical purposes through additional amendments and congressional legislation such as 42 U.S.C. 1983. They continue to be different only in the respect that they relate to different contexts, and we listed those contexts in earlier posts.

1. “Ciitizen” in the early constitution relates to the relationship between the federal government and state citziens.

2. “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment on relates to the relationship between the state government and its citizens and excludes the relationship in item 1 above.

Rights are always relative to relationships. The above have in common that they both relate to state citizens. The only difference is who is at the OTHER end of the relationship and who ENFORCES the relationship. The last cite you provided agrees with this conclusion:

Quote:

“a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon. “

Please show us cases AFTER the 15th and 19th amendments were passed that said the two were different.

No doubt, the rights of “citizens of the United States” in relation to their respective state governments will always be inferior to and a subset of those in item 1 above, but only because they essentially SUPPLEMENT the Union state constitutions to add additional rights to said constitution that may be enforced in FEDERAL court against state officers under the authority of 42 USC 1983. That is why most states of the Union rewrote their state constitutions after the civil war: To add those additional rights. If you want to see the evidence of that for yourself, go to:

1. State legal sources

http://famguardian.o…alResources.htm

2. SEDM Jurisdictions Database, Litigation Tool #10.010

DIRIECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Liti…onsDatabase.pdf

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

Now I’m going to apply the same rule to you that you applied to me.

1. We said that you have not proven that a Fourteenth Amendment citizen is equivalent to a statutory citizen. You didn’t offer any proof and we have 120 pages of proof of the OPPOSITE in:

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

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

2. We showed that the “person” found in 42 USC 1981(a) is the “person” within the Fourteenth Amendment and not the “person” found in Title 26 because 42 USC 1983 IMPLEMENTS the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://sedm.org/foru…?showtopic=1051

3. We showed that the “Citizen” and the “citizen of the United States” are essentially equivalent (in RIGHTS), AT THIS TIME, but were not always equivalent, for the purposes of states rights.

4. We said there is no advantage to saying you are a “Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States”, because they are essentially equivlanet AT THIS TIME.

5. We showed that the STATUTORY “citizen” found in Title 26 is the one you want to AVOID.

6. We showed that the “United States” found in Title 26 was the “subject to ITS jurisdiction” version, meaning that it was NOT the one found in the Constitution.

7. We showed that a “citizen of the United States” in the constitution is equivalent to a “national” in Title 8 of the U.S. Code and is NOT the same thing as a “citizen and national of the United States” found in 8 U.S.C. 1401.

8. We showed you what to attach to all government forms to ensure that you are not confused with a domiciliary of the federal zone WITHOUT making an issue of whether you are a “Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States”.

9. We also said that Fourteenth Amendment conspiracy theorists are whackos that don’t really understand the nuances described here and who FALSELY PRESUME that the statutory and constitutional contexts are equal.

Hence, YOU AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT I SAID under Fed.R.Civ. P. 8(b)(6) and you need to:

1. Quit arguing about the Fourteenth Amendment citizen being the same as the statutory citizen.

2. Educate all the freedom advocates you know who are mistaken about their misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. Get on with MUCH more important things that will REALLY make a difference instead of this IDIOTIC Fourteenth Amendment nonsense.

The subject of this topic is also discussed in:

Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 6.1

http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf

The Fourteenth Amendment Conspiracy theory you advocate is:

1. An OVER-REACTION to the government tactic of confusing the statutory and constitutional contexts documented in the document above.

2. Spread as a DEFENSE against the FRAUD by the government documented in the Flawed Arguments, Section 6.1 above.

There are, however, much more effective ways of dealing with “word of art” games by the government documented in the above document than to AGREE with the government that a statutory and constitutional citizen are equivalent and then say that you are are NOT a fourteenth amendment citizen. Those methods are employed in the forms we pointed to that you can attach to your government forms documenting your citizenship.

Based on this discussion, we are going to rewrite the Flawed Arguments to add a new section 8.1 that will address flawed patriot Fourteenth Amendment citizenship arguments. The most famous proponent of these flawed arguments is L.B. Bork (http://pacinlaw.org), but even most redemptionists also share this clearly flawed view of citizenship.

[fg_admin]

We never said that the Fourteenth Amendment implied ONLY a GEOGRAPHIC sense. We said that there are TWO contexts for the use of “United States” that are BOTH found throughout the constitution, and that the “United States**” context is NOT used in a geographic sense anywhere in the constitution:

1. The GEOGRAPHIC sense, meaning states of the Union and excluding federal territory.

2. The GOVERNMENT or POLITICAL sense, meaning every part of the country where the government “governs”, including both states of the Union and federal territory. Connects with nationality and not domicile.

We said that “subject to THE jurisdiction” implies allegiance, that of being a “national”, and to definition 2 above, which is the “United States*”, because nationals are found EVERYWHERE, including states of the Union, territories, and possessions.

The Wong Kim Ark case you cite just proves that “subject to THE jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses states of the Union, political jurisdiction, allegiance, and nationality, but NOT domicile or statutory civil jurisdiction. That case was heard in 1898, but only three years later, in Downes v. Bidwell, the SAME court ADDED to the phrase “subject to THE jurisdiction” federal territory as well, because it realized that POLITICAL and not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction was the issue, and that POLITICAL jurisdiction extends wherever allegiance extends, and that being a “national” is synonymous with POLITICAL jurisdiction:

Quote:

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

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

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

Notice the language “The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude ‘within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,’is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the [states of the] Union.”, meaning that “subject to THE jurisdiction” includes federal territories and possesions, and hence is connected with allegiance, POLITICAL jurisdiction, and NATIONALITY rather than domicile or civil jurisdiciton.

You asked whether our interpretation of “their jurisdiction” was just an interpretation. The phrase “subject to THEIR jurisdiction”:

1. Appears in the Thirteenth Amendment.

2. Can therefore logically refer only to states of the Union who are party to the Constitution, because territories are neither mentioned within nor parties to the USA constitution. Hence, the only thing there are multiple instances of in the constitution are the states who wrote the constitution.

Here is the interpretation of “subject to THEIR jurisdiction” given by the U.S. Supreme Court and found in the Thirteenth Amendment, as far as the extent of that amendment.:

Quote:

“Other authorities to the same effect might be cited. It is not open to doubt that Congress may enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by direct legislation, punishing the holding of a person in slavery or in involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime. In the exercise of that power Congress has enacted these sections denouncing peonage, and punishing one who holds another in that condition of involuntary servitude. This legislation is not limited to the territories or other parts of the strictly national domain, but is operative in the states and wherever the sovereignty of the United States extends. We entertain no doubt of the validity of this legislation, or of its applicability to the case of any person holding another in a state of peonage, and this whether there be municipal ordinance or state law sanctioning such holding. It operates directly on every citizen of the Republic, wherever his residence may be.”

[Clyatt v. U.S., 197 U.S. 207 (1905)]

Notice above that:

1. They refer to federal territory as “the national domain”

2. They are ruling on specific federal legislation outlawing slavery, not directly on the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment.

3. They apply the legislation outlawing slavery to “every citizen of the Republic” and to “wherever the sovereignty of the United States extends”, including a state of the Union.

4. That same court four years earlier said that federal territory is NOT part of the “Republic” but the equivalent of a “British Crown Colony”. Hence, they could only be referring to states of the Union in the Thirteenth Amendment.

Quote:

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

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

In summary:

1. POLITICAL JURISDICTION=allegiance, nationality, and being a national.

2. LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION=domicile and being a statutory “citizen”.

These are very subtle points we are making that can only be understood by the select few who REALLY understand the law, how to do legal research, and who have experience behind their belt. It is an advanced topic that only a few members of a black robed priesthood at the highest levels truly understand, so you shouldn’t be embarrassed to admit that you really didn’t “get it” until now. But take your time, read everything we said several times, and pray about it and you will see that it is the ONLY interpretation that fits the circumstances and is consistent with everything we previously discussed about citizenship and jurisdiction. It can’t and wouldn’t be truth unless it is completely consistent with everything else we have discussed here.

This subject is also VERY important, because misunderstandings about the Fourteenth Amendment are so prevalent in the freedom community. Based on this discussion, we may publish a memorandum or policy document intended for Fourteenth Amendment conspiracy theorists that proves they are simply mistaken about the subjects discussed here.

Is anybody home upstairs? Are you listening? Are you paying attention, or do you still insist on embracing patriot religion and deception surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment?

[fg_admin]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS:

1) do you think a 14th Amendment citizen has all of the rights as a Constitutional “we the people” Citizen?

As we already said. AT THIS TIME, the rights are the same by virtue of all the amendments passed from Fourteen on.

2) do you even think there is a difference?

No. Not at this time. At one time there was, but not any more.

3) as you admitted, if there is a difference can they be equal?

They can be equal AT THIS TIME, but between the time that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and the time the 15th and 19th Amendment passed, they were NOT equal.

4) do you know of any provision anywhere in any code that forbids us (that is those wishing to be sovereigns)from declaring our status as that of a “Constitutional, but not 14th Amendment, Citizen”, or something similar?

No. Because there is longer a need to distinguish the two at this time. They are EQUAL for all practical purposes.

5) if not (like the neo argument) isn't it better to side with an error of caution and avoid declaring our status as 14th Amendment citizens?

No because:

a. It doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would only work for whites. We try to offer to people UNIVERSAL solutions that work for EVERYONE, not a subset of EVERYONE, such as only whites.

b. It makes you look like a racist to even explain it.

c. It is an unnecessary academic exercise. No court has never distinguished the two capitalizations.

d. The caselaw you cite showing that some amendments don't apply to the Fourteenth Amendment are not relevant to a dispute between a federal officer and a federal citizen. They are only relevant to a dispute between a state officer and a state citizen.

6) admit or deny that 14th Amendment citizens could not vote in 1869?

Admit. But they can now.

7) admit or deny that 14th Amendment citizens are protected by civil rights?

Deny. Federal civil rights are actually statutory civil privileges that one can only be subject to by virtue of being a “person” who is “subject to ITS jurisdiction” rather than “subject to THE jurisdiction”. As we said, you can be a “person” under 42 USC 1981(a) and NOT a “person” under the I.R.C., because the “person” under the I.R.C. is identified in 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ) as being subject to ITS jurisdiction rather than subject to THE (political and not legislative) jurisdiction. Hence, as we said, 42 USC 1983 is not a civil privilege and wouldn't be unless the “person” protected was “subject to ITS jurisdiction” and thereby domiciled on federal territory.

8) admit or deny that a natural born Citizen of the United States of America, as found in the Organic Constitution, was allowed to vote in 1850?

Admit.

9) admit or deny that a natural born Citizen of the United States of America, as found in the Organic Constitution, is allowed to vote today?

Admit.

10) admit or deny that the 14th Amendment brought blacks up to the status of whites?

Deny. Not ALL blacks. Black women STILL couldn't vote until the Nineteenth Amendment.

11) admit or deny that the 14th Amendment brought whites down to the status of blacks?

Deny. The “person” found in 42 USC 1981 is not subject to “ITS” jurisdiction, but subject to THE jurisdiction, meaning the political and not legislative jurisdiction.

12) admit or deny that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as found in section 1 of the 14th Amendment has the same meaning as “subject to their jurisdiction” as used in the 13th Amendment only years earlier?

Deny. They are not the same.

a. THEIR is relative to FEDERAL constitutional rights within states of the Union ONLY.

b. “Subject to THE jurisdiction” applies to places not within states of the Union and is the equivalent of being a “national”. It documents POLITICAL jurisdiction and not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction, and therefore is not used in a geographic sense but a GOVERNMENT sense. It exists everywhere in the COUNTRY or “United States*”, including federal territory, because even those in American Samoa, Swains Island, and 8 USC 1401 statutory citizens domiciled on federal territory are all described as “nationals”. This type of jurisdiction attaches to nationality and allegiance, not domicile.

Quote:

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

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

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

13) What act of congress allowed 14th amendment “citizens of the United States” to run for office?

Don't know.

FURTHER DISCUSSION:

42 U.S.C. 1983 was passed under the authority of Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5:

Quote:

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This is established in the following, as already indicated in other recent posts:

Section 1983 Litigation, Litigation Tool #08.008

http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm

I don't agree that the Elk v. Wilkins cite implies that “subject to THE jurisdiction” means subject to exclusive federal LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction. It means subject to POLITICAL jurisdiction and therefore means that the party referenced is simply a MEMBER of the USA political community created by the Constitution but not a subject or inhabitant or domiciliary of the federal zone. Notice that both cases below refer to “subject to THE jurisdiction” as meaning POLITICAL and NOT LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction, which are two completely different things. Political jurisdiction attaches to allegiance and is the equivalent of being a “national”. Legislative jurisdiction attaches to domicile and is equivalent to being a “subject” or “inhabitant” or “citizen” under STATUTORY law.

Quote:

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] 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 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.”

[Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)]

___________________________________

“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 [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] 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. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]

Notice in Elk the phrase “subject to THEIR political jurisdiction”, which equates “subject to THEIR jurisdiction” with POLITICAL jurisdiction and nationality within and allegiance towards a state of the Union rather than domicile within a state.

There is no reason, as far as protecting your rights or your sovereignty, to avoid calling oneself a fourteenth amendment citizen and to insist on being a “Citizen” instead. This is because:

a. We already established that being a “citizen” within the constitution equates with being a “national” under federal statutory law. You only become a statutory “citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 by having a domicile on federal territory, so this moniker should be avoided, but the constitutional moniker is not a problem.

b. There is no harm in being a “non-citizen national”.

c. The term “United States” in the constitution, WHEN USED IN A GEOGRAPHIC SENSE, means states of the Union and excludes federal territory, as we already pointed out.

d. There are NO LONGER any differences between the two statuses but as we said, at one time there was.

Hence, it's a needless academic controversy to argue the differences between a “Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” within the Constitution. HOWEVER, whether you choose to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States of AMERICA” or a “citizen of the United States***”, we all agree that you should ALWAYS attach the following forms to any government forms you fill out:

a. Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001

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

b. USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007

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

c. Voter Registration Attachment, Form #06.003

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

The code in 42 USC 1983 and 1981 can restate what the Fourteenth Amendment already says, and Section 5 of that Amendment authorizes it to say that.

By using the phrase “subject to THE jurisdiction” in 42 USC 1983, Congress is extending the equal protections found in the Fourteenth Amendment to every place where “nationals” who have allegiance can be found, including states of the Union and federal territories and possessions, as recognized in Downes v. Bidwell above. Otherwise, they would have used “subject to THEIR jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment to make it apply only within constitutional states of the Union.

You are confusing the three contexts. Each context implies a DIFFERENT community and a different mix of jurisdictional types. Some contexts encompass DOMICILE while others encompass only NATIONALITY:

1. “Subject to THE jurisdiction”. States of the Union AND federal territory, but ONLY in a political and not legislative context. Found in the Fourteenth Amendment section 1. Used in a POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT and not GEOGRAPHIC sense of the constitution. Attaches to allegiance, nationality, and the status of being a “national”, but not to municipal domicile.

2. “Subject to ITS jurisdiction”. Federal territory. In a LEGISLATIVE context and not a POLITICAL context. Found in 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ). Used in a GEOGRAPHIC/LEGISLATIVE and not POLITICAL sense. Attaches to DOMICILE.

3. “Subject to THEIR jurisdiction”. States of the Union. In a POLITICAL context and not a LEGISLATIVE context. Found in the Thirteenth Amendment. Used in a GEOGRAPHIC and not POLITICAL sense within the constitution. Attaches to allegiance to a state of the Union and not the national government or to domicile in the state.

Being subject to the POLITICAL jurisdiction but not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction means:

1. You can be a constitutional “person” (We The People) but not a statutory “person” (federal zone person). Nearly all statutory “persons” are domiciled on federal territory. The only exception is the one you pointed out in 42 USC 1981(a), which is tied to the “subject to THE jurisdiction” found in the constitution and therefore is a Constitutional “person” rather than a statutory “person”.

2. You are not domiciled on federal territory and therefore NOT subject to the EXCLUSIVE legislative jurisdiction.

3. You are not “subject to ITS jurisdiction”.

As far as the Wong Kim Ark cite you provided, it doesn't support your conclusion.

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]

The phrase “within ITS jurisdiction” at the end of Fourteenth Amendment section 1 is referring to a STATE OF THE UNION and not to the federal government. “ITS jurisdiction” in THAT context means the POLITICAL jurisdiction of the state of the Union and is associated with allegiance towards that specific state and not domicile within the state. As we keep saying, POLITICAL and LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction are two completely different things and you are confusing the two and assuming they are the same. They ARE NOT. The list above shows how each of the three versions of “subject to…” apply them in different combinations.

The constitution is a POLITICAL document. It is law for GOVERNMENT and not We the People who wrote it. The jurisdiction it talks about is POLITICAL jurisdiction. Statutes passed in furtherance of it are what create the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction, and even then, that CIVIL legislative jurisdiction requires YOUR choice of domicile in order to become law that can obligate you. See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent

http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm

You are having the same confusion that neo had over the word “citizenship”.

1. You are confusing POLITICAL jurisdiction with LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction. POLITICAL jurisdiction associates with allegiance and nationality. LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction associates with DOMICILE.

2. You are confusing CONSTITUTIONAL context with STATUTORY context. You can be a “Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” under the Constitution while at the same time being an ALIEN under STATUTORY context. See:

http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf

3. You are confusing CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS with CIVIL RIGHTS. CIVIL RIGHTS activate with a domicile on federal territory. CONSTITUTIONAL rights activate by being physically present on GROUND protected by the Constitution, not by either allegiance or domicile.

Quote:

“It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not the status of the people who live in it.”

[Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)]

4. You are not tying the word “person” to the type of “subject to…” that corresponds to it, and hence are assuming the wrong context.

5. You are not recognizing the genesis of 42 USC 1983, which is the Fourteenth Amendment. The reason that this statute mentions “white citizens” is precisely because it IMPLEMENTS the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment extended equal protection and equal rights to everyone OTHER than white citizens.

Section 1983 Litigation

http://sedm.org/Liti…_Litigation.pdf

Context is EVERYTHING. Neo just figured this out after being beat over the head with it for three days, but you haven't yet. Now get with it, dude.

[fg_admin]

Jb,

Like neo, you are failing to realize the following, which I already raised in a companion forum and which you ignored and therefore agreed to. The issue is the differences in CONTEXT that explain the diference in CAPITALIZATION.

1. Upper case “Citizen” of the original constitution

1.1 No doubt, was a white male.

1.2 Rights defined are in the CONTEXT of ONLY the relationship between the national government and people in the several constitutional States.

1.3 Upper case because these people were the sovereigns who wrote the original constitution.

2. Lower case “citizen of the United States” in the constitution:

2.1 Includes people other than white males, such as blacks and women.

2.2 Was made a SUPERSET of the capital “C” Citizen in the earlier constitution, not a subset.

2.3 Rights defined are in the context of ONLY the relationship between the STATE government and the people in the several States. NOT the national government.

2.4 Lower case because the people protected are NOT the capital C citizen, are located in a foreign state, and THESE people were not among the original capitalized sovereigns. Therefore, they cannot be given the same name or use the same capitalization. It is a maxim of law that what is similar is not the same.

2.5 Is not inferior AT THIS TIME to a capital C Citizen. At one time it was, but right now, everyone is equal because of amendments 14 and on.

Obviously, the two types of citizenship started out as unequal but are now essentially equal. But you still haven’t proven that the “citizen of the United States” found in the Fourteenth Amendment is equivalent to a statutory citizen with a domicile on federal territory under 8 USC 1401 and 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ). As we keep saying, government only has the authority to LEGISLATIVELY regulate PUBLIC conduct, not private conduct, on government territory. Hence, statutes are law for government and not private people. Those mentioned in the constitution are PRIVATE people and statutes are written to protect these PRIVATE people, but not to regulate or control them or impose “duties” upon them. This is discussed in:

Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and not Private Persons, Form #05.037

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

DIRECT LINk: http://sedm.org/Form…StatLawGovt.pdf

The two types of citizens are just different subsets of the same sovereign people in states of the Union. The only difference is the CONTEXT described above. In BOTH of the above cases:

1. The term “United States”, in the constitutional geographic context, means ONLY states of the Union and excludes federal territory and statutory “States”, and therefore statutory jurisdiction of Congress.

2. Only becomes a subject of federal jurisdiction against state officers and NOT against the “persons” who might be protected indirectly by it, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. It provides standing to sue ONLY a state officer for a violation of rights, not a private person or a person within a state of the Union.

The language “subject to the jurisdiction” is similar to the Fourteenth Amendment because it refers to THAT constitutional and not statutory citizen.

This is covered in:

Why You are a “national”, Sections 2 and 3

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

The use of “subject to THE jurisdiction” within the statute you cite means the POLITICAL and not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction, as pointed out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. If it meant LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction it would have said “subject to ITS jurisdiction”, just like in 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ). We also already covered this as well. Those who are “subject to THE jurisdiction” and not “subject to ITS jurisdiction”, and whose name is lower case are foreign sovereigns immune from the DIRECT legislative jurisdiction of the sovereign enacting the law. They are protected INDIRECLY by 42 USC 1983 by the fact that state officers who violate their rights are accountable in a federal court for said violation, even if the state refuses to enact laws or change their constitution to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments.

This subject has already thoroughly been covered in the forums of the SEDM sister site at:

http://sedm.org/foru…?showtopic=1051

Why do you needlessly raise the same tired issues again here? It was already asked and answered by you there. Please don’t clutter these forums with questions that have already been asked and answered.

[fg_admin]

See:

Census Worker Survey Response Form, Form #06.026

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

We can't answer questions about this form, but that is what we would use to respond. If you decide to research the content of the form further, please share it with everyone in these forums. Also, please have the decency to give back to these forums as much as you take. That is the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Please in the future search this website and the above website for information on the subjects you are curious about before posting questions to these forums about any particular subject. Both sites have a search page.

We also suggest downloading and viewing the following documents on their website so you can learn how to research the law yourself:

1. Path to Freedom, Form #09.015

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

2. Legal Research and Writing Techniques Course, Form #12.013

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

Welcome to the forums and to this fellowship.

Blessings,

Admin

[fg_admin]

Neo,

Thanks for the feedback. We'd like to respond to your adminition to avoid the ad hominem attacks. We have personal experience litigating against government attorneys and in family courts. Brutal ad hominem attacks by government attorneys and family law attorneys are commonplace in those environments and if you are the victim of them, there is nothing you can do to avoid them.

An important goal of this ministry is to develop in our members a realistic view of the world and the ability to respond in real legal situations to defend their freedom. These forums, as I'm sure you know, are a mock court and a place where people learn to argue what they know in court. An important part of that skill is to control your emotions so that your opponent doesn't push any of your buttons and thereby distract the argument away from the truth or sabotage your success. We don't think ANYONE is benefitted by being treated by kid gloves or by thinking that lawyers who work for the government are humane, respectful, honorable. people. If there is such a thing, we have never seen it. They are vicious animals with no scruples, and we have seen it first hand. They will say and do anything and everything, including being dishonest, to win.

We won't change our tactic in this department because it will not prepare our members for REAL battles in a REAL world. You should understand this as a flight instructor. You teach people in a “flight simulator”, and the more realistic that simulator is, the more useful, practical, and effective their training will be. We know this because we have been through instructor training, just like yourself. That is why military boot camp is deliberately designed to be so brutal and inhumane, and you went through that even as an officer, so you know. It's called “Officer Candidate School” (OCS). They don't send boot camp instructors through “sensitivity training”, now do they? There's a reason.

If you want evidence proving that what we say is true, look at what the terrorist U.S. attorney and IRS agent cohort said and did when they tried to shut down this website. DESPICABLE. And THAT is the REAL situation our members will face if they go toe to toe with THE BEAST government. The reason THE BEAST has that name in the Bible is because it is inhumane and everything it does is based on force, lawlessness, and disrespect.

http://famguardian.o…ling-060615.htm

There is a reason for everything we do, and nothing we do has a mean spirit. It's called “tough love”, and if you are a good parent, you understand what that means. Even God is a tough parent sometimes. He made the Israelites wander in the desert 40 years as a punishment for their disobedience and idolatry.

Quote:

Death Sentence on the Rebels

“And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation who complain against Me? I have heard the complaints which the children of Israel make against Me. Say to them, 'As I live,' says the LORD, 'just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will do to you: The carcasses of you who have complained against Me shall fall in this wilderness, all of you who were numbered, according to your entire number, from twenty years old and above. Except for Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, you shall by no means enter the land which I swore I would make you dwell in. But your little ones, whom you said would be victims, I will bring in, and they shall know the land which you have despised. But as for you, your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness. And your sons shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years, and bear the brunt of your infidelity, until your carcasses are consumed in the wilderness. According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, for each day you shall bear your guilt one year, namely forty years, and you shall know My rejection. I the LORD have spoken this. I will surely do so to all this evil congregation who are gathered together against Me. In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.'”

“Now the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land, who returned and made all the congregation complain against him by bringing a bad report of the land, those very men who brought the evil report about the land, died by the plague before the LORD. But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh remained alive, of the men who went to spy out the land.”

[Numbers 14:26-38, Bible, NKJV]

We aren't God, by any means, but this ministry does produce “spiritual children” and acts as a “spiritual parent” to help raise them until they can confidently stand on their own two feet in the REAL, brutal world. That is the spiritual legacy and inheritance we want to leave our posterity through this ministry. Life isn't fair and neither is nature, and that is the environment we try to realistically prepare people for. A civilization that is actually criminalizing Christianity isn't a place for kind gestures by those who are fighting such abuse, such as those in this ministry.

http://downloads.cbn…er.swf?aid=9425

We prepare warriors, not pacifists or “lukewarm Chrsitians”. If people were honorable, responsible, respectful, and loving, we wouldn't need a military or a police force to begin with.

Blessings,

Admin 🙂

[fg_admin]

Neo,

Well thanks for sharing your additional research, and for giving us our life back. We were not defending our honor, but the God we serve by publishing the information and research available on this website. To Him be all glory, forever and ever.

The abuse of the word “citizenship” as a way to deceive people into:

1. Declaring domicile on federal territory.

2. Subjecting themselves to federal civil law unlawfully.

3. Thinking that domicile and nationality are equivalent.

4. Unlawfully enlarging federal jurisdiction.

5. Misinterpreting words of art to mean that which they don't.

…is the heart of the fraud, and is exhaustively explained in:

Why you are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Section 9

http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf

We could have avoided most of this discussion if you had read the above more thoroughly before arguing any point on citizenship, as we have pointed out repeatedly before. Nevertheless, this discussion no doubt will be one more method to “stumble” on the truth for those who may not be disciplined enough to do their homework using our extensive research first before they come to the forums to argue their presumptuous position.

Even when you were mistaken, you still had to call yourself right and blame it on a misunderstanding of words that we did not mince in the least and which you even started off this topic with a definition of.

Everyone would be blessed if you would in the future avoid personalizing the discussion and stick to the evidence and the facts rather than opinions. These forums are a mock court to practice litigation skills, not a place for inadmissible opinions. It may be that you don't have enough research skills to find all the evidence on a subject before you argue it, which is why we had to do the “PRO /CON” exposition, but putting us on the defensive by making presumptuous accusations is not an appropriate way to request others to help you with your research. We hope you understand by now that this approach only destroys trust and friendships that could prove useful later. Honey always works better than lemons. Just ask your wife. We feel sorry for her after being put through this. Do us a favor and thank her HUMBLY for all the “attitude” she puts up with. She must be a special lady.

Yes, we did raise the issue of harlotry, but only in a biblical context and in a way that depersonalized it. We talked about “those who…” instead of you personally. We aren't perfect either, but people like you give us plenty of practice at getting better.

In your defense, citizenship is the most complex legal subject of all, primarily because of the deliberately vague definitions provided for the statutory terms and the absolute refusal by judges and statute writers to identify the context so as to STEAL from and DECEIVE the reader. It took us ten years to reach the level of understanding we have on the subject, and we are still learning. It is always helpful to be questioned and to have to defend our views, because it develops skills and a “reliance defense” that may be useful to thousands if any of us ever are prosecuted because we read the law and did our best to understand and obey it.

We think the key to avoiding being victimized by the presumptions of others is not only to attach explanatory documents to every government form defining the words, but when questioned about citizenship, to retort with the following questions:

1. If they use the word “citizenship”, to ask them whether they mean “nationality” or “domicile”, which are two completely different things.

2. If they use the word “United States”, ask them which ONE of the three definitions they intend IN THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE.

3. If they ask whether you are a “citizen”, ask them whether they mean a “domiciliary” of just a “national”?

One of our members did the above at a deposition sitting across the table from a U.S. attorney when asked about their citizenship and boy did that U.S. attorney ever dump that line of questioning like a hot potato. He knew that they knew EXACTLY what he was trying to do and that if they wanted to go further, they would have to expose ALL THEIR CARDS and kill the goose that was laying the golden eggs, as you put it. The above approach is also advised in:

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

FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Form…ex-SinglePg.htm

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

2. Flawed Tax Arguments To Avoid, Section 6.1

http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf

Thank you for your valuable contribution to these forums in helping others to understand the citizenship subject from all different angles. The venn diagram you contributed has helped a lot of people, including us, to better understand citizenship.

[fg_admin]

I think we're making a moutain out of a mole hill. The federal courts agree that “citizen” is synonymous with domicile and not nationality. Hence, you aren't a citizen if you don't have a domicile on federal territory.

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]

“The term 'citizen', as used in the Judiciary Act with reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, is substantially synonymous with the term 'domicile'. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Petrowsky, 2 Cir., 250 F. 554, 557.”

[Earley v. Hershey Transit Co., 55 F.Supp. 981, D.C.PA. (1944)]

Since domicile is discretionary, then being a “citizen” is discretionary. This is entirely consistent with the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that the “citizen cannot complain because he has voluntarily submitted himself”.

Quote:

” The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.”

[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [emphasis added]”

The way he voluntarily submitted himself to the laws of a specific jurisdiction and thereby procured the protection sought is to invoke or claim the status of “citizen”. Otherwise, he's nothing more than a “national and not a citizen”. Pretty simple stuff. These conclusions are the ONLY ones which are consistent with the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law, and which requires the consent of the governed to BE protected. Otherwise, the Constitution cannot and does not satisfy the main purpose of its creation, which is the right to be LEFT ALONE by the government:

Quote:

“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”

[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]

Allegiance, on the other hand, is always used with the phrase “OWE allegiance” rather than “HAVE allegiance”. You can't OWE something or have a duty to pay for that something unless you CONSENT to receive and ASK FOR something back that YOU and not THEY regard as valuable and protection by your definition. On this subject, the Bible says to owe NOTHING to anyone. Hence, it's unchristian to pursue their protection:

Quote:

” Owe no one anything [INCLUDING allegiance] except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.”

[Romans 13:8, Bible, NKJV]

Statutory civil law is, in its essence, a protection contract. The U.S. Supreme Court calls this contract a “quasi-contract”. Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935). You procure the protection by consenting to a status under the contract. By invoking the status of “citizen” under the protection contract, a “tacit procuration” and consent has occurred.

Quote:

Contract. An agreement between two or more [sovereign] persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. As defined in Restatement, Second, Contracts §3: “A contract is a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty.” A legal relationships consisting of the rights and duties of the contracting parties; a promise or set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other and also the right to seek a remedy for the breach of those duties. Its essentials are competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of consideration. Lamoureaux v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, 91 R.I. 94, 161 A.2d 213, 215.

Under U.C.C., term refers to total legal obligation which results from parties' agreement as affected by the Code. Section 1-201(11). As to sales, “contract” and “agreement” are limited to those relating to present or future sales of goods, and “contract for sale” includes both a present sale of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. U.C.C. §2-106(a).

The writing which contains the agreement of parties with the terms and conditions, and which serves as a proof of the obligation

[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 322]

All contracts:

1. Require mutual consent.

2. Require mutual and reciprocal consideration. The thing provided as consideration must be regarded as valuable NOT by the government, but by the RECIPIENT receiving it.

3. Require mutual obligation. The courts have ruled that you have no standing to sue them if they fail to protect you. Hence, there IS no enforceable “claim” to protection or consideration.

http://famguardian.o…eProtection.htm

How do I DEFINE “protection”? Simply being left alone BY THE GOVERNMENT. Does that cost the government anything? NO. Hence, I don't owe them ANYTHING in exchange, including allegiance.

Quote:

“If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed [as HE and not THEY define it], and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the power of the legislature, and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants' National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358. In Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property [199 U.S. 203] without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519.”

[Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905)]

And WHAT other “protecting power” could there be than the present government? How about GOD'S government and the Kingdom of Heaven. That IS a government, and the new testament says THAT government is upon Christ's shoulders and not that of sinful rulers. When God's government and His law is in charge of people, then civil rulers are unnecessary and cannot render any protection consistent with HIS laws, which say that you can't have civil rulers:

Quote:

“For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with understanding.”

[Psalms 47:7, Bible, NKJV]

“Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You [God] shall judge the people righteously, And govern [ALL] the nations on earth.”

[Psalms 67:4, Bible, NKJV]

“Arise, O God, judge the earth; For You [God] shall inherit all nations [and governments of nations].“

[Psalms 82:8, Bible, NKJV]

“Behold, the nations [and governments and politicians of the nations] are as a drop in the bucket, and are counted as the small dust on the scales.”

[Isaiah 40:15, Bible, NKJV]

“All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'”

[Daniel 4:35, Bible, NKJV]

“All nations [and governments] before Him [God] are as nothing, and they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless.”

[Isaiah 40:17, Bible, NKJV]

“He [God] brings the princes [and Kings and Presidents] to nothing; He makes the judges of the earth useless.”

[Isaiah 40:23, Bible, NKJV]

“Indeed they [the governments and the men who make them up in relation to God] are all worthless; their works are nothing; their molded images [and their bureaus and agencies and usurious “codes” that are not law] are wind [and vanity] and confusion.”

[Isaiah 41:29, Bible, NKJV]

Hence, there is no protection contract. Hence, I'm not a “citizen” because I didn't “voluntarily consent” to receive anything, and certainly not what THEY and not I call “protection”. I define what they do not as “protection”, but “terrorism”. Hence it isn't “consideration” in my view and I owe NOTHING, including “allegiance” or “taxes”, in return. What they provide can't even be classified as a claim or a right or consideration unless and until I have a legal claim to sue them if they don't protect me the way that I and not THEY define it, and they refuse to recognize that right in court.

Quote:

“Allegiance and protection [by the government from harm] are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.“

[Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 166-168 (1874)]

If I want to FIRE the bastards as my “protector” because what they provide isn't what I CALL protection, but slavery and terrorism, then all I have to do is quit calling myself a “citizen” when I walk into court or fill out a government form. Under the concept of equal protection, if someone else and NOT I decides what I OWE, and calls that “allegiance”, I have the EQUAL right to impose any duty I want on them and say they owe me for the PRIVILEGE of using my property to “benefit” them. It ain't MY property unless I can prescribe how THEY use it. Hence, if I can't create an anti-franchise franchise to protect myself from their activities, which I define as TERRORISM and a “protection racket”, then they and not I are the criminals. The government is a government of delegated powers alone. Hence, they can't have any more authority than me. Hence, I can pull the same CRAP on them that they pull on me and no court can interfere with it without violating the requirement for equal protection that is the foundation of the Constitution.

The U.S. code apparently agrees with me on the above, because look at the authority for issuing passports:

Quote:

“No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States.”

[22 USC 212

SOURC: http://www.law.corne…12—-000-.html]

Notice the language “whether citizens or not”. Hence, you don't even need to be a “citizen” in order to be regarded as having “nationality” and being entitled to a passport. Hence, it is a DISCRETIONARY status and a franchise. That is why they can call it “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”: Because you had to ask for those privileges by declaring yourself a franchisee called a “citizen” in order to even be eligible to receive them. Otherwise, you would simply be a “national”.

President Taft also agreed that “citizen of the United States” status was a “benefit” and therefore a “franchise” when he said the following as a Supreme Court justice. He became Chief Justice in 1921, and this ruling was in 1924. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Mr. Cook himself was a person secretly hired by the government to get this case in front of the Supreme Court in order to make the then new income tax INTERNATIONAL in scope. What a SCAM. Note that TAFT is the person most responsible for the introduction of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Federal Reserve, and an international income tax. He did all of these as either a president or a U.S. Supreme Court justice prior to his death in 1930. He was also a collector of internal revenue before he became a politician! Even as a Supreme Court justice, he CONTINUED essentially to act as an internal revenue collector!

Quote:

““The contention was rejected that a citizen's property without the limits of the United States derives no benefit from the United States. The contention, it was said, came from the confusion of thought in 'mistaking the scope and extent of the sovereign power of the United States as a nation and its relations to its citizens and their relation to it.' And that power in its scope and extent, it was decided, is based on the presumption that government by its very nature benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and that opposition to it holds on to citizenship while it 'belittles and destroys its advantages and blessings by denying the possession by government of an essential power required to make citizenship completely beneficial.' In other words, the principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen. The consequence of the relations is that the native citizen who is taxed may have domicile, and the property from which his income is derived may have situs, in a foreign country and the tax be legal—the government having power to impose the tax.”

[Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)]

Notice the words “relation”, “benefit”, and “presumption”. These are franchise words and “relation” is synonymous with “status”. The guy who filed this suit, Cook, claimed to be a statutory “citizen of the United States” even though he had a domicile in Mexico. In actuality, he was a nonresident alien because of his domicile, but because he CLAIMED to be a the statutory status “citizen of the United States” under the “protection franchise”, he was a franchisee and was regarded as having a domicile on federal territory who then owed an excise tax for the exercise of the “public office” he was exercising that was called “citizen of the United States”. Hence, he had to pay for the very protection he was given by virtue of being able to file his suit to begin with. If he hadn't invoked the voluntary “citizen of the United States” statutory franchise status, then his case would had to be dismissed long before it ever reached the U.S. supreme Court under the diversity statute at 28 USC 1332. Cook was a franchisee and the “civil status” called “citizen of the United States” that he voluntarily invoked above was evidence that he was a franchisee and that he CONSENTED to the franchise. It is a fact, that the only way any sovereign can reach OUTSIDE its own territory is with a contract.

“Debitum et contractus non sunt nullius loci. Debt and contract are of no particular place.”

[Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856

SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…viersMaxims.htm]

That contract, in the case of Cook, was a civil statutory franchise that had nothing to do with where he was born or naturalized, but with the BENEFITS he consented to receive under a voluntary “protection franchise” civil contract. The fact that he was “born or naturalized” in the “United States” and therefore a “national” simply meant that he met the prerequisite to be ELIGIBLE to participate and consent. An act of being born and becoming a “national” is not an act of express consent, but simply a necessary prerequisite to being ELIGIBLE to participate in the protection franchise to begin with. Even the Congressional debates over the Sixteenth Amendment confirm that the income tax essentially amounts to a property insurance policy or contract:

“M. Thiers, the great French statesman, says, 'a tax paid by a citizen to his government is like a premium paid by the insured to the insurance company, and should be in proportion to the amount of property insured in one case and the other to the amount of property protected or defended [or managed] by the government.'”

[44 Cong.Rec. 4959 (1909)]

In modern parlance, the “protection contract” spoken of above is called “social insurance”. For more discussion of the above, see:

Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018, Section 5

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

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

Even in the case of treating a “citizen of the United States” as a franchise, domicle is STILL a prerequisite in spite of what Taft deceptively said. The THING with the domicile on federal territory is the OFFICE and not the OFFICER. That office is called “citizen of the United States” and it manages the property connected to the civil franchise using the Slave Surveillance Number. That number is a de facto license to represent the public office that IS domiciled in D.C. under Federal Rule 17(b). The Office is “an instrumentality of a federal corporation” and therefore PROPERTY of the corporation. You “rent” that property and use it by claiming the status, and the rights that attach to the status. The “rent” is called an income tax. The government has, in effect, set up a “rent an ident” or identity rental service.

For more cites like this, see:

http://famguardian.o…pic/citizen.htm

For more language like that in this post, see

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Requires Your Consent

http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm

[fg_admin]

The intention of this post is to find all the evidence neo didn't find that might substantiate his position. This is a thought experiment and not an attempt to either agree or disagree with neo. It is simply an objective search for evidence supporting either side, independently of who is “right” or “wrong”, so that our readers, the jury, may reach their own better informed and independent conclusions.

PROS IN FAVOR OF HIS POSITION:

1. In describing a “citizen and national of the United States”, 8 USC 1401(a) uses the word “subject to THE jurisdiction” rather than “subject to ITS jurisdiction”. This might be the same “subject to THE jurisdiction” found in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and hence could be construed to mean the same thing.

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;

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the [federal] 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.

2. The term “United States” is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38) by using the word “several States”, which would imply constitutional rather than statutory jurisdiction.

2.1 This same “several States” is the convention for referencing the constitutional states started in the U.S. Constitution.

Quote:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1101. [Aliens and Nationality]

Sec. 1101. – Definitions(a)(38) The term ''United States'', except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

2.2 The term “United States” as defined in Title 26, section 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) uses the term “The States” found in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) and not “the several States” found in 8 USC 1101(a)(38) and the Constitution.

3. The “citizen of the United States**” found in Title 26 at sections 911 and 7701(a)(30) and defined in 26 CFR 1.1-1(c ):

3.1 Uses the phrase “subject to ITS jurisdiction” rather than “subject to THE jurisdiction” found in 8 USC 1401 and 14th Amendment section 1. This seems imply a person domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of congress on federal territory rather than the subject matter jurisdiction of a state of the Union.

3.2 The “United States” referenced in the phrase “citizen of the United States” under Title 26 clearly refers to the “United States**” and not the “United States*” or “United States**” based on the definition of “United States” in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 USC 110(d).

4. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government has always had the ability to levy direct taxes within the District of Columbia and not elsewhere, and that all such taxes are the equivalent of state income taxes, and therefore are tied to municipal domicile on federal territory and not nationality.

Quote:

“… [Counsel] has contended, that Congress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one character as legislating for the states; in the other, as a local legislature for the district [of Columbia]. In the latter character, it is admitted, the power of levying direct taxes may be exercised; but, it is contended, for district purposes only, in like manner as the legislature of a state may tax the people of a state for state purposes. Without inquiring at present into the soundness of this distinction, its possible influence on the application in this district of the first article of the constitution, and of several of the amendments, may not be altogether unworthy of consideration.”

[Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317 (1820)]

__________________________

“Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L. ed. 98, was an action of trespass or, as appears by the original record, replevin, brought in the circuit court for the District of Columbia to try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general purposes on that District. 3 Stat. at L. 216, chap. 60. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in one as legislating [182 U.S. 244, 260] for the states; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under art. 1, 8, giving to Congress the power 'to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,' which 'shall be uniform throughout the United States,' inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States [described in the Constitution]. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States.”

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

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

Hence, the U.S.S.C. concurs that:

a. The income tax extends to wherever the government extends. This is consistent with President Taft's senate speech, in which he claimed that the government had always been thought to be able to levy a tax on itself.

b. Income taxes within the District of Columbia behave as local (municipal) taxes tied to domicile rather than national taxes tied to nationality.

5. The definition of “individual” within 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3) confirms that all individuals are aliens or nonresident aliens but NOT “citizens” of any kind. If the income tax is indeed a municipal tax for the District of Columbia as the USSC indicated it lawfully could be, then it could not be a tax upon municipal citizens of D.C., because it then it would conflict with the local D.C. Code that imposes its own local tax upon citizens. Hence, the I.R.C. governs only aliens physically situated OUTSIDE the district but representing government instrumentalities effectively domiciled WITHIN it under F.R.C.P. 17(b), and in particular those situated abroad and NOT within a state of the Union under 26 USC 911. Even the statutory “U.S. citizen” mentioned in 26 U.S.C. is, in fact, an alien that interfaces to the national government through an income tax treaty with a foreign country, and who is an alien in relation to that foreign country under the tax treaty.

6. The following language used in both Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) and President Taft's speech introducing the Sixteenth Amendment seems to agree that the tax is a tax upon THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, and not upon private activity, meaning those NOT occupying a public office in said government:

Quote:

“It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States.”

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

________________________

“I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.

Second, the decision in the Pollock case left power in the National Government to levy an excise tax, which accomplishes the same purpose as a corporation income tax and is free from certain objections urged to the proposed income tax measure.

I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. [Emphasis added] I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U.S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population. The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure. It imposes a burden at the source of the income at a time when the corporation is well able to pay and when collection is easy.“

[President Taft, June 16, 1909, SEDM Exhibit 02.004; SOURCE: http://sedm.org/Exhi…xhibitIndex.htm]

7. Our research on the “trade or business” scam also confirms that the I.R.C. Subtitle A income tax is an excise tax upon public officers within the government, and therefore ALSO upon ONLY the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

The “Trade or Business” Scam

ttp://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm

The above is also completely consistent with:

Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037

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

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

8. The Am.Jur legal encyclopedia implies that those born in a federal territory that was subsequently ceded to a state of the Union by that state joining the Union is still a “citizen of the United States”. Note the use of the phrase “subject to THE jurisdiction” rather than “subject to ITS jurisdiction”. Hence it means subject to the political jurisdiction and not legislative jurisdiction according to the USSC in Wong Kim Ark.

Quote:

3C Am Jur 2d §2689, Who is born in United States and subject to United States jurisdiction

“A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his or her birth occurs in territory over which the United States is sovereign, even though another country provides all governmental services within the territory, and the territory is subsequently ceded to the other country.“

CONS IN FAVOR OF OUR POSITION:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the following, which indicates that having the status of “citizen” implies consent to be subject to the civil laws of the national government. Hence, there must ALSO be a status implying LACK of consent:

Quote:

” The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.”

[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [emphasis added]”

There MUST be a way to NOT consent to be protected and not be compelled to pay for protection WITHOUT abandoning one's nationality and expatriating from a country. Even if one expatriates to avoid the protection, then they would become an alien in every country on earth if they had no other country, and thereby would transform into a privileged alien and stateless person with no civil rights in ANY country. That would be an even worst state. We allege that the status of those who fall in the category of not being “customers” of government protection and yet who have not expatriated or abandoned nationality is that of a “non-citizen national” under 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452, who has allegiance, but who is not subject to and therefore not protected by the civil laws of the protecting power. Otherwise, the USSC would be incorrect and one COULD rightfuly complain, because in essence they are the victim of a “protection racket” in which they are not defended in exercising their unalienable First Amendment right to NOT politically associate with a specific country and NOT to be protected by a specific government under certain discretionary conditions, but not ALL conditions.

2. Very minimal changes would be necessary if neo were accurate. We could qualify our definition of “statutory citizen” to limit it to titles OTHER than Title 8 or limit it to Title 26 and Title 42 only. Such an accommodation would be unassailable even by Neo because we both now agree that the “citizen of the United States**” found in Title 26 is NOT the same as a “citizen of the United States*”.

3. Even if neo were accurate, the tax status of those using our materials would be entirely unaffected by the change. Our members would continue to be .

3.1 “nonresident aliens”.

3.2 Not “citizens of the United States**” under Title 26.

3.3 Not “individuals” or “persons” under Title 26.

3.4 Not statutory “employees” or “taxpayers”.

3.5 Not engaged in a the “trade or business” public officer franchise.

3.6 Not eligible to participate in any federal franchise, including Social Security, Medicare, or federal income taxation.

4. The issuance of passports has as its only prerequisite “ALLEGIANCE”:

Quote:

“No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States.”

/i][url url=”http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00000212—-000-.html”][i]22 U.S.C. §212[/i][/url][i

The only citizenship status within Title 8 of the U.S. Code that implies ONLY allegiance but NOT consent or submission to a specific government or its laws is that of a national and not a citizen.

Quote:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1101.

Sec. 1101. – Definitions

(a) (22) The term ''national of the United States'' means

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(:cool: a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent i]but not necessarily exclusive[/i allegiance to the United States.

8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)

(a) (21) The term ''national'' means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

There is absolutely no advantage to claiming anything more than is absolutely necessary to preserve one's unalienable right to travel and to otherwise reject nominating a king or civil ruler above us as the bible requires in 1 Sam. 13. Hence, the only status one can claim without consenting to be governed is that of a “national” and not a “citizen”.

5. Title 8 of the U.S. Code defines “permanent” basically as something you consent to. Therefore, you get to choose WHEN you are a “citizen” and when you are not. The government fraudulently wants you to believe that “permanent” means “irrevocable” and therefore not connected with your consent as the Declaration of Independence requires. That is not the way they actually define it in the statutes, however.

Quote:

8 U.S.C. §1101 Definitions [for the purposes of citizenship]

(a) As used in this chapter—

(31) The term ''permanent'' means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary, but a relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance either of the United States[**] or of the individual, in accordance with law.

“Law” found in the organic Declaration of Independence and mentioned above says they need my consent to be governed in order to govern. Hence, I have the right to define the length of time that “permanent connotes” and to temporarily or even permanently revoke my allegiance WITHOUT expatriating based on whether the govenrment claiming the right to protect me satisfies MY DEFINITION of protection and not theirs. When they fail to protect me as I and not they define it, then I fail to “owe allegiance” and hence, in that circumstance, would NOT be classified as a “citizen” of that respective government, but a victim of international terrorism, extortion, and racketeering if forced to accept THEIR and not MY definition of “protection”.

Quote:

“When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent”

[Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C., 2 S.E. 70 (1796)]

“By the surrender, the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British government and were bound by such laws and such only as it chose to recognize and impose. From the nature of the case, no other laws could be obligatory upon them, for where there is no protection or allegiance or sovereignty, there can be no claim to obedience [and therefore allegiance].”

[Hanauer v. Woodruff, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 439 (1872)]

By “claim of obedience” above, they can only mean “owe allegiance”. That last quote implies that if they won't respect my right to choose when or if I want to be protected, then I'm not sovereign and:

1. They have not claim to my obedience.

2. I do not owe allegiance …. and therefore

3. I am not a “citizen” but a national with allegiance and love directed by God's law towards my neighbor and not any civil ruler.

To claim otherwise is to intefere with the free exercise of my religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment, which right attaches to the ground I stand on and not any statutory status, and therefore is IRREVOCABLE and inviolable.