fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Neo,
Searched for that quote and it appears NOT in the Domestic Mail Manual, but at:
http://www.abovetops…hread150481/pg1
which says:
Quote:More specifically, looking at the map on page 11 of the National ZIP Code Directory, e.g. at a local post office, one will see that the first digit of a ZIP Code defines an area that includes more than one State. The first sentence of the explanatory paragraph begins:“A ZIP Code is a numerical code that identifies areas within the United States and its territories for purposes of …” [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1©].
Note the singular possessive pronoun “its”, not “their”, therefore carrying the implication that it relates to the “United States” as a corporation domiciled in the District of Columbia (in the singular sense), not in the sense of being the 50 States of the Union (in the plural sense). The map shows all the States of the Union, but it also shows D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, making the explanatory statement literally correct.
It also appears at:
http://www.theforbid…th/zip_code.htm
The DMM is at:
-
Thanks, and we look forward to examining and evaluating your objective research and the evidence it is based upon. You may also find the following useful:
1. The Dubious Origin of the Fourteenth Amendment, Walter J. Suthon, Jr.; Tulane Law Review, Volume XXVIII, 1954, pp. 22-44
http://famguardian.o…954-pp22-44.pdf2. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Threat That it Poses to Our Democratic Government, Pinckney G. McElwee, South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 484-519
http://famguardian.o…9-14thAmend.pdf3. Law and Government Page, Section 5.2
http://famguardian.o…/LawAndGovt.htm4. Deposition Questions, Section 14: Citizenship
http://famguardian.o…ection%2014.htmAlso note the following ruling, in which the USSC admitted that the Fourteenth Amendment did not CREATE a new citizenship, but simply changed the nature of the existing “Citizen” mentioned in the USA Constitution to the national government:
“Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly apparent. That is to say, a citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a [NEW] national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship ‘paramount and dominant’ instead of ‘derivative and dependent’ upon state citizenship. ”
[Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935)
SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…c/USCitizen.htm] -
Neo,
1. The phrase “citizen/national” appearing in the USA passport cover means “citizen OR national”. The slash is called a vigule, and the Legal Redbook says it means OR, not AND.
Developing Evidence of Citizenship and Sovereignty, Form #12.002, p. 33
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Libe…Citizenship.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. You didn't directly answer question 12, and therefore admitted to it. You said:
Quote:Every other question you have posed, and to which I have not addressed, I “Admit” to.3. It's pretty clear that you are a pilot. I never heard the word “queep” until now, and its a pilot term:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/queep
4. As far as evidence backing up your position, we welcome you to post redacted copies of your correspondence with the DOS and your congressman regarding the subject of this debate. It may add authority to your position, for all we know.
-
Jb,
Yep. Ur right. Neo already agreed with that in his last post. He's just trying to use an ego war to:
1. Get free research that he doesn't want to do himself in order to support a hypothesis that conflicts with materials on this website.
2. Endanger the lives, liberties, and property of the people who read his posts on this subject and follow them.
We, on the other hand, advocate the “safe sex” approach in every aspect of how we interact with “The Beast”.
1. We do this because the bible says we must be “wise as serpents but harmless as doves”.
2. We are trying to teach our readers essentially to have “safe sex” with the ultimate RAPIST, Uncle sam, and to use every “prophylactic device” possible to avoid becoming “pregnant with the presumptions” that are the source of so much damage to our rights.
3. We take the approach that we want to piss in and poison everything they could use for drinking water in a criminal trial against us. No matter what subset of the truth they choose (through filtering of evidence), in order to manufacture their fraudulent and prejudicial presumptions, there is no way to escape the conclusion that they are LYING to and deceiving people to advantage themselves financially.
You can never be too careful when you are having sex with rapists. And neo works for the biggest rapist of all and is participating in the gang bang by collecting franchise benefits stolen from people who cannot lawfully be “taxpayers” and who are the victims of an organized crime ring called the “Illegal Robbery Squad” that isn't even part of the government. See:
Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…OrigAuthIRS.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Even if he lawfully qualified for the benefit, it's being paid for with laundered money and is therefore morally reprehensible to collect or depend on.
Quote:“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [unearned money] that war in your members [and your democratic governments]? You lust [after other people's money] and do not have. You murder [the unborn to increase your standard of living] and covet [the unearned] and cannot obtain [except by empowering your government to STEAL for you!]. You fight and war [against the rich and the nontaxpayers to subsidize your idleness]. Yet you do not have because you do not ask [the Lord, but instead ask the deceitful government]. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [“citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, “individual”] of the world [or the governments of the world] makes himself an enemy of God.”
[James 4:4 , Bible, NKJV]
We are trying to err on the side of caution. This has nothing to do with being right or wrong. It is simply a matter of “damage control”. The evidence you present so far seems like nothing more than a hypothesis.
-
Neo,
We've never been afraid of any amount of work needed to maintain and protect the accuracy and authority of anything found on this website.
We both agree that all the damage that is being done to private rights is effected mainly through judicial and prosecutorial verbicide, including:
1. Confusing the statutory and constitutional contexts.
2. Abusing to the word “includes” to add things that are not expressly included and thereby unlawfully enlarge jurisdiction.
3. Providing incomplete definitions that convey undue discretion to judges and jurists to enlarge government jurisdiction.
4. Using multiple contexts and refusing to identify WHICH context is implied in each use of the word.
We both agree that the way to minimize or prevent all that damage is to define every word of art appearing on government forms.
What we don't agree on is that:
1. There is even a need to describe oneself as a “citizen” under any federal statutory law. The fact is:
1.1 You admitted in question 12 that a “citizen” under Title 26 and a “citizen” under Title 8 are equivalent. Therefore, the “United States” referenced in both places is the United States**/federal zone. Hence, you can't be the “citizen” identified in 8 USC 1401 as a person domiciled in a constitutional state of the Union.
1.2 The only thing that you need in order to get a passport is allegiance, and therefore to be a “national”. Even the passport cover recognizes you can be EITHER in order to get a passport.
1.3 There is no need and no advantage whatsoever to describing oneself as a statutory “citizen” and a HUGE downside, because you invite others to confuse the statutory and constitutional contexts together, because the two statuses use the SAME NAME: “citizen of the United States**” and “citizen of the United States**”.
1.4 It is MUCH better to simply describe yourself as a citizen of a state of the Union, which automatically makes you a constitutional citizen. If the feds have no civil jurisdiction within a state of the Union then its pointless to pursue any status at all under their laws and to rely exclusively upon the constitutional definition of the status you claim and denounce all statutory statuses.
2. Congress can establish a public office outside of D.C. without identifying WHERE that place is. 4 U.S.C. 72 MANDATES that the place the office is exercised MUST be specified if it is outside of D.C.
3. You said that it is preposterous to assert that the “United States” is a nation in regards to international or external affairs. It is NOT preposterous. The U.S. Supreme Court held that we are a society, not a nation. Matters of interstate commerce and foreign affairs are, in fact, EXTERNAL or INTERNATIONAL affairs, because the states of the Union are “nations” in every particular EXCEPT foreign affairs.
Quote:“By that law the several States and Governments spread over our globe, are considered as forming a society, not a NATION. It has only been by a very few comprehensive minds, such as those of Elizabeth and the Fourth Henry, that this last great idea has been even contemplated. 3rdly. and chiefly, I shall examine the important question before us, by the Constitution of the United States, and the legitimate result of that valuable instrument. “ [Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793)]“The States between each other are sovereign and independent. They are distinct and separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and objects of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute.”
[Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519, 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839)]4. You said that ” IF Title 8 is not a NATIONAL Law, then what is?”. The answer is that it incorporates BOTH national AND municipal law. The municipal law is found in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(:cool: and 1408, and 8 USC 1101(a)(36), all of which are associated with the exclusive jurisdiction of the feds over federal territory and property. If it was ONLY national and NOT municipal law, those provisions would either not be there, or would be entirely different. For instance, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(36) would expressly include states of the Union if they really meant it to be ONLY a national law as you allege, and there would be no need to distinguish a “national” and a “national of the United States” from each other as they do.
5. I didn't say that you as a private human being are a statutory “U.S.** citizen” by virtue of occupying a public office as a military officer. I said that the OFFICE is such a citizen, because the THING BEING represented is a statutory “U.S. citizen”. I know people who have served as civil servants in the navy. They had TWO passports at the same time:
5.1 One was RED, and they used that on official business as a government employee.
5.2 The other was Blue and they used it as a private person.
The red one was issued to a statutory “U.S. citizen” and the blue one was issued to a constitutional but not statutory “citizen”. Why would they need TWO passports if the status associated with each were different? You can't “represent” something without taking on ALL the characteristics of the THING represented. Otherwise, ipso facto, you ARE NOT representing anything. F.R.Civ.P 17(b) uses the phrase “representative capacity” and determines choice of law over civil disputes. It is the sole authority for invoking civil law against a private person not domiciled within exclusive federal jurisdiction and therefore otherwise OUTSIDE of federal jurisdiction.
6. You think that avoiding SSNs on the passport application is the only thing required to protect your sovereignty. We don't think so. The Permanent Address block of the DS-11 passport application is how they hook you up to a federal zone domicile, and it invites all kinds of presumptions about zip codes, confusion between the United States** and the United States*, etc. It's easier to avoid all that and put NONE, in addition to attaching the USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007. This is explained in:
How to Apply for a Passport as a National
http://famguardian.o…orAPassport.htm
The word “citizen” carries with it “consent” to be governed under the civil laws of a specific jurisdiction. That is the thesis of our domicile article.
http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm
All you are saying by indicating that you are not a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 is that you do not consent to be governed under the municipal laws of a foreign jurisdiction and therefore are a nonresident and a foreign sovereign, protected by the foreign sovereign immunities act, 28 USC 1605. Note that the U.S. Supreme supreme court referred to a resident alien as a “citizen” below. They were referring to municipal domicile obviously, but the temptation to use the word “citizen” to describe yourself simply invites thieves in government to confuse NATIONAL allegiance (nationality) with municipal allegiance (domicile), and hence unlawfully enforce federal civil law against you. It is always prudent to therefore avoid any possibility of this ever happening by NOT using such words as “citizen” to describe yourself and to at all times attach explanatory forms.
Quote:“This right to protect persons having a domicile, though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm foundation of justice, and the claim to be protected is earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at liberty to disregard. Such domiciled citizen pays the same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens pay for theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same penalties. He owes the same obedience to the civil laws. His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government. In nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties and burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”[Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]
The stance that you are using is going to be very hard to defend, because it is based on a contradiction:
1. You claim to be a “citizen” under Title 8 and yet at the same time, you claim to be an alien under Title 26.
2. You already admitted that the “citizen” under Title 8 and Title 26 are the same by answering Admit to question 12 earlier.
A jury is going to look at you funny when you try to convince them that you can be an alien and a citizen at the SAME TIME. They are going to say you are a loony, a tax protester, and are wearing a “tin foil hat”, as you call it. We don't think its wise to contradict yourself by doing that. You admitted that those who contradict themselves cannot be telling the truth. You are going to destroy your own credibility by doing that unless you can at least convincingly explain the differences in context between the two titles of the U.S. Code. It will be difficult to do that, because in tax trials, judges often interfere with discussing the laws you would use to defend your status in front of jurors.
The truth is often irrelevant in federal courtrooms. This is especially the case when the judge will only allow you to tell a small enough subset of the WHOLE truth to make you look like a crackpot and slam you in jail by getting the jury pissed at you for “not paying your fair share” or raising their ILLEGAL income tax bill.
-
Lindsey Springer here and certain this email will not be posted by the government upon any of there quasi government websites like Quatloos.Anyway, as I told you in the last email, the Tax Division of your United States Department of Justice is now arguing at the 10th Circuit a Form 1040 U.S. individual income tax return is a form but is not a return. Besides the obvious problems that the terms form and return appear on the top of the 1040, you should have no doubt the Secretary of Treasury promulgated Form 1040 to be “a return” by reading the penalty of perjury clause on the 2nd page of Form 1040 above the signature line.
It says under penalty of perjury you have examined “this return”. The legalistic gibberish the Tax Division argues should demonstrate to those of you paying close attention that Congress directed the Secretary of Treasury at Title 26 Section 6011 to provide the form of return. The Secretary directs his request for income tax information be made solely through tax Form 1040.
My defense claims under the Paperwork reduction Act protects the public at Title 44 Section 3512 by mandating no other previously enacted law by Congress withstands the protection Congress provides at Section 3512. The reason why the Tax Division turned to arguing a Form 1040 is not a “tax return” is in effort to avoid the Paperwork Reduction Act’s mandates. Remember, criminal laws are narrowly construed and not construed to the point of absurdity.
Read the jurat on the Form 1040 you each have signed countless times and decide for yourself whether a Form 1040 is a “tax return” under the rule of law.
Thank you for supporting me continually, I need it. As always you can send support through Paypal at lindsey@mindspring.com or gnutella@mindspring.com . I can also receive support at 5147 S. Harvard Ave #116 Tulsa, OK 74135 .
Thank you, Lindsey Springer
-
Dear Friend of Liberty,
As you may be aware, Elena Kagan has been nominated by our impostor in chief to be a Supreme Court Justice. Based on her doctoral thesis, Ms Kagan could not take the oath of office without perjuring herself.
Elena Kagan's thesis is posted on the Net here:
http://www.docstoc.c…na-kagan-thesis
There is but one conclusion: she is a socialist of the radical bent.
-
1. In the context of title 8, allegiance means national domicile and not municipal domicile. All taxes attach to municipal domicile and are a civil liability, not a political liability.
2. We have already been over why 8 USC 1101(a)(38) includes only federal territory for the purposes of whether one is a STATUTORY “citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1401.
2.1 8 USC 1101(a)(38) defines the term “United States” WHEN USED IN A GEOGRAPHIC SENSE to mean:
Quote:(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, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
2.2 22 CFR 215.1 defines “continental United States” to mean “(f) The term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several States, except Alaska and Hawaii.”
2.3 The term “State” is defined as federal territory in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(36), which defines “State” to exclude states of the Union.
2.4 It is not necessarily true that the term “United States” is used in the “GEOGRAPHIC SENSE” in all the places it is found in Title 8.
See:
http://famguardian.o…ection%2014.htm
3. Yes, the national government has the delegated authority to create a statutory status that defines your nationality? That authority comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
4. Answers to admissions.
4.1. Admit that nationality imputes political jurisdiction.
Admit. It DOES NOT include legislative jurisdiction. See Wong Kim Ark.
4.2. Admit the United States government is the governing body which provides protection to Citizens of the United States of America in exchange for their allegiance to the nation.
Deny. It provides protection WHEN ABROAD, but not when within the protection of constitutional states of the Union.
Quote:“It would be the vainest show of learning to attempt to prove by citations of authority, that up to the adoption of the recent Amendments [the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment], no claim or pretense was set up that those rights depended on the Federal government for their existence or protection, beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the states—such as the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bill of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, and without that of the Federal government. Was it the purpose of the 14th Amendment, by the simple declaration that no state should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the states to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the states?We are convinced that no such result was intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the states, which ratified them.Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873), emphasis added]
4.3. Admit that the term “United States” can be used to refer to the nation the United States of America pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652 (1945).
Admit. But only when dealing with EXTERNAL and INTERNATIONAL affairs affecting other nations under the law of nations.
4.4. Admit that Title 8 of the United States Code is entitled “Aliens and Nationality.”
Admit.
4.5. Admit that Alaska and Hawaii are Union states protected by the Constitution
That depends on the context. In a statutory context under federal civil law, they are not. In a constitutional context, they are. At the time the Immigration and Nationality Act (upon which USC Title 8 is based) was enacted, 1940, Alaska and Hawaii were not states of the Union, and yet the language of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38) read the same at that time as it reads now.
4.6. Admit that the “United States” is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38) and that said definition also includes the Union states of Alaska and Hawaii.
Deny. It includes federal territory within those constitutional states, but not ALL land within the exterior limits of the state.
Quote:“It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.”[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
4.7. Admit that the “United States” is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(38) and that said definition also includes Puerto Rico.
Admit. The defintion of “State” found in 8 USC 1101(a)(36) includes Puerto Rico, and therefore so does the “United States”.
4.8. Admit that a domiciliary of Alaska or Hawaii enjoy constitutional protections that a domiciliary of Puerto Rico does not.
Admit.
4.9. Admit that the nation referred to as the United States* comprises at least two political subdivisions which are referred to as the United States** and the United States***.
Admit.
4.10. Admit that Alaska and Hawaii are political subdivisions of the nation referred to as the United States*.
Admit.
4.11. Admit that Puerto Rico is a political subdivision of the nation referred to as the United States*.
Admit.
4.12. Admit that domicile upon a political subdivision within a nation imputes statutory civil status.
Admit. QUALIFICATION: That status could ONLY be under the laws of the SPECIFIC subdivision of the nation, and not the NATIONAL laws. Hence, if the political subdivision is a constitutional state of the Union, then that status could not appear in federal law. Likewise, if the domicile was in a federal territory, it would be under the laws of that territory and could not be defined in the laws of states of the Union, because they are foreign states.
4.13. Admit that from a territorial perspective only, domiciliaries of Federal Territories and possessions are under different statutory civil statuses than domiciliaries of the Union states.
Admit.
4.14. Admit that in terms of nationality only, a domiciliary of Puerto Rico as well as domiciliaries of Hawaii and Alaska are “nationals and citizens of the United States” defined in 8 USC 1401.
Deny. They are “nationals”. They cannot be “citizens”. One can only be a “citizen” under statutory civil law by having a municipal or local domicile within the EXCLUSIVE civil jurisdiction of the government granting said status. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…aw/Domicile.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
4.15. Admit that it is a good idea to clarify legal status on all government forms in order to preclude public servants from making erroneous and damaging legal conclusions that result from their presumptuous and unsophisticated level of understanding of the applicable issues.
Admit.
5. Title 31 of the U.S. Code, 31 USC 5314, imposes affirmative duties upon those who claim to be “citizens of the United States” relating to reporting all of their foreign bank accounts. If that term included people in a state of the Union, such a requirement would be a violation of the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment. Admit therefore that the term COULD THEREFORE NOT mean a person in a state of the Union and could only relate to a federal instrumentality. See also:
5.1 Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.013, Section 3
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…urisdiction.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
5.2 Treasury Form TD 90-22.1
http://www.irs.gov/p…-pdf/f90221.pdf
6. Admit that corporations are citizens or residents under the municipal civil law of the place of their incorporation.
7. Admit that among those acting in a representative capacity as officer of a federal corporation called the “United States” are statutory “U.S. citizens” when on official business.
8. Admit that those representing a corporation that is a statutory “U.S. citizens” are also statutory “U.S. citizens”.
9. Admit that the statutory “U.S. citizen” is the OFFICE and not the OFFFICER as a private person, in the case of those serving in a public office.
10. Admit that the only thing one needs to have in order to procue a USA passport is “allegiance”.
11. Admit that the ONLY citizenship status within Title 8 of the U.S. Code that carries with it exclusively allegiance is that of a “national”.
12. Admit that the definition of “citizen” for the purpose of the I.R.C. is the SAME as “citizen” for the purposes of Title 8. See:
26 CFR 1.1-1(c ).
http://famguardian.o…zenUnderIRC.htm
13. Admit that regardless of how one defines “United States” or “citizen”:
13.1 It is my First Amendment right to associate, disassociate, and to define the status that documents my associations with any political group.
13.2 My right to associate attaches to the land, and not my statutory status as either a “citizen” or “national”.
13.3 The words I use to describe my status are the method by which I document my choices of political and legal association.
See:
Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…oDeclStatus.pdf
Quote:Just as there is freedom to speak, to associate, and to believe, so also there is freedom not to speak, associate, or believe “The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking [on a government tax return, and in violation of the Fifth Amendment when coerced, for instance] are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.” Wooley v. Maynard, [430 U.S. 703] (1977). Freedom of conscience dictates that no individual may be forced to espouse ideological causes with which he disagrees:“[A]t the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that the individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one’s beliefs should be shaped by his mind and by his conscience rather than coerced by the State [through illegal enforcement of the revenue laws].” Abood v. Detroit Board of Education [431 U.S. 209] (1977)
Freedom from compelled association is a vital component of freedom of expression.
Indeed, freedom from compelled association illustrates the significance of the liberty or personal autonomy model of the
First Amendment. As a general constitutional principle, it is for the individual and not for the state to choose one’s associations and to define the persona which he holds out to the world.
[First Amendment Law, Barron-Dienes, West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-22677-X, pp. 266-267]
Pride could not be an issue with anything that we do, because:
1. We don’t put our name on anything.
2. We don’t bounce people from the forums who disagree with us.
3. We don’t represent anything we do as our own, but the work of the Lord.
4. We invite people to prove us wrong and posted our research here to ensure it is thoroughly reviewed.
5. We don’t guarantee or portray anything here as factual or actionable or “right”, but simply a belief subject to change upon evidence that it is wrong.
6. Every other freedom website has the picture of the chief protagonist on the opening page and in the literature. We don’t do that.
7. We tell people not to believe or trust anything we say, but to verify everything for themselves by reading the law.
8. We don’t use the word “right” or “wrong” in describing things, because this isn’t a contest. We use “accurate” or “inaccurate”.
9. We don’t attack the sinner, but the sin. God commands us to love our neighbor, who is without exception a sinner. Even in talking about harlotry, we qualified our comments by associating then with a biblical sin.
10. We don’t convict people of sin based on our own opinion. We always use God’s law as the yardstick, and it does the conviction, not us.
11. We try hard to avoid sharing subjective opinions of our own on these forums, because it isn’t about us, but about GOD and learning, knowing, obeying, and worshipping ONLY him.
We already invited you to edit or amend or suggest improvements to the following to put them in agreement with your views. We have even implemented broad changes to our materials based on your suggestions in the past. Obviously we do listen and we do change. A prideful person would not do that because they would be loath to admit that they could ever be inaccurate. Argument is pointless until you do that.
1. Citizenship Status v. Tax Status.
http://famguardian.o…pVTaxStatus.htm
2. Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf
If you either can’t or won’t, you have no moral authority to complain or criticize as you are doing here. Everything you say must be consistent with itself and if it isn’t, it can’t be truth. Don’t just whine and complain and criticize or personalize the discussion, but suggest improvements to our materials to make them better. He has a right to criticize who has a heart to help. We don’t need more critics, but more help. That is why these materials are here.
There is no need to take any of this discussion personally. In fact, the extent to which you do will be your own downfall, as it was in the case of Pete Hendrickson. Recall that when he got to the point where people in his own forums proved he was wrong, he bounced them and thereby demonstrated that his pride and being “right” was more important than learning and spreading the truth.
Quote:“Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.”[Prov. 16:18, Bible, NKJV]
Pete fell, didn’t he? The corrupted government are experts and finding people’s buttons and pushing them to keep the discussion distracted away from incriminating their own illegal activities. It appears that you are personalizing the discussion and there is no need to do that. We criticize bad behavior, not people. And the yard stick we use is the absolute, sovereign, unchanging law of God that even Satan acknowledges the authority of. We already explained earlier what that bad behavior is and even listed all the elements of it. What you are doing is harlotry, but you are not a harlot. The sin is what is bad, not the sinner. See:
http://famguardian.o…EPub-040513.pdf
Nevertheless, the passion ignited by personalizing the issue is benefitting everyone. Anything that increases interest in learning and following the law is a benefit to all. Our mission succeeds when that happens, because it isn’t about us.
-
Neo,
As jb points out, the allegiance described in 22 USC 212 is characterized as follows.
1. It isn't characterized as “permanent”, which is normally associated with domicile and “permanent address”.
2. It is characterized as being towards the “United States”. However, we know that in our system of Republican government, the only “United States” they can mean is We the People and not the government that serves them. Black's Law Dictionary, in fact, defines a “State” as the people occupying a territory and NOT their rulers and it is THESE “United States” that we owe allegiance to in procuring a passport.
3. There is no requirement that we must ALWAYS have said allegiance, but only when we are abroad and therefore both needing protection and being in a position to pay for it because outside the protections of the Constitution.
In answer to your question:
1. The allegiance owed when one obtains a passsport is
1.1. To the United States OF AMERICA.
1.2. To the PEOPLE of the United States OF AMERICA and NOT the public servants or GOVERNMENT who serves them.
1.3. To the “State”, consisting of all the people of the United States of America and not their rulers.
1.4. NOT to the people on federal territory and who are therefore statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizens” under 8 USC 1401. These people are property and franchises of the national government. These people have neither the right of representation under the constitution nor a voice in the Congress nor representatives in Congress. They are, in effect, what the U.S. Supreme Court called the equivalent of a “British Crown Colony” in Downes v. Bidwell.
2. The nationality acquired:
2.1 Is membership in a nation under the law of nations, and that nation is comprised of both federal territories, federal possesions, AND the USA (states of the Union). Hence, it doesn't matter where one is, whether federal territory or a state of the Union, one is still a “national”. Those on federal territory are “nationals of the United States**” and those in states of the Union are “nationals” of their state.
2.2 Documents POLITICAL and not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction.
All of the above facts are carefully and exhaustively described in the MANDATORY attachment to the USA passport that all members of this forum can and must use when applying for a passport:
USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…sPortAppAtt.pdf
Don't confuse political jurisdiction with legislative jurisdiction. They are not equivalent. You can be “subject to THE jurisdiction”, meaning ONLY the POLITICAL (nationality) jurisdiction, without being subject to the LEGISLATIVE (domicile) jurisdiction. This is the condiction of those either in a state of the Union or a foreign country who are born or naturalized in the United States*. Those who are “subject to ITS jurisdiction” are those who are subject to the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction. One becomes subject to ITS jurisdiction and the legislative jurisdiction by choosing a domicile and need not be born or naturalized in order to be so subject. An example of people in this condition would be foreign nationals who have taken up permanent residence in this country. They are not born or naturalized here, and hence are not domestice (“United States*”) nationals and are not eligible to vote or therefore subject to THE jurisdiction. But they are subject to either “ITS jurisdiction” if they are domiciled on federal territory or “THEIR jurisdiction” if they are domiciled in constitutional states of the Union.
Whatever status you claim needs to be supported by the public record of evidence you accumulate over the years. See:
Techniques for Developing a Good Administrative Record
http://sedm.org/Form…AdminRecord.htm
Every time you fill out a government form or ask for a service, you should build and enhance that record so that it consistently documents your status and leaves no WIGGLE room or discretion to any public employee to misinterpret or change or misrepresent your status and standing. Nothing but good can come from completely explaining your status with an attachment to EVERY government form you submit, and if you are acting consistent with the guidance on this website, there should be VERY few occasions where you submit ANY government forms. That makes each occasion where a form is submitted, such as the I9 or the DS-11, to be a VERY important opportunity to establish your status and define all terms describing that status to remove any and all discretion of any judge or bean counter. On this subject, jb is correct.
The government's own publications prove that whenever THEY use the word “U.S. citizen”, they don't mean anyone in a state of the Union.
Quote:Frequently Asked Questions About Employment EligibilityDo citizens and nationals of the U. S. need to prove, to their employers, they are eligible to work?
Yes. While citizens and nationals of the U.S. are automatically eligible for employment, they too must present proof of employment eligibility and identity and complete an Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9). Citizens of the U.S. include persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Nationals of the U.S. include persons born in American Samoa, including Swains Island.
[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Frequently Asked Questions on Form I9
SOURCE: http://famguardian.o…c/USCitizen.htm
Hence, you CANNOT claim the statutory “U.S. citizen” status and MUST identify yourself as a “non-citizen national”. You must do this to avoid any and all opportunties for judges and government prosecutors to STEAL from and ENSLAVE you by abusing words of art, which are the main tools of their oppression.
All we can say, is that YOU ARE A DAMN FOOL if you fill out any government form and don't define not only what the words mean, but what the DO NOT mean, in order to remove all discretion from any public servant to interpret the words to benefit themselves financially. Doing otherwise amounts to the equivalent of handing them a blank check, which no one in their right mind can or should do. This is especially true when one considers that the IRS' own Internal Revenue Manual says you CANNOT TRUST anything they publish and that they refuse to accept responsibility for the accuracy of their forms and publications. Caveat emptor. We have seen FIRST HAND in a real federal court how both judges and government prosecutors make a profitable profession out of filtering incriminating evidence of their own violations of and misapplication of the law. If they REALLY want to nail you, they will pick the weakest link that has no explanatory information attached, exclude everything else from evidence, and then grandstand in front of the juries with their LIES and PRESUMPTIONS and FRAME YOU with it. The ONLY defense you have is to poison every source of evidence they could use so that there is no way for them to avoid addressing the WHOLE truth in front of the jury.
The more you argue with us, the more you portray yourself as a presumptuous fool and a willing victim for the injurious presumptions of others. BEND OVER and put on your knee pads if that is the position you wish to advocate. And don't come running here if you get into trouble because they excluded all your OTHER evidence documenting your state of mind about your status and therefore don't have to address it and will proceed with their enslaving presumptions to put you into jail.
Quote:22 ” How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity?
For scorners delight in their scorning,
And fools hate knowledge.
23 Turn at my rebuke;
Surely I will pour out my spirit on you;
I will make my words known to you.
24 Because I have called and you refused,
I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,
25 Because you disdained all my counsel,
And would have none of my rebuke,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your terror comes,
27 When your terror comes like a storm,
And your destruction comes like a whirlwind,
When distress and anguish come upon you.
28 ” Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.
29 Because they hated knowledge
And did not choose the fear of the LORD,
30 They would have none of my counsel
And despised my every rebuke.
31 Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way,
And be filled to the full with their own fancies.
32 For the turning away of the simple will slay them,
And the complacency of fools will destroy them;
33 But whoever listens to me will dwell safely,
And will be secure, without fear of evil.”
[Prov. 1:22-33, Bible, NKJV]
As far as how you have configured your accounts and your own reporting, withholding, and taxation as a military officer, we can't give legal advice and can't even talk about it, because it is not a hypothetical but REAL situation and therefore violates the protocol for asking questions identified in Section 14.4 of the Path to Freedom. If you want to phrase your questions differently, they can be dealt with, but not in their present form as PERSONALIZED questions. See:
Path to Freedom, Form #09.015
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…thToFreedom.pdf
Furthermore, questions about taxation don't belong in this citizenship forum anyway. They need to be posted in forum 5.4 and not here. Please therefore DO NOT post them here or under this topic.
Otherwise, we have beat a dead horse to death. I don't wish to say any more on this subject. Its pointless because you aren't listening to us, aren't answering our questions, are pursuing knowledge with commercial motives in mind that are completely incompatible with the purpose of this ministry, and want to do things your way in spite of what two people agree you should do. So bend over for your parens patriae benefactor and leave us alone. Lick the hands that feed you and go back to your government cage. Feed the flesh of your children to the Beast by claiming them as tax deductions. But don't whine to us, and certainly don't ask us to condone what you are doing by presenting your circumstances and asking us if they are OK.
-
jb,
Now that’s a very interesting hypothesis, and seeing it explained that way is eye opening. However, its still a hypothesis and a theory. It may very well be true, but until you can prove it and defend it with evidence, it remains a nothing more than a theory. This ministry tries to avoid theories and stick to things that can be PROVEN with evidence and easily explained to joe sixpack in court.
1. We can PROVE using court admissible supreme court rulings which “United States” is meant in the Constitution.
2. We can prove using the rules of statutory construction that states of the Union are not part of the “United States” within Title 26.
3. We can PROVE that the “citizen of the United States***” mentioned in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a state citizen and NOT anyone domiciled on federal territory. See:
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdf
4. We can prove that the federal district and circuit courts are not Article III courts, but Article IV franchise courts. See:
http://sedm.org/Item…HappJustice.htm
5. We can prove that most of the damage to your rights from the government comes from judicial verbicide and using words out of context. See:
5.1 Meaning of the Words “includes” and “including”. http://famguardian.o…c/Includess.pdf
5.2 Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003
http://sedm.org/Form…atusOptions.pdf
6. We can prove that the only thing the government can write CIVIL law for are its own officers and that you have to volunteer to become such an officer before they have CIVIL jurisdiction over you. See:
6.1 Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and not Private Persons, Form #05.037
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
6.2 Federal Enforcement Authority within States of the Union, Form #05.032
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
6.3 Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a Public officer for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7. We can establish all of the above as fact in our administrative record BEFORE we get to court, and put the government in a position of admitting it all by their failure to deny.
However, we don’t know of a way to prove and defend your position with evidence. For that reason, it looks like a fringe theory that jurists would get glassy eyed over if you try to explain to them. It would also make you look like a white racist and bigot to defend it. For that reason, we would avoid it. Our approach is simpler and could be explained to anyone without putting ourselves in a compromising position that would foment the passions and prejudices of jurists. We’re not saying you are wrong, but until you can prove that you are right, it’s irrelevant and harmful to pursue your position. All you have so far is circumstantial evidence that looks precarious. It doesn’t pass “the common sense test”. That is why you don’t see people like neo here arguing it.
Yes, the common law protects constitutional citizens from the injuries you cite, but the problem with the common law is that:
1. It requires the support of biased state jurists and judges.
2. It requires the legislature of the state to agree that it is an injury.
As the cites indicate from the Section 1983 Litigation book, none of the state courts or jurists in the south agree at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was passed that discrimination was a injury, even after the civil war. Hence, the federal courts had to be given the tools to step into such a hostile situation and go after the state officers who were interfering with the enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment. They couldn’t reach the jurists but they could reach the judges and the lawyers as state officers through the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USC 1983 by dragging them into federal court and prosecuting them for civil rights violations. They didn’t have that remedy before the Fourteenth Amendment, and once they had it, they were able to to dismantle southern slavery even without the support or cooperation of biased racist southern jurors or judges by going after state officers using 42 USC 1983. The common law and a sovereign and unaccountable state full of racist judges could never be reformed under the old system, even with the use of the common law.
The remedy they chose to eliminate slavery was effective, constitutional, and appropriate and served its purposes well. We have no qualms about the Fourteenth Amendment. It didn’t make the white man inferior and therefore equal to the blacks and it sounds racist to even go there. All of the damage to our rights can be traced to:
1. Judicial verbicide
2. Using words such as “United States” and “citizen of the United States” out of context.
3. Confusing the constitutional and statutory contexts.
4. The legislative branch vaguely defining words and thus leaving undue discretion to judges and jurists to decide what the words mean.
5. Exploiting the legal ignorance and prejuduces of the average American.
6. Violating the rules of statutory construction to add things to definitions that are simply not there.
7. Enforcing federal franchises within states of the Union and outside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.
We have been in actual litigation where we could see, expose, and prosecute all of the above abuses by judges and U.S. attorneys, and they had NO DEFENSE for their actions. It works.
Please show us the following evidence to prove your theory and we might agree with you, but even then, we wouldn’t use the position in court, which is the only place that matters anyway:
1. Excerpts from the Congressional record showing that the facts you claim form part of the legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Correspondence or biographies of lincoln that proves he had the motives you ascribe to him.
3. Proof that any portion of our analysis is inaccurate or wrong and therefore irrelevant.
We appreciate your passion and participation in these forums. However, we believe:
1. It is not in the best interests of our members to either advocate or use your position in a court, and that is the only place such a position really matters anyway.
2. It is better to err on the side of what works than on the side of what is unproven.
3. It is better to err on the side of caution than the side of presumption or untested theories.
-
jb,
You appear to be confused about the main purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are using that purpose as an excuse to justify the creation of a new type of citizen that is inferior to the capital C Citizen of the early constitution.
The main purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to impose and enforce the original federal Bill of Rights against the states of the Union. The Bill of Rights constitutes the first ten amendments to the original Constitution. Prior to that time:
1. The federal government had no power over state officials in federal court.
2. The only constraint against the power of state officers was the state constitution litigated in a state court.
3. The federal Bill of Rights ONLY governed the relationship between state citizens and the federal but NOT state government.After the Fourteenth Amendment but not before, state officials could be tried in federal court for violations of the FEDERAL Bill of Rights against their own citizens. That, in fact, is the function implemented by 42 U.S.C. 1983, whose origins can be traced to the Fourteenth Amendment:
Quote:TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rightsEvery person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.It is mainly constitutional state officers that can be tried under this statute, and not federal officers, in fact. 42 U.S.C. 1981 is the statutory implementation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 mandate of equal protection. According to the legislative notes under 42 USC 1981, that section traces back to R.S. § 1977; Pub. L. 102–166, title I, § 101, Nov. 21, 1991, 105 Stat. 1071., which was derived from act May 31, 1870, ch. 114, § 16, 16 Stat. 144. Section was formerly classified to section 41 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality. Hence, that section is traced back to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. See:
http://www.law.corne…-000-notes.htmlNotice that 42 USC 1981 and 1983 both refer to a “citizen of the United States*”, and that THIS “citizen” is the same citizen mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment, and is, in fact a non-citizen national under 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452.
Consistent with the above, you keep citing U.S. Supreme Court cases that relate to rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment AS AGAINST THE STATES and NOT the federal government. All of the Bill of RIghts constrains actors within the federal government, but only a SUBSET of those rights may be enforced against the states as implemented through the Fourteenth Amdendment. The Fourteenth Amendment is a constraint against the states to enforce the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is NOT a constraint against the federal government, and you seem to be overlooking this fact and presuming that the cases that you cite relate to rights AS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which is not true.
Because the Fourteenth Amendment is a constraint against the constitutional states of the Union and NOT the federal government, it relates to state citizens exclusively.
1. The “Citizen” in the early federal constitution is in fact a state citizen.
2. The “citizen of the United States” first appearing in the Fourteenth Amendment, is also a state citizen, but only in the context of the Bill of Rights as applied ONLY against the state government and not the federal government.Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment did recognize a new type of citizen, but that citizen is STILL the same Citizen, but within a special new context of the FEDERAL and not STATE Bill of Rights as applied to the Constitutional states. This was confirmed when the U.S. Supreme Court held:
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]
As neo pointed out in other recent posts: Context is EVERYTHING. The 14th Amend. “citizen of the United States*” relates to the same capital “C” Citizen of the early constitution, in the NEW context of the application of the Bill of Rights to the States of the Union. It is this NEW context that explains why all the states of the Union rewrote their state constitutions after the Civil War: to make them consistent with this new context.
The cases you cite prove that:
1. NOT ALL of the Bill of Rights transferred to the states of the Union with the Fourteenth Amendment, but only a subset did.
2. The Fourteenth Amendment DID NOT remove the protections of any portion of the Bill of Rights from the interactions of the Federal government with state citizens.If you would like to know more about the origins of 42 USC 1983, see:
Section 1983 Litigation, Litigation Tool #08.008
LITIGATION TOOLS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Liti…on/LitIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Liti…_Litigation.pdfBelow is a quote from p. 2 of the above, proving our assertions. Note that this document is a government publication of the Federal Judicial Center and that we haven’t found anything within it that we disagree with:
Quote:Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 1871 as section 1 of the “Ku Klux Klan Act.” The statute did not emerge as a tool for checking the abuse by state officials, however, until 1961, when the Supreme Court decided Monroe v. Pape.3 In Monroe, the Court articulated three purposes for passage of the statute: (1) “to override certain kinds of state laws”; (2) to provide “a remedy where state law was inadequate”; and (3) to provide “a federal remedy where the state remedy, though adequate in theory, was not available in practice.”4
The Monroe Court resolved two important issues that allowed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to become a powerful statute for enforcing rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. First, it held that actions taken by state governmental officials, even if contrary to state law, were nevertheless actions taken “under color of law.” Second, the Court held that injured individuals have a federal remedy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 even if the officials’ actions also violated state law. In short, the statute was intended to provide a supplemental remedy. The federal forum was necessary to vindicate federal rights because, according to Congress in 1871, state courts could not protect Fourteenth Amendment rights because of their “prejudice, passion, neglect, [and] intolerance.”5
With Monroe opening the door to the federal courthouse, constitutional litigation against state officials developed. Later, plaintiffs seeking monetary damages sued not only state officials but began to sue cities and counties as well. They also sought prospective injunctive relief against state officials. Ultimately, the federal court became the place to reform state governmental practices.
The above cite doesn’t make ANY SENSE in the context of statutory “U.S. citizens” under 8 U.S.C. 1401, because they are NOT the subject of the Federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court admitted that these people have NO constitutional rights, when it held:
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)]Hence, 42 USC 1983 and the above cite from the “Section 1983 Litigation” book can and do relate only to state citizens protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and who cannot lawfully become the subject of the Internal Revenue Code, nor can they be lawfully offered national franchises such as Medicare, Social Security, the “trade or business” franchise codified within I.R.C. Subtitles A or C, etc. as exhaustively proven in:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…/Franchises.pdfThe points you make, however, do not change or undermine the position advocated in:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen
http://famguardian.o…hyANational.pdfInstead, the cases you cite serve to define rights guaranteed against state governments and described in the FEDERAL Bill of Rights. The fact that these rights are a SUBSET of the FEDERAL Bill of Rights or inferior in any way to them does not imply an inferior form of citizenship, but simply define rights of constitutional “citizens of the United States*” as against the states and NOT the federal government. All such rights, in effect, behave as a SUPPLEMENT to the constitutions of each state of the Union to further the cause of equal protection mandated by 14th Amendment Section 1. Every one of the cases you cited:
1. Related to a dispute between a state official and a citizen of the state.
2. Related to a violation of the FEDERAL Bill of Rights by by the state official against people within the state.
3. Were litigated in a federal court under the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. Were pursued in a federal court because the state courts were biased, as indicated in the quote above.If you want the annotated version of 42 USC 1983, see:
http://famguardian.o…83-20070311.pdf (48 Mbytes. LARGE)You are focusing attention on the WRONG word within the phrase “citizen of the United States” found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The key word is the geographic meaning of “United States”, and not the capitalization of the word “citizen” or “Citizen”. In ALL cases, when “United States” is used within the constitution in a geographic sense, it ALWAYS implies states of the Union and DOES NOT relate to federal territory. Yes, the term “United States” is also used in contexts OTHER than the GEOGRAPHIC sense as you point out. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment relates to the GOVERNMENT/CORPORATE context, for instance, instead of the GEOGRAPHIC context. BUT, “United States” in the Constitution has only ONE meaning when used in a GEOGRAPHIC context, which is the United States*** and NOT the United States**.
The reason the word “citizen” is lower case in the Fourteenth Amendment is because:
1. It relates to a different context for the word “Citizen” than the earlier portions of the USA Constitution.
2. That “citizen of the United States***” is domiciled in a foreign state outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, just like the “state” found in 8 USC 1101(a)(21) is lower case: because it relates to a legislatively foreign state called a state of the Union.
3. The relationship described in that amendment relates to the RELATION between that citizen of the foreign state and the GOVERNMENT of that foreign state.If you believe there is a conflict between the content of our “Why You are a ‘national'” pamphlet and the cases you cite, it is up to you to point out where. We see no conflict. Hence, there is no controversy to settle when the comments described here are fully taken into account.
Everything we just said is completely consistent with everything else we have said so far and completely consistent with the evidence you have presented so far. Therefore, it must be the truth.
-
EDITORIAL: Another false cite from freedom researchers.
__________________
Linda,
You sent a note citing the case of Rundle v. Del. & Raritan Canal Co 55 U.S. 80, which is alleged to state as follows:
Quote:A corporation, therefore, being not a natural person, but a mere creature of the mind, invisible and intangible, cannot be a citizen of a State, or of the United States, and cannot fall within the terms or the power of the above-mentioned article, and can therefore neither plead nor be impleaded in the courts of the United States”.That case is posted here:
http://supreme.justi…55/80/case.html
There is nothing in this case about the above matter, which is a clear misquote.
Larry
-
jb,
I agree entirely with your comments so far. No need to argue. Thank you for your participation in these forums.
neo,
The goal is NOT to be right or to avoid us or our materials from being proven inaccurate. Unlike Pete Hendrickson's soon to be defunct Lost Horizons forums, we do not bounce people from these forums if they prove the moderator wrong. As a matter of fact, these forums are provided for the main reason of offering people an opportunity to identify inaccuracies in our materials so that they can be improved. In all the ten years these forums have been in existence, we have bounced only one person, and it was becuase the person was irrational, refused to provide evidence from the law and court rulings to support the position they were advocating, and limited their illiterate posts entirely to beliefs and opinions that no one wanted to hear and which were derogatory not only of us, but to EVERYONE in these forums.
We agree with jb that it is a slap in the face to come here and claim to be a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction. The OFFICE you occupy as a military officer is a statutory “U.S. citizen” but YOU as a private human being are not such a citizen, and you know that and even agree with it, because we stated it before and you didin't disagree. Under F.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(6) a failure to deny constitutes an admission. That is the only thing we disagree with in the context of this discussion. Otherwise, everything else you said is accurate. We also agree with jb that we have no ill will towards public servants and and that all of us were unwittingly fooled into occupying said position at one time or another by our own legal ignorance manufactured in the public fool propaganda academy. The problem happens when there is a breakdown in the separation between what is public and what is private of those working for the government because it leads to a conflict of interest and a conflict of allegiance that threatens the rights of people the government is supposed to be protecting, such as when you:
1. As a military officer continue to claim to be a statutory “U.S. citizen” when you are not in uniform and off duty.
2. As a military officer fill out government forms and claim to be a statutory “U.S. citizen” while off duty because it qualifies you for some “benefit” that in fact is only available to people domiciled on federal territory and physically present there, and you are NOT physically present there.
3. Write off your children as tax deductions and sell them to Satan by assigning them slave surveillance numbers to procure a “benefit” called “trade or business” deductions (26 USC 162) on the WRONG form, the 1040. You are NOT a “resident alien” and you can't use a resident form unless you are actually physically present and domiciled on federal territory. That is CANNIBALISM: Selling the flesh of your children to the Beast to procure a life of luxury in your old age.
4. Serve as a jurist or a voter while you are receiving government benefits, and especially when the issue being voted on or ruled on relates to those beneifts. That is a CRIME and a conflict of interest. Instead, we think anyone who receives government benefits should NOT be allowed to vote or serve on jury duty because they are criminals. This is especially true if the benefits they receive exceed their earnings from their own labor.
5. Claim you are engaged in a “trade or business” in connection with your private earnings. It is a crime to engage in a public office outside the District of Columbia and few Americans work in the District of Columbia. 4 USC 72 and 18 USC 912.
6. File a resident tax form as a private person. The “United States” you are are a resident of means the government and no geographic place.
7. Refuse to apply or enforce the truths you have learned here to your life as a government public officer or when you see fellow officers you work with violating the above rules, and do so because you don't want to jeopardize your “benefits” or your future life of luxury at your children's expense.
All of the above can be described as nothing other than government idolatry. It is THESE conditions in which “harlotry” becomes an accurate characterization. Such idolatry towards government was the worst of all sins committed in the Bible, and the only one for which God murdered entire cities. That kind of government idolatry was the reason the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years: Because they murmered against Moses and God and wanted to go back to a life of luxury working for Pharoah. Numbers 14-26-38.
-
Neo,
It is NOT ANYONE’S right to declare a status that they do not, in fact, have. It’s called FRAUD.
1. Those domiciled in a constitutional state of the Union are NOT “citizens” under any federal law.
2. It is a CRIME under 18 USC 911 to impersonate a statutory “U.S. citizen” if you are NOT BOTH physically present on AND lawfully domciled on federal territory. A human being domiciled in a state of the Union does NOT fit this description.
3. You cannot have a domicile in a place without physically be present there. Hence, you cannot have a domicile on federal territory if you do not physically reside there at the time you claim said domicile. In fact, chances are, you are not physically present on federal territory at this time, and yet you claim that you are by representing yourself as a statutory “U.S. citizen” per 8 U.S.C. 1401. Hence, you are committing FRAUD.The only way you can maintain eligibility for the plunder you pursue is to LIE on a government form about your true status. The government is complicit in this LIE because they help cleverly disguise it with “words of art” to make it look legitimate.
“Getting treasures by a lying tongue is the fleeting fantasy of those who seek death.”
[Prov. 21:6, Bible, NKJV]Yes, while you are on official business as a public officer, you can correctly describe yourself as a statutory “U.S. citizen” because you are representing a federal corporation that is such a citizen. Lets be VERY clear WHO is the “citizen”. It is the PUBLIC OFFICE and not the PUBLIC OFFICER.
HOWEVER, it is a FRAUD and a CRIME, when you are off duty, to continue to describe yourself as a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. 1401 on any government form. When you go down and apply for a passport, you do so OUT OF UNIFORM. Hence, you are NOT “on duty”. Hence, you are NO LONGER a statutory “U.S. citizen” per 8 USC 1401, but a non-citizen national and should carefully clarify that with the Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001 being attached to the form you submit. Yet, you fraudulently claim the statutory “U.S. citizen” status because you want to get treasures by a lying tongue. That behavior certainly could not be described as either Christian, honorable, or truthful.
Now that you know the truth, you MUST act upon it and use it in every interaction you have with the government or you are a LIAR, and THIEF, and a FRAUD. You have consistently said that expending effort in these forums to educate you about the truths on this website would “bear fruit”. The only fruit I see so far is a desire to use the knowledge to collect funds that you are not lawfully entitled to because they are extracted illegally and criminally from those who do not consent, and who are not lawful targets for federal enforcement authority.
Regardless of whether you are lawfully eligible for the government “benefit” you seek to protect and expand, the fundamental problem is that it is being paid for:
1. With COUNTERFEITED money. Thus, it is STOLEN:
The Money Scam, Form #05.041
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…w/MoneyScam.pdf2. With plunder stolen from those who are not rightfully “taxpayers”. See:
The Great IRS Hoax
http://famguardian.o…reatIRSHoax.htmHence, those receiving government “benefits” are receiving the proceeds of crime, extortion, and racketeering and are acting as a money launderer for the government. On this subject, the Bible says:
Alas, sinful nation,
A people laden with iniquity
A brood of evildoers
Children who are corrupters!
They have forsaken the LordThey have provoked to anger
The Holy One of Israel,
They have turned away backward.
Why should you be stricken again?
You will revolt more and more.
The whole head is sick [they are out of their minds!: insane or STUPID or both],
And the whole heart faints….Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes.
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor [the IRS and the Federal Reserve and a corrupted judicial system];
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow [and the “ nontaxpayer“]….How the faithful city has become a harlot!
It [the Constitutional Republic] was full of justice;
Righteousness lodged in it,
But now murderers [and abortionists, and socialists, and democrats, and liars and corrupted judges].Your silver has become dross,
Your wine mixed with water.
Your princes [President, Congressmen, Judges] are rebellious,
Everyone loves bribes,
And follows after rewards.
They do not defend the fatherless,
nor does the cause of the widow [or the “nontaxpayer”] come before them.Therefore the Lord says,
The Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel,
“Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries,
And take vengeance on My enemies.
I will turn My hand against you,
And thoroughly purge away your dross,
And take away your alloy.
I will restore your judges [eliminate the BAD judges] as at the first,
And your counselors [eliminate the BAD lawyers] as at the beginning.
Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.”[Isaiah 1:1-26, Bible, NKJV]
Hence, those who receive government “benefits” are the “harlot” described in Revelations as “Babylon the Great Harlot”. God’s law forbids them to tithe any of the loot, because the Bible says the wages of a harlot should not enter the treasury of a church. You serve Satan, not God.
“You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the LORD your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.”
[Deut. 23:18, Bible, NKJV]The Bible says no man can serve two masters, and yet you continue to try to rationally prove that you CAN serve mammon (money) and God. All such efforts are entirely futile and hypocritical. That hypocrisy entirely discredits the value of any good you can be to anyone else in the context of subjects you have a financial interest in. That very contradiction is why it is a CRIME to officiate as a public officer over any subject that you have a financial interest in. 18 USC 208, 28 USC 144 and 455. If you were acting as an expert witness, a juror, or a judge in this matter, you could be and should be recused.
“And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous.” Exodus 23:8, Bible, NKJV]
“He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house,
But he who hates bribes will live.”
[Prov. 15:27, Bible, NKJV]“Surely oppression destroys a wise man’s reason.
And a bribe debases the heart.”
[Ecclesiastes 7:7, Bible, NKJV]We don’t hate the sinner, but the sin.
-
jb,
I agree with you. It's better to attach a document to the DS-11 clarifying:
1. Your status as a national but not a citizen under federal law.
2. Disassociating with the “United States**” and associating with the “United States***”.
3. Clarifying that you are not a “citizen” or “resident” under Title 26.
The following SEDM form is perfectly suited to satisfying your requirement to attach SOMETHING to the DS-11 form:
USA Passport Application Attachment, Form #06.007
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Form…sPortAppAtt.pdf
__________________
neo,
I disagree partially with your statement. Those domiciled in states of the Union CANNOT have the civil status of “citizen” under federal law without being SUBJECT to federal civil law. The separation of powers forbids federal civil jurisdiction within the borders of a state of the Union. Hence, the only thing one can be is a non-citizen national. Yes, they have jurisdiction over constitutional aliens everywhere, but not over non-citizen nationals.
Title 8 ALSO deals with the citizenship status of:
1. People in federal territories, and THOSE people are the only “citizens” under federal law. 8 U.S.C. 1401.
2. People in possessions. Those people are “nationals of the United States**”. 8 U.S.C. 1408 and 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(:cool:.
Everyone else within the American Union is a “national” but not a “citizen”. All you do by describing yourself as a “citizen” on a federal form is invite others to:
1. Make false presumptions about your status.
2. Enforce law from a foreign jurisdiction and foreign state and a foreign corporation against you.
3. Disregard and undermine your sovereignty.
This is a HUGE mistake that can lead to nothing but mischief, injurious presumptions, and make you the target of unlawful enforcement activities by the government.
I can also understand why you want to take the position you are taking: Because you are an officer in the U.S. military who wants to continue eligibility to receive plunder stolen from innocent nontaxpayers and non-citizens in your old age. The grave irony of taking that position is that Uncle is going to be BANKRUPT literally before you can collect the lion's share of what you believe you are entitled to. They are already morally bankrupt, and soon they will ALSO be financially bankrupt.
If you believe that Title 8 ONLY addresses nationality and that people domiciled in constitutional states of the Union are “citizens” under Title 8, then:
1. Where is the citizenship status of people in federal territories and possessions established and described if it isn't in Title 8?
2. Why is there a need to even use the word “citizen” in Title 8?
3. What changes would you make to the following to make it consistent with your views:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm
I allege that there is no way you can change the above link to be consistent with your view without contradicting and discrediting yourself.