[juliusbragg]

This week the 37th Circuit Court for the County of Calhoun ruled from the bench a “judgment of foreclosure” against me calling it an “uncontested forfeiture”, ignoring my documents…well sort of ignoring them.

1. They stated “you did not appear for the hearing today.” meanwhile I was told that I was not required to by the judges assistant.

2. They stated “the Plaintiffs prepared a response but the court did not require that it be submitted.” a response to what…if it was uncontested there would be no response.

3. They stated “whether the tax is direct or indirect is also not relevant to this matter.” Constitutionally, taxes are either direct or indirect.

Here is the MOTION to VACATE

Quote:

name (Sui Juris)

[C/O address

San Ramon, California zip code exempt]

[phone number]

CIRCUIT COURT OF MICHIGAN

37TH CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF CALHOUN

CALHOUN COUNTY TREASURER )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

name, Sui Juris )

)

Defendant. )

Case No. 2010-1895-CZ

Defendant [name] Motion to Vacate Judgment, Affidavit In Support, and Points and Authorities

In the Matter of the Petition of the Calhoun

County Treasurer for Foreclosure of Certain Parcels of Property Due to Unpaid 2008 and Prior Years’ Taxes, Interest, Penalties, and Fees.

Date:

Time:

Dept:

Judge:

Trial Date: None Set

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, AND LEGAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. Introduction

Comes now the defendant, [name], Sui Juris, and hereby files my motion to vacate foreclosure judgment pursuant to MCR 2.612.

The factual matters stated herein are made by affidavit.

The legal matters stated herein are traditional constitutional and property laws that Defendant submits remain valid law in Michigan. These issues may come from dusty law book shelves, but they are indeed interesting. So, if Defendant is relying on any misstatement of law herein, then Defendant hereby respectfully requests a change in law for the purpose of a return to traditional fairness and equity.

B. Motion, Affidavit, and Points and Authorities

1. Defendant requests relief from the judgment on the grounds of mistake. On or about February 11, 2011, Defendant misinterpreted the judge’s assistant who said over the phone that I was not required to appear for the foreclosure hearing and that she would call me back and inform me as to whether the judge would consider my evidence without me being present. As I am unfamiliar with court rules, I request leniency and relief so that I may have an opportunity to be heard (the proverbial day in court).

2. Defendant submits that the Plaintiff incorrectly argued in its papers that “Whether the tax is direct or indirect is also not relevant to the matter.” Traditionally and constitutionally, taxation on property in America, and specifically in the republic known as Michigan, is required to be in compliance with the Constitution for the United States of America with regard to Direct and Indirect taxation. Apportionment for a direct tax and uniformity for an indirect tax are also companion key constitutional principles. Therefore, allowing the judgment to stand would allow an incorrect application of constitutional law to be advanced as authority in a local court judgment, which would be inequitable. Accordingly, Defendant requests relief.

3. Defendant submits that the Plaintiff incorrectly fails to acknowledge Defendant’s presented Constitutional question of Property taxation as applied to an Article II, Section 1, Cl. 5 “natural born Citizen” and specifically not a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States”. This is a fundamental issue, so by circumventing an answer on it, it is uncertain on what basis the judgment stands. Accordingly, Defendant requests relief.

4. Defendant submits that the Plaintiff incorrectly circumvented the Constitutional question of Property taxation as applied to “Private Property” as that term is used in Michigan law. This is a fundamental issue, so by circumventing an answer on it, it is uncertain on what basis the judgment stands. Accordingly, Defendant requests relief. Here are the applicable legal authorities for the Court’s consideration:

Michigan Constitution ARTICLE X, section 2:

§ 2 Eminent domain; compensation.

Sec. 2. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefore being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. If private property consisting of an individual’s principal residence is taken for public use, the amount of compensation made and determined for that taking shall be not less than 125% of that property’s fair market value, in addition to any other reimbursement allowed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record.

“Public use” does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. Private property otherwise may be taken for reasons of public use as that term is understood on the effective date of the amendment to this constitution that added this paragraph.

Taxation in Michigan is limited to “real property” and “tangible personal property” pursuant to Michigan Constitution Article IX, and not “Private Property”.

ARTICLE IX Property Taxation

§ 3 Property taxation; uniformity; assessments; limitations; classes; approval of legislature.

Sec. 3.

The legislature shall provide for the uniform general ad valorem taxation of real and tangible personal property not exempt by law except for taxes levied for school operating purposes. The legislature shall provide for the determination of true cash value of such property; the proportion of true cash value at which such property shall be uniformly assessed, which shall not, after January 1, 1966, exceed 50 percent; and for a system of equalization of assessments. For taxes levied in 1995 and each year thereafter, the legislature shall provide that the taxable value of each parcel of property adjusted for additions and losses, shall not increase each year by more than the increase in the immediately preceding year in the general price level, as defined in section 33 of this article, or 5 percent, whichever is less until ownership of the parcel of property is transferred. When ownership of the parcel of property is transferred as defined by law, the parcel shall be assessed at the applicable proportion of current true cash value. The legislature may provide for alternative means of taxation of designated real and tangible personal property in lieu of general ad valorem taxation. Every tax other than the general ad valorem property tax shall be uniform upon the class or classes on which it operates. A law that increases the statutory limits in effect as of February 1, 1994 on the maximum amount of ad valorem property taxes that may be levied for school district operating purposes requires the approval of 3/4 of the members elected to and serving in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.

The Michigan Property Tax Act 206 of 1893 does not allow for the taxation of “Private Property” such as my property in question.

Michigan Property Tax Act 206 of 1893

211.1 Property subject to taxation.

Sec. 1.

That all property, real and personal, within the jurisdiction of this state, not expressly exempted, shall be subject to taxation.

5. Defendant submits that the Plaintiff incorrectly circumvented the Constitutional question of Property Tax being applied to my “Private Property” and specifically not “Real Property,” per the Michigan Constitution Article X, Section 2. This is a fundamental issue, so by circumventing an answer on it, it is uncertain on what basis the judgment stands. Accordingly, Defendant requests relief.

6. Defendant submits that the Plaintiff incorrectly circumvented the Constitutional question of whether “Private Property” is required to be recorded, and the factual question of whether the private property at issue was unknowingly recorded against my will. These are fundamental questions of law and fact, so by circumventing an answer on them, it is uncertain on what basis the judgment stands. Accordingly, Defendant requests relief.

7. Defendant submits that the Plaintiff incorrectly ignored my (first, second, and third) conditional acceptances to pay all taxes legally owed upon their proof of claim. In the extreme, “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. … [U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), emphasis added][quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)].

Here, Defendant only requests relief on the grounds of reasonable reliance.

//

//

//

THEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court grant Defendant’s motion for vacating judgment, and for all other relief to which the defendant proves himself entitled.

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of March, 2011, and for all factual matters stated herein the signature below is made under threat of penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Michigan.

________________________________

name

address

San Ramon, Republic of California

zip code exempt

[juliusbragg]

here's the deal. You were arrested without a warrant. In California it is illegal to arrest you without a warrant unless you commit a crime or public offense.

see CVC 40300.5 and Cal Penal Code 836

Quote:

In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836 of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:

(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.

(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway.

(c ) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested.

(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately arrested.

(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested.

and penal code 836

Quote:

(a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances occur:

(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.

(2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the officer's presence.

(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact, has been committed.

(b ) Any time a peace officer is called out on a domestic violence call, it shall be mandatory that the officer make a good faith effort to inform the victim of his or her right to make a citizen's arrest.

This information shall include advising the victim how to safely execute the arrest.

(c ) (1) When a peace officer is responding to a call alleging a violation of a domestic violence protective or restraining order issued under Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Family Code, Section 136.2, 646.91, or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1203.097 of this code, Section 213.5 or 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or of a domestic violence protective or restraining order issued by the court of another state, tribe, or territory and the peace officer has probable cause to believe that

the person against whom the order is issued has notice of the order and has committed an act in violation of the order, the officer shall, consistent with subdivision (:cool: of Section 13701, make a lawful arrest of the person without a warrant and take that person into custody whether or not the violation occurred in the presence of the arresting officer. The officer shall, as soon as possible after the arrest, confirm with the appropriate authorities or the Domestic Violence Protection Order Registry maintained pursuant to Section

6380 of the Family Code that a true copy of the protective order has been registered, unless the victim provides the officer with a copy of the protective order.

(2) The person against whom a protective order has been issued shall be deemed to have notice of the order if the victim presents to the officer proof of service of the order, the officer confirms with the appropriate authorities that a true copy of the proof of service is on file, or the person against whom the protective order was issued was present at the protective order hearing or was informed by a peace officer of the contents of the protective order.

(3) In situations where mutual protective orders have been issued under Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code, liability for arrest under this subdivision applies only to those persons who are reasonably believed to have been the dominant aggressor. In those situations, prior to making an arrest under this subdivision, the peace officer shall make reasonable efforts to identify, and may arrest, the dominant aggressor involved in the incident. The dominant aggressor is the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant aggressor, an officer shall consider (A) the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing

abuse, (:cool: the threats creating fear of physical injury, (C) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and (D) whether either person involved acted in self-defense.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), if a suspect commits an assault or battery upon a current or former spouse, fiance, fiancee, a current or former cohabitant as defined in Section 6209 of the Family Code, a person with whom the suspect currently is having or has previously had an engagement or dating relationship, as defined in paragraph (10) of subdivision (f) of Section 243, a person with whom the suspect has parented a child, or is presumed to have parented a child pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3 commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12 of the Family Code), a child of the suspect, a child whose parentage by the suspect is the subject of an action under the Uniform Parentage Act, a child of a person in one of the above categories, any other person related to the suspect by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any person who is 65 years of age or older and who is related to the suspect by blood or legal guardianship, a peace officer may arrest the suspect without a warrant where both of the following circumstances apply:

(1) The peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the assault or battery, whether or not it has in fact been committed.

(2) The peace officer makes the arrest as soon as probable cause arises to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the assault or battery, whether or not it has in fact been committed.

(e) In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a warrant pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (a), a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for a violation of Section 25400 when all of the following apply:

(1) The officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the violation of Section 25400.

(2) The violation of Section 25400 occurred within an airport, as defined in Section 21013 of the Public Utilities Code, in an area to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property.

(3) The peace officer makes the arrest as soon as reasonable cause arises to believe that the person to be arrested has committed the violation of Section 25400.

This is the ONLY section of enabling clause for “warrantless arrest” in California for “traffic” infractions.

Heres the trick. The courts will tell you that you committed a “public offense”, but this is impossible. See Penal Code 689

Quote:

No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty.

Furthermore the courts have already established that an Infraction is not a “Crime” nor a “public offense”. see people v sava and people v battle

http://section520.org/sava.pdf

Quote:

“If the Legislature intended to treat infractions as public offenses and if the charging of a public offense invokes the right to trial by jury, sections 19c and 1042.5, which deny a jury to one who commits an infraction, conflict with section 689. However, the same (1968) Legislature enacted section 19c, the pertinent amendment of section 16 and section 1042.5. Construing these sections in accordance with the precepts laid down in In re Kay, supra, we must conclude that it was not the intent of the Legislature to enact inconsistent statutes and, further, that when it added the term “public offense” to section 16 it was not so categorizing infractions because if it did so, it would have caused inconsistency between sections 19c and 689 of the Penal Code.” [People v. Battle, 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1]

You were arrested without a warrant or probable cause, so the arrest was illegal, not to mention that CVC 12801.5(e) forbids the officer from arresting you without a license…

Quote:

(e) Notwithstanding Section 40300 or any other provision of law, a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver, unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe the person driving is under the age of 16 years.

You should file a notice of claim with the city.

[juliusbragg]

Georgia has caught on

http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb875.htm

[juliusbragg]

1. My guess is, like here in California, that “in this state” or “in this State” mean two COMPLETELY different things. I haven't had the time to go through Michigan code yet, but in California it is OBVIOUS:

Cal Rev and Tax code

http://law.onecle.com/california/taxation/6017.html

Quote:

6017

“In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

versus

http://law.onecle.com/california/taxation/60017.html

Quote:

60017

“In this state” or “in the state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.

Here you can see how one may inadvertently check a box that asks “is the land you wish to record in this state?” thereby allowing for the presumption that it is on federal land.

2. I dont think deviating from the form is required, because recording isnt required (unless there is a loan). I have one piece of land that I accidentally never recorded. It is in Pensacola Florida…all I have is the transferred deed. I have NEVER paid tax or received a tax bill for it in 7 years.

3, 3.1, 3.2 True, both are privileges

I believe that the 13th Amendment allowed for Americans to VOLUNTEER into servitude…even before the 13th the court stated:

Quote:

That the general principle of such a right of electing, to remain under the old or to contract a new allegiance, was recognized, is apparent from the case of Com. v. Chapman, 1 Dal., 53, and other cases cited. Those who adhered to the new government and transferred their allegiance thereto, became citizens of the same. All who were free, had this right of election, else they were not free. No particular color nor descent was required to confer this right of election. It resulted from freedom, and the necessity resting upon all to make an election. When it was made, and the individual determined to adhere to the new state, he was necessarily a member and a citizen of the same. He sustained the same relation to the new government by choice, which he had sustained to the old by birth. [44 Maine 528-529 (1859)

Furthermore, I believe that the word games are used to relieve the legislators from liability. The Average American has nearly all of the instrumentals to allow for the reasonable presumption that he/she is a federal person and on federal land:

Birth Certificate

Social Security Number

Drivers License

Library Card

Zip Code

2 Letter state abbreviation

Marriage license

…and so on, so when this “person” goes and asks the State to protect his/her land, they properly presume that this must be a Federal person asking for rights.

I believe THIS is how they get away with it. I have a case coming up in Michigan regarding property tax where I hope to have some questions answered, mostly.

1. Is property tax a direct tax on my property or an indirect tax on an activity?

2. Do I have a right to own private property?

3. Can land be private property as opposed to real property?

and so on.

[juliusbragg]

“What, if anything, would you change about the above forms to make them more consistent with the research you have posted. We aren't here for entertainment, but to improve the tools available on this site for protecting one's rights from being usurped by corrupt government employees.”

I agree for the most part with what you wrote, I would take it a tad further and say that if the Government is presuming that a 14th Amendment citizen is a 1401 citizen, then they are probably ALSO associating a 14th Amendment citizen/1401 citizen with an IRC citizen.

All they have to do to make that leap is ignore the term “includes” as used in the codes (as you know) and make erroneous presumptions that United States “also includes” the states of the Union. I, however, think it is impossible for them to make the connection between a “Capital C Citizen of the state and specifically NOT a citizen of the United States” and a “citizen of the United States”. Only a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien can get a Social Security number, so if someone has a Social Security number, and accepts it and uses it, then they are (or can be) presumed to be a “citizen of the United States”, and thus fall into the statutory provisions found in USC Title 5, “records maintained on individuals”

Quote:

USC Title 5, 552

(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

In short, my concern is this:

A baby is born, gets a birth certificate declaring to be a “citizen of the United States”…which type of citizen we DONT know, but if “born in the United States” it can be a 14th Amendment citizen or a statutory citizen, and therefore potentially admits to being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or the UNITED STATES.

Then the Social Security form is filed, further declaring that the new citizen is a Federal citizen and now entitled to receive immediate or deferred payments from a retirement program, as stated above in 552.

Within the first few days of life, this babies parents will declare that he is

a) A public official with a federal employee I.D. number

😎 “Federal Personnel” as defined in USC Title 5, 552 above

c) A citizen OF the federal government

d) A 'person' owing many of his rights directly to congress via the 14th Amendment

e) A certified legal fiction

So to answer your question about what I would change;

I would add emphasis to using extreme caution when declaring to be a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States. As you said previously, the Capital C Citizen TECHNICALLY only applies to white men, but I would recommend all humans declare that status and make the Courts responsible for belittling ones status. Can you imagine a court saying to a woman or a black man “Im sorry but you can't be a Constitutional capital C Citizen because you are not a white man”?

Also, if someone retains the Social Security number, they can NEVER be free. Because of the definition of Federal Personnel above, anyone who retains that number IS subject to the legislative jurisdiction of Congress, and as a “Federal Employee” is subject to executive orders and all Congressional laws:

http://fpc.state.gov…tion/143907.pdf

Quote:

“Federal personnel may be subject to certain conflict of interest restrictions on private employment activities even after they leave U.S. government service.“

Always declare yourself to be a Capital C Citizen of the Republic of Kansas (or whatever state you are a Citizen of) and specifically NOT a 14th Amendment citizen OF the United States”…I use Republic instead of “State” to avoid confusion if my transcript is ever read over the phone…state may be confused for STATE…I also now specifically say “Capital C Citizen” to avoid the possibility of being confused with a “citizen”…And GET RID of those Social Security Federal Employee ID numbers if you are NOT a federal employee.

THANK YOU SOOOOO much for the lengthy debate, and all of the information you have provided. These forums serve an important purpose!

[juliusbragg]

more evidence supporting the Federal interpretation of the 14th:

http://www.justice.g…es.31.htm#N_11_

Quote:

“Congress is, of course, constitutionally free to propose, and the states to ratify, any amendment to the Constitution. (21) Such naked power undeniably exists. The Constitution taken as a whole, however, stands for certain enduring principles. (22)

When Congress undertakes to tamper through the amendment process with the most basic presuppositions of American constitutionalism, it should do so with exceeding caution and utmost restraint. The proposition that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens at birth is one of those bedrock principles.”

15 See INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985) (in habeas proceeding brought by deportable aliens, Court noted that respondent had given birth to a child, “who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country”); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982) (relying on Wong Kim Ark's predominantly geographic interpretation of the “jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829-30 (1971) (citizenship clause is “'declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,' so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned”)

[LEGISLATION DENYING CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH TO CERTAIN CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, Dept of Justice]

Quote:

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” 1866 Act, § 1, 14 Stat. at 27. During the debates on the Act, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee stated that the provision defining citizenship is “merely declaratory of what the law now is,” and he cited, among other authorities, a quotation from William Rawle, whose constitutional law treatise was one of the most widely respected antebellum works: “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” (10)

The Fourteenth Amendment initially contained no definition of citizenship. Senator Howard of Michigan proposed to insert the definition that became the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. (11)

He explained that this was not meant to include those discrete classes of persons excluded by the common law, “but will include every other class of persons.”

[10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115 (1866); id. at 1117 (quoting William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 80 (1829)).11 Id. at 2890.]

Free white men were not a “class of person” at the time of the Constitution. “Class” referred to Negroes, foreigners, women, idiots, felons, and other non free white men.

http://judiciary.hou…/legacy/618.htm

Quote:

Nothing in the language of the Citizenship Clause, its legislative history, or its traditional interpretation, requires that the parents of a child born in the United States must be permanent residents, rather than temporary visitors, for the child to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Both the English tradition and the Supreme Court's language in Wong Kim Ark treat temporarily present aliens as equivalent to resident aliens for this purpose, because both are subject to the authority of the government. See Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655, 658, 674, 687, 688, 693; Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. lb, 6a (“[f]or [the alien] owed to the King local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King's protection; which local obedience being but momentary and uncertain is yet strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject.”).

Nor is there anything in the language, legislative history, or traditional interpretation of the Citizenship Clause that would exclude children born in the United States to aliens who are not lawfully present here. Clearly, deportable aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — that is what makes them deportable, and often subject to criminal punishment as well. Their children born in the United States, though not themselves guilty of violating any law, have no immunity from the lawmaking power of the United States, and are fully subject to its jurisdiction.

[COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY; TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR GERALD L. NEUMAN; SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION; U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 13, 1995]

Quote:

1 I have discussed antebellum state immigration law at length in the article “The Lost Century of American Immigration Law (1776-1875), ” 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1833 (1993). I should add that, although lawyers have often succumbed to the myth that there was no immigration law government itself had been attempting to prohibit the international slave trade, a form of involuntary immigration. Under the revisionist theory, children born in the United States to illegally imported slaves would not have been guaranteed citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment, because the United States government did not consent to their parents' presence in the country. This would contradict the clear purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment to overturn the Dred Scott decision and to guarantee U.S. citizenship to all persons of African descent born in the United States.

Thus, for numerous reasons,7 the revisionist argument provides no legally tenable basis for altering the traditional interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. Neither Professors Schuck and Smith nor any other revisionists have put forward any plausible interpretation of the language “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States that would accommodate their argument. And their argument cannot be squared with the clear tenor of the legislative history.

http://commdocs.hous…/hju23690_0.htm

Quote:

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that ''all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.'' The Fourteenth Amendment declared that ''[a]ll 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.''

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court held that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. The children of diplomats and the children of hostile occupation forces were excluded because their parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Wong Kim Ark did not exclude the children of illegal aliens, and the basic holding of this decision has never been reversed…

Beyond the legal arguments, it is important to understand the financial consequences of our birthright citizenship policies. An estimated 300,000 babies are born to illegal immigrants in this country each year. As we all know, these children are automatically granted citizenship. The cost of caring for these children is extremely high. For labor and delivery alone, excluding c-section deliveries and any pre- or post-natal care, the cost is between $1,500 and $1,800 per child. Under current law the government is often left no choice but to cover these costs. Despite the legal status of the baby's parents, the baby is entitled to all benefits that U.S. citizenship entails, including federal welfare benefits and the right to vote. When that child turns 21, he or she will be able to sponsor his or her parents, and other family members, to the United States under the family reunification provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. One quickly comes to realize the costs to our social infrastructure of such an ill-advised policy. It is my belief that in order to begin truly reforming our immigration and citizenship laws, we must start from the beginning by doing away with birthright citizenship.

[DUAL CITIZENSHIP, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, AND THE MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY;HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS; FIRST SESSION; SEPTEMBER 29, 2005; Serial No. 109–63]

AND FINALLY…drum roll

http://www.federalre…ho-relocated-to

Quote:

The doctrine of “jus soli,'' incorporated into the United States Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment, makes, with certain limited exceptions, all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens at birth. See U.S. Const., amend. XIV, section 1; 8 U.S.C. 1401(a).

[Redress Provisions for Persons of Japanese Ancestry: Guidelines for Individuals Who Relocated to Japan as Minors During World War II]

These example show that there is no separation from the 14th Amendment, the civil rights act of 1866, and current statutory regulations. The Federal Government is using the 14th Amendment to establish Statutory citizenship.

When a child is born in America, the parent fills out a birth certificate declaring citizenship. That birth certificate establishes 14th Amendment citizenship and statutory citizenship. This declaration allows for the Federal legislative jurisdiction over that child. Because this newborn is a Federal citizen, they are 'required' to have a Social Security number assigned to him. This child, as he gets older, as a U.S. citizen, 14th Amendment and statutory, will be 'required' to register for selective service, then to get a drivers license, then to file tax forms, etc.

Whereas, the Amish for example, have none of these requirements (except in rare circumstances) because their children are born at home, recorded in the family bible, and never declared to be “born in the United States” and especially not “subject to its jurisdiction”

Whether we will ever agree on this, I strongly believe that I have AT least provided evidence that the federal government, and its agents are increasingly using (perhaps misusing) Wong Kim Ark for their benefit.

[juliusbragg]

Fixed link:

http://www.nmid.usco…-02-0039-18.pdf

http://edsitement.ne…plan.asp?id=804

Quote:

Lynching is more than murder. It is anarchy when a mob sets itself up as a judge, jury and executioner. In doing so it not only violates whatever rights the lynched person has as a citizen of the state in which he is lynched but also deprives him of his rights as a citizen of the federal government…”

— Walter White, NAACP Secretary, November 23, 1933

http://www.library.c…96-02/96-02.pdf

Quote:

These Welfare Codes have only one connection to the State Constitution or the 14th Amendment state citizen, not the 9th Amendment state citizen. What is the difference? If a parent consents to the Welfare Codes as a 14th Amendment citizen, then he or she does so by uninformed consent, without the knowledge of the contractual relationship with child protective services. By contrast, the 9th Amendment citizen has constitutional protections that disconnect the link or connection of the Welfare and Institution Codes and disconnect the federal state.

These contrasts are described by Justice Antonin Scalia in what he calls the fourth branch of government, which was held to be constitutional if you are a 14th Amendment citizen, but unconstitutional if you are a 9th Amendment state citizen. Contract law is not something understood by most parents. Because neither the social workers, attorneys, nor the courts disclose the contract, the parents are misinformed about the services offered by the social workers.

I think the title of this post should have been “State Citizen believes that the U.S. Government uses the 14th Amendment definition of citizen of the United States to their advantage”

This is because my point is that the govt. does exactly that.

To Admin, the Dept. of State cite clearly uses the Wong Kim Ark case to show that the 14th Amendment is refering to a UNITED STATES citizen:

http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf

Quote:

d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.

(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that

(:cool: A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

see also:

http://www.state.gov…ation/86756.pdf

Quote:

Incorporated Territory: the territories to which the Constitution is fully applicable are called “incorporated territories”. It has been held that persons born in these territories on or after the date they became part of the United States could claim U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Section 1891, Rev. Stat., stated that…

In Sabangan v. Powell, 375 F.3d 818 (2004), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) held that two individuals born in the Northern Mariana Islands between January 9, 1978, and November 3, 1986, acquired U.S. citizenship under section 501(a) of the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America. The court reasoned that beginning at 11 A.M. January 9, 1978 (Saipan time), when Section 501(a) made Section 1 of Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution applicable in the Northern Marianas Islands under Section 501(a) “as if the Northern Mariana Islands were one of the several States,” the Northern Mariana Islands were to be treated as if they were “in the United States” for purposes of the Citizenship Clause in the first sentence of Section 1 of Amendment 14.

even more:

http://www.state.gov…ation/86757.pdf

Quote:

7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirements.

THIS IS VERY TELLING!!!

http://www.state.gov…ation/86757.pdf

CAPITALIZATION AS IN ORIGINAL!!

Quote:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,

therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President;”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

How could Congress have the Authority to make someone who is NOT born in the United States a “citizen of the United States”?

Quote:

(a) On May 29, 1967, in Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court held that: the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this nation against a congressional, forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race.

(:cool: In Bellei, however, the Court held that the constitutional definition of citizenship in the 14th Amendment does not include persons who acquired citizenship by birth abroad to a citizen parent. This definition was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(c ) The Court also stated that: Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to the satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship, outright, as concededly it had the power to do.

(d) The Court held that: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in the United States (on persons who do) not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.

This makes PERFECT sense if a citizen of the United States is a Federal citizen.

TO NEO:

“When you see the word JURISDICTION in a citizenship context, what do you believe they mean by that?”

it depends. Clearly, if we are referring to Statutory citizens, or “citizens of the United States” with regard to those born in the Northern Mariana Islands, or those born in Incorporated Territories, JURISDICTION means Legislative Jurisdiction…it has to, because Congress has jurisdiction over the territories but not the states of the Union.

SO, IF CONGRESS makes an Amendment that states “anyone who is born in the United States, and who is also subject to federal legislative jurisdiction, shall be a citizen of the UNITED STATES”, then we would have no argument correct? How would Congress write this if they wanted to obfuscate the truth?

I say like this:

“any person born in the United States, AND subject to THE jurisdiction thereof”.

NOW, if Congress wanted to make an Amendment that made the freed slaves Citizens of the states they would have used different wording. However Congress lacked that authority, so they had to trick its way in. How about:

“any person born in a state of the union, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a Citizen of the United States”? PROBLEM, freed black slaves were NOT SUBJECT to state Jurisdiction.

How about:

“any person born in a state, or territory of the United States, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof”? Again, Congress is THE JURISDICTION in the case of the Territory, and the freed slaves werent subject to the state jurisdiction.

THE ONLY way Congress could make this work, with their limited power, was to make the slaves Federal citizens first (through the Civil Rights Act). All federal property in the States of the Union are subject to Congressional legislative jurisdiction. This is why the 14th Amendment had to establish that:

Quote:

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.

This was already established for Citizens, but not established for the new class of citizen. The states were, and are, forbidden from interfeering with Federal property within their [territorial] jurisdiction. note the use of “subject to” and “within” when referring to jurisdiction.

When you put this all together, and you read all of the case law, and the statutes, and how the govt. is interpreting the 14th, and the fact that the whites were already Citizens, and that additional amendments had to be made to make citizens seem equal, and that 14th Amendment citizens have “civil rights”, instead of human Rights, and that Congress has SO much power over citizens of the United States, and that the statutory citizen of the United States used the same capitalization as the 14th Amendment, and that the original Constitution, always used an upper case C for citizen, then it becomes clear that something is afoot.

Do you think the Civil Rights Act made the slaves Federal citizens? If not, what do you think it did?

see:

Civil Rights Act 1866

Quote:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

The civil rights act of 1866 made all persons who were not subject to the LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION of the states of the Union, citizens of the UNITED STATES. To make them citizens of the states united was beyond the power of congress. The Courts have stated repeatedly that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act AND the 14th Amendment was to confer citizenship OF THE UNITED STATES to the newly freed slaves. SO, when the 14th Amendment says “any person born in the United States and subject to THE jurisdiction thereof” they meant a specific 'person'. The 'person' they were referring to was the newly freed slave, which had recently become a Federal statutory citizen under the Civil Rights Act. The 14th Amendment made the statutory Federal citizens, Constitutional Federal citizens. This is because the free white men were ALREADY Citizens of the states. THIS IS EXACTLY why the courts state:

Quote:

“Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state…

“[W]e find nothing…which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved.”

[Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections][221 A.2d 431 (1966)]

All union state citizens (with a lower case “c” from the 14th Amendment) are ALSO [federal] citizens of the United States, BUT, not all [federal] citizens of the United States are state citizens (lower case “c”)

I think there are 5 citizenships in America:

[juliusbragg]

1. I do have my mind 95% made up, and you have your mind 100% made up.

2. My approach to citizenship is from a concern of what the GOVERNMENT THINKS it is. As I have said before, even if you are 100% correct, the Government is agreeing with me:

http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf

Quote:

d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”:

All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.

(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that

(:cool: A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

Therefore, although you MAY be right in theory, the U.S. Department of State is using Wong Kim Ark in their favor. Isnt this a concern to you at all?

3. Arguing will NOT change my mind, BUT sound evidence will. You have offered excellent evidence, but I have explained away all of it I believe. Such as above with one of your strongest arguments, that being Wong Kim Ark. note: PLEASE understand that the 14th Amendment citizenship is the only issue that I disagree with you on.

4. I dont think that a Fourteenth Amendment constitutional citizen is equivalent to a statutory citizen in 8 USC 1401. I just think that they are NOT the same as a Citizen, and that the U.S. Govt. has used the 14th Amendment in their favor to allow for the presumption (perhaps because of capitalization) that a 14th Amendment citizen is defaulted into the statutory position. as I stated before, I think there are 5 different citizenships in order of importance.

• 1: Citizen (as found throughout the Constitution) = Constitutional Citizen of one of the states of the Union (probably only originally white men) at the adoption of the Constitution, or in any state of the union admitted afterward.[*]2: Citizen of the United States (as found throughout the Constitution) = Constitutional Citizen of the “United States” (whites born in Incorporated Territories and D.C.) at the adoption of the Constitution, see the use of “Citizen” as used separately from Citizen of the United States” :

Art IV, Section. 2.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

NOTE: This could have said “Citizens of the United States shall be entitled to…” but they chose specific language, guaranteeing that ONLY “state Citizens” and NOT “Citizens OF THE UNITED STATES” are entitled to the Privileges and Immunities. see also:

Article II, Section I,

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

NOTE: The comma after “Citizen of the United States” makes “at the time of the adoption” a qualifier for both types of Citizens listed.

• 3: citizen of the STATE = 14th Amendment federal citizen living in a state of the Union (this citizen is also always a citizen of the United States)[*]4: citizen of the United States = 14th Amendment federal citizen living anywhere in the U.S. except states of the Union. (not necessarily a “citizen of a state”)[*]5: citizen of the United States = Statutory federal citizen found in the United States Code, (the capitalization of this citizen allows for a governmental presumption that the above 2 citizenships are also statutory)

4.1 – 4.2

http://fpc.state.gov…tion/147254.pdf

Quote:

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born to Alien Parents

Congressional Research Service Summary

Over the last decade or so, concern about illegal immigration has sporadically led to a reexamination of a long-established tenet of U.S. citizenship, codified in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and §301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. §1401(a)), that a person who is born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents…

The Civil Rights

Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, extended birthright citizenship to African Americans and also to most persons born in the United States. In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the United States Supreme Court made clear that U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation…

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866

Although the primary aim was to secure citizenship for African Americans, the debates on the citizenship provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment indicate that they were intended to extend U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of race, ethnicity or alienage of the parents.32 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”33 The Fourteenth Amendment declared that “[a]ll 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.”34 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 differs from the Fourteenth Amendment by using the terms “not subject to any foreign power” and “excluding Indians not taxed…

Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision secured automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, Native Americans were not considered to be Fourteenth Amendment citizens because the U.S. Supreme Court determined that they were not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Following earlier cases that had held that Indian tribes and their members were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and language in the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that included only “Indians not taxed,” the Court in Elk v. Wilkins58 held that Indians were not citizens of the United States unless they had been naturalized by treaty or by a federal collective naturalization statute, or taxed or recognized as a citizen by the United States or a state.”

and:

http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf

Quote:

b. Comments on the applicability of the 14th Amendment to vessels and planes, are found in Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8, Nationality and Citizenship, Chapter 92, 92.03 (New York: Matthew

Bender, 2007). This volume states:

“The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to airplanes. Thus a child born on a plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at birth.”

and:

Quote:

… Congress should rethink … awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States (with a few very minor exceptions, … [citation omitted]), including the children of illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children. This rule, though thought by some compelled by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides 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,” and in any event codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which provides that “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,” makes no sense. Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 620-21 (7th Cir. 2003)

and:

Quote:

[14th Amendment] citizenship clause is “'declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,' so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned”);

[Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 159 n.10 (1963)]

These example at the VERY LEAST give rise to a disagreement with your position, and absolutely support my position that the Government (whether right or wrong) is using the 14th Amendment to establish statutory Federal citizenship.

Ironically you state:

“What is like is not the same, for nothing similar is the same. 4 Co. 18.”

see citizen vs. Citizen

[url url=”http://www.nmid.usco…-02-0039-18.pdf”]http://www.nmid.usco…-02-0039-18.pdf[/url]

Quote:

“First, the plain wording of 3 501(a) states that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment applies as if the N.M.I. were “one of the several States,” not as if the N.M.I. were “in the United States.” The Citizenship Clause requires that, to acquire citizenship by birth, a person must be both born or naturalized “in the United States” and be subject to its jurisdiction.” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

SEC. 7. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended–

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `The following';

(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (8); and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(:cool: Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered `subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is–

`(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

`(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

`(3) an alien performing active service in the Armed Forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).'.

(:cool: Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

I think I have shown that 8 USC 1401 and the 14th Amendment are supportive of each other, in the eyes of govt.

5. noted

6. All I said was:

“I cant make a declaration like that without knowing if a corporation can be “born or naturalized”

And I will reiterate; We agree Corporations are “persons” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment (which proves that the “person” in the 14th Amendment can be a legal fiction) and that they are treated as “14th Amendment citizens”

Quote:

It is true that it has been held that, where contracts or rights of property are to be enforced by or against corporations, the courts of the United States will, for the purpose of maintaining jurisdiction, consider the corporation as representing citizens of the State under the laws of which it is created, and to this extent will treat a corporation as a citizen within the clause of the Constitution extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies between citizens of different States. Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869)

So, if 14th Amendment “citizens” “shall be treated as” white “Citizens of the States” and you say that they are the equal; then if Corporations will be treated as 14th Amendment “citizens”, then we have to conclude that these things are also equal. If they are different, then 14th Amendment citizens are DIFFERENT than white Citizens if we rely on consistency.

7. My answer to #1 was a technicality, however the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are 2 different items. You said you dont agree, but that is an opinion and not fact. The Constitution was written, and then Amendments were written afterwards. The reason for this technical answer is because in the case you cite Downes v. Bidwell, the court recognizes that the Constitution and the Amendments are different and separate things.

Quote:

Doubtless Congress, in legislating for the territories, would be subject to those fundamental limitations in favor of personal rights which are formulated in the Constitution and its amendments, but those limitations would exist rather by inference and the general spirit of the Constitution, from which Congress derives all its powers, than by any express and direct application of its provisions.

[DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

and yet you use “of the Constitution” to support your position that “United States” means only the states of the union in the 14th Amendment:

Quote:

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

[DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

I know you want me to “leave you alone” which would be a dis-service to the members, as this issue still has MANY unanswered questions, and two compelling argument. Shall I presume that the admissions and denials that you did not address are now agreed to?

[juliusbragg]

any response to my admissions and denials?

[juliusbragg]

1. Do you admit that a Union state Citizen is a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax?

ABSOLUTELY, Famguardian and sedm are 100% the best information regarding statutory citizenship and all of the laws regarding that. The ONLY issue I have is that I think Congress is not above writing tricky Amendments…look at the 16th Amendment, dont you believe that the 16th Amendment was written in such a way to make the average person assume that all money earned was “Income”?

Just look at it, and look how Congress has used it against the citizens of the Country, why would anyone think that the 14th Amendment is any different?

Quote:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

instead of:

Quote:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on profits and gains from any federally privileged activity, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several

States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

2. Do you admit that a “nonresident alien” does not have to provide a SSN/TIN for non “trade or business” activity?

ABSOLUTELY, nor does a nonresident need to file a return. A nonresident is a capital “C” Citizen, they owe no allegiance to the Federal Government UNITED STATES, only to the Union of states in Congress assembled.

3. Do you admit that a “nonresident alien” who is effectively connected with the conduct of a “trade or business” must provide a SSN/TIN?

Mostly…I think there are exceptions, but for the most part yes. I actually take this a step farther as well. I think that by simply using an SSN for ANY job, you are declaring to be performing the function of a public office and declaring that you are Federal Personnel per USC Title 5, 552

4. Do you admit there are provisions under the tax code to allow for the actualization of those two statuses?

I dont understand this question…But I think I do admit it:)

5. Do you admit that the biggest barrier to overcome is communicating the difference between nationality and statutory citizenship to a gatekeeper?

NO, I think the biggest barrier is changing our perceived citizenship from that of a creation of Congress to our actual Citizenship as established by the founders. This is right in line with Admin avoiding statutory citizenship like the plague.

6. Do you admit that nationality (14th Amendment citizenship) and statutory citizenship are two mutually exclusive things?

No, because I dont know that Congress completely separates them. All Congress has to do is say “well hes a citizen of the United States” and they can presume jurisdiction. I may agree that they should be mutually exclusive, but I dont agree that they are, or at least always are.

Ultimately we as American need to stand up to the thugs, and stop expecting handouts. I have never been or felt so free as I do now. I have read the information on famguardian and sedm and I have ended my voter registration, released and terminated the Social Security number, i use general mail delivery, I have no license plates, I have no drivers license , I am in the process of unrecording all of my property so the property tax no longer applies, I follow the letter of the law and the courts have nothing to say.

Quick story, I was pulled over recently for no license plate and no license. The officer wrote me a ticket with no license number, plate number, or vin number. The court sent me a summons a few days later, I conditionally accepted it, sent the court my fee schedule, and the never responded again. Later, out of curiosity, I called the court to see what became of the citation. The said their policy is to suspend the license of the driver, cancel the registration of the driver, or send the amount to the collection agency. NONE of these things affect someone without registration, a license, or a credit report.

My point is, there are two different option in the United States of America for a human to live.

1) as a citizen of the United States government, with privileges of wellfare, medicare, health care, housing, retirement programs, handouts, etc. and all of the obligations arising out of all of those, taxes, drafts, regulation.

2) as a Citizen of a Republic, where you are responsible for yourself. NO privileges, and no obligations.

I have chosen to return to the Republic and take back my freedom.

To respond to your friends' claims of “they'll just change the law” (which I have also heard a lot), the answer is “They Cant”. There is a reason the tax code and other seemingly unconstitutional laws are thousands of pages long instead of a 1 page law “every human must pay a tax to the government on any payment they receive”.

The reason for the lengthy laws, convoluted codes, cross referencing, and other tactics of law writers is simply to make the law appear to be something it isnt.

I am currently decoding the California Workers' Compensation law. The law implies that every person is required to have workers comp for their employees, but a closer look proves this untrue.

I tried to attach the letter, Ill put it in quotes, hopefully it isnt too long.

Quote:

NOTICE

to the

DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

Attention Mark Fudem, presiding judge

and Carrie Nevans, administrative director

1515 Clay Street

6th floor

Oakland, CA 94612-1402

RETURN RESPONSE TO:

San Ramon, California

Hello, I am writing in order to confirm my understanding of the term “employer” as found in the California Labor Code with regard to Workers' Compensation, and whether or not I am capable of being an “employer” as that term is specifically defined by applicable law.

LABOR CODE

SECTION 3300-3302

3300. As used in this division, “employer” means:

( a ) The State and every State agency.

( b ) Each county, city, district, and all public and quasi public corporations and public agencies therein.

( c ) Every person including any public service corporation, which has any natural person in service.

( d ) The legal representative of any deceased employer.

I am a private contractor owning and operating my own small construction company. Accordingly, by a strict reading of the above statute, none of the above sections (a) through (d) would appear to apply to me. In particular, section © says “Every person including any public service corporation…” The lack of a comma before 'including' makes this a restrictive sentence.

See, United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989) finding that a comma was required to separate the meaning of two phrases in the same sentence and prevent joinder (“This reading is also mandated by the grammatical structure of the statute. The phrase “interest on such claim” is set aside by commas, and separated from the reference to fees, costs, and charges by the conjunctive words “and any.” As a result, the phrase “interest on such claim” stands independent of the language that follows.” [emphasis added])

The “Rochester Institute of Technology”, for example, has this to say about commas before including:

“Use a comma before “including” and “such as” when followed by a nonrestrictive, nonessential phrase or clause.”

[example given] “The new policy applies to everyone, including faculty.”

Similarly, the “Michigan State University Editorial Style Guide” states:

“Whether to use a comma before “including” depends on the intended meaning of the sentence. The presence of a comma makes the sentence nonrestrictive:

[example given] He managed a variety of projects, including joint, combined, and contingency exercises. (Projects may include joint, combined, or contingency exercises or some combination of the three.)

The absence of a comma makes the sentence restrictive:

[example given] He managed a variety of projects including joint, combined, and contingency exercises. (Every project must include joint, combined, and contingency exercises.)

Using these rules of the English language, I find it proper to read strictly the definition found in the Labor Code at section 3300; but these rules aren't the only factors for my strict reading. Indeed, I also looked at consistency and the intent throughout the code. I respectfully invite you to review the examples below, and notice the comma before including, and after person:

Cal Labor Code 1404

A person, including a local government or an employee representative, seeking to establish liability against an employer may bring a civil action on behalf of the person, other persons similarly situated, or both, in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may award reasonable attorney's fees as part of costs to any plaintiff who prevails in a civil action brought under this chapter.

Cal Labor Code 350(:cool:

(:cool: “Employee” means every person, including aliens and minors, rendering actual service in any business for an employer, whether gratuitously or for wages or pay, whether the wages or pay are measured by the standard of time, piece, task, commission, or other method of calculation, and whether the service is rendered on a commission, concessionaire, or other basis.

Cal Labor Code 1160.6

…Upon the filing of any such petition, the board shall cause notice thereof to be served upon any person involved in the charge and such person, including the charging party, shall be given an opportunity to appear by counsel and present any relevant testimony.

Cal Labor Code 4907

The privilege of any person, including attorneys admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the state to appear in any proceeding as a representative of any party before the appeals board, or any of its referees, may, after a hearing, be removed, denied, or suspended by the appeals board for a violation of this chapter or for other good cause.

Cal Labor Code 1701

(:cool: “Audition” means any activity for the purpose of obtaining employment, compensated or not, as an artist whereby an artist meets with, interviews or performs before, or displays his or her talent before, any person, including a producer, a director, or a casting director, or an associate, representative, or designee of a producer, director, or casting director, who has, or is represented to have, input into the decision to select an artist for an employment opportunity. An “audition” may be in-person or through electronic means, live or recorded, and may include a performance or other display of the artist's promotional materials.

Cal Labor Code 1704

A person, including, an owner, officer, director, agent, or employee of a talent service, who willfully violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each violation is

punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. However, payment of restitution to an artist shall take precedence over the payment of a fine.

My research continued to show numerous instances where a comma was placed before 'including' when the sentence clearly was not restrictive. In fact, even the “California Department of Education Style Manual 2006” addresses the issue of restrictive and non-restrictive comma placement:

that, which. That commonly introduces clauses that cannot be omitted without a change in the meaning of a sentence. Do not set off with commas. Which commonly introduces clauses that can be omitted without a change in the meaning of a sentence. Set off with commas.

Restrictive: The book that I left on the bus was soon returned to me by a kind stranger.

Nonrestrictive: The book, which I now only read at my leisure, was returned to me by a kind stranger.

Also, according to “A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage” at page 766:

“Restrictive clauses are essential to the grammatical and logical completeness of a sentence. Nonrestrictive clauses, by contrast, are so loosely connected with the essential meaning of the sentence that they might be omitted without changing the essential meaning.

First, if you cannot omit the clause without changing the basic meaning, the clause is restrictive; use that without a comma. Second, if you can omit the clause without changing the basic meaning, the clause is non restrictive; use which after a comma.”

Further “King County Style Manual” states:

“Including, such as. Use these terms when the items that follow are only part of the total; don't list everything or end the list with words like and more, and others, etc.

If the words that follow these terms are essential to the meaning of a sentence, do not put commas before the phrase. But if the words that follow these terms are not essential, commas are appropriate. (Words are nonessential if they can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence.)”

The “University of Santa Cruz Style Manual” states:

Commas:

Washington, D.C., is. . . .

My wife, Amanda, works. . . .

I live in Santa Cruz, which I enjoy very much.

If, however, the word, phrase, or clause is restrictive (identifies or restricts the meaning of the noun), commas should not be used:

“Shasta County Style Manual”:

Rule #6: Parenthetical Words and Phrases

Use commas to set off words and phrases that appear within the sentence, but are unnecessary to a reader's understanding of a sentence. The words and phrases often rename or tell more about the words they modify, and can, in most cases, be used as substitutes for those words.

• Desert Rose, a type of Franciscan dishware, is a popular seller at most antique malls.

• Bob Mills, the defendant in the case, failed to appear in court this morning.

My final concern comes in the form of an alternative phrase. This phrase being “private employer” as found in 3741 of the Labor Code:

Cal Labor Code 3741.

As used in this article:

(a) “Director” means the Director of Industrial Relations.

(:cool: “Private self-insurer” means a private employer which has

secured the payment of compensation pursuant to subdivision (:cool: of

Section 3700.

and:

Cal Labor Code 3700.1.

As used in this article:

(a) “Director” means the Director of Industrial Relations.

(:cool: “Private self-insurer” means a private employer which has

secured the payment of compensation pursuant to Section 3701.

and:

Cal Labor Code 1025

Every private employer regularly employing 25 or more employees shall reasonably accommodate any employee who wishes to voluntarily enter and participate in an alcohol or drug rehabilitation program, provided that this reasonable accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.

And there are several others. Of course this leads me to conclude that an “employer” as defined in the Cal Labor Code 3300 means exclusively what is listed, which are those entities that are public in nature, such as State Agencies, or Public Service Corporations; and that a “private employer” is not public in nature.

Because of the facts stated above I have made the present determination that I am not an “employer” as defined in 3300 of the California Labor code, and therefore I am specifically exempted from obtaining Workers Compensation insurance, whether I hire private workers or not.

If I am in error regarding this issue, I request clarification, preferably with a response to this letter within 15 days of receipt, with evidence that is contrary to the above.

Respectfully submitted,

[juliusbragg]

You said:

“Can a 14th Amendment citizen have the same status as a Union state Citizen? Absolutely . . . if you are referring to a 14th Amendment citizen that IS a Union state Citizen.”

This is incorrect. The proof is in the pudding, a 14th Amendment citizen RELIES on amendments to the Constitution for the privilege [appearing as a right] to vote. As we have seen with the 18th Amendment, Amendments can be repealed, therefore, the 14th Amendment citizen's “right” to vote hinges on the actions of Congress and the hope that the 15th or 19th Amendment is not repealed. A “Citizen” of a state has an unalienable Right to vote for his representation, and that right cannot be taken away by Congress.

I understand what you are implying, but when speaking to the letter of the law, and the Constitution, the most a 14th Amendment citizen can EVER be, is similar to a Constitutional Citizen.

As far as going overseas, long antecedent to the 14th Amendment, Americans left the country; so to conclude that the Government will not accept anything other than a 14th Amendment citizenship is like saying that the Government will always consider you a statutory citizen of the United States no matter what you do. I dont believe this is true. I think a Constitutional State Citizen has long been recognized as different than a 14th Amendment citizen.

Actually, I find it quite clear and unambiguous what Congress did. They created a “type” of citizen, different, but similar to a State Citizen, but one that is wholly reliant on Congress for their protection…in fact Congress HAD to so this, because without making the freed slaves Federal citizens, the freed men could NEVER be protected by the Constitution. The sad truth is that the Constitution was written by white landowning men FOR white landowning men, and NOTHING can change this original intent. The “Citizens” and “People” and “Persons” mentioned in the Constitution were exclusively “white men”, and specifically not women or Black men.

I think you and admin may be failing to make the Connection between statutory citizenship, and an act of Congress to create a citizenship…there is no difference, both are actions of Congress creating a class under their direct authority.

If you admit that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to make the newly freed slaves “citizens of the United States” in contrast to the Dred decision [that Negroes cannot be citizens], then you HAVE to admit that a white male is not required to be a 14th Amendment citizen.

Admin made it very clear, AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, that Famguardian is not a racist website, and wants to help all people regardless of race. I completely respect this, but we cannot dismiss fact in order to be politically correct.

As I have already stated, bringing African descendants, and other foreign descendants for that matter, into the protection of the Constitution, and into the minds and consideration of the original framers of the Constitution is an impossible task! In order to make women and minorities truly equal under the Constitution, only ONE option is possible; that is to Amend the Constitution with an Amendment that repeals portions of the Original Constitution that relate to race, sex, or class. Short of doing this we can only have different classes of Constitutional citizens, SIMILAR in scope.

Things that are similar are specifically NOT the same

[juliusbragg]

with regard to B

I don't depend on my 14th Amendment citizenship when I travel overseas, I depend on my Article IV, Sec 2, clause 1 Citizenship:

Clause 1: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

I owe allegiance to my state, which is a member of the Union of states, therefore I owe allegiance to the united states of America, which all have representatives in the UNITED STATES.

A 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” owes no allegiance to a state of the union necessarily, because a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” may be born and raised in the District of Columbia or an incorporated territory and have no affiliation with a united state; further, a 14th Amendment “citizen” owes allegiance to the Congress for a) setting them free in the 13th Amendment, 😎 for granting them protection with the 1866 Civil Rights act, and c) for creating a class of citizenship for them.

C:

Whites already had Citizenship in the states of the Union and in the country…to deny this would be to deny that the founders themselves were Citizens of the states. This FACT, means that the citizenship created in the fourteenth amendment is for someone that was not a Citizen under the Constitution. The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizen:

Quote:

The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal

Constitution made negroes citizens of the United States, and

citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby

created two classes of citizens, one of the United States

and the other of the state — Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327,

17 Am. Rep. 738.

The “person” referred to in the 14th Amendment is specifically a man of African descent. It is the same “person” that the civil rights act embraces: see USC Title 42:

Quote:

42 USC 1981(a): All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.

This CLEARLY means that a “person within the jurisdiction of the United States” is NOT a white citizen! This is because white citizens already had the right to sue, make contracts, etc. Congress created a federal “personhood” with the 14th Amendment that was for freed black men, and to create a class of citizen called “citizen of the UNITED STATES” but SPECIFICALLY NOT a “Citizen of the states united”.

see http://www.originali…u/14thamend.php for a pretty clear and concise version.

[juliusbragg]

A) You said:

“Remember though, within the context of the 14th Amendment they are talking about POLITICAL JURISDICTION because they are talking about NATIONALITY. It cannot be LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION because in a Federal Government, POLITICAL JURISDICTION and LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION are two mutually exclusive things — there is ZERO CONNECTION!!!”

Keep in mind that the Civil Rights act of 1866 was a Legislative Act of Congress, that made any person born in the United States and NOT subject to State legislative jurisdiction a federal citizen. I don't think this is disputed. The reason Congress had to do this was because the 13th Amendment made the slaves free, therefore no longer “property” of the slave holder, NOR, subjects of the States. The Civil Rights act was the ONLY protection that the slaves had; that is by making them Federal citizens that the states and the people of the states could not interfere with.

This new federal citizen was a statutory citizen.

THEN, the same congress, in order to make these statutory citizens, Constitutional citizens, to prevent the states from having authority over federal citizens while “in” their [the states] territorial jurisdiction, decided to make an Amendment.

This Amendment [14] was very cleverly crafted as indicated by the lower case “c” and the use of the term “thereof” [singular term]

SO, now there were Federal citizens “Civil Right citizens” and State Citizens. The Civil Right citizens were COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THE legislative and political jurisdiction of the United States, because of the legislative act of 1866, so when the 14th Amendment stated:

Any person born in the United States AND “SUBJECT” to THE jurisdiction thereof” they were referring ONLY to the newly created Federal citizens.

Being “Subject to” and “within” are two different things.

Because the term “Thereof” means “of it” and because “the jurisdiction” is singular, the 14th Amendment is referring to those people that are “subject to THE jurisdiction of the Federal Government” by way of the Civil Rights act. THIS is why the courts state:

Quote:

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.”

Quote:

The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution made negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state

[Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am. Rep. 738]

Quote:

“[W]e find nothing…which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved.”

[Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) ]

Quote:

“We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell.”

[The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)

Quote:

A person who is a citizen of the United States is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens. The sovereignty of the citizens of a republic has its highest assertion in representative government, and is constituted in its political order in the representation of persons, and not of classes or of interests.

[State ex rel. Leche v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]

[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]

AND MANY MORE!! Sure, over the course of time, these civil rights Federal citizens were granted more and more rights (which proves they are federal citizens by the way) and have become nearly equal to state citizens, that is until a case arises.

I have to go throw feces at the zoo now, but ponder this for a bit!!

[juliusbragg]

Neo,

The reason for denying the 14th Amendment citizenship, is because

A: WE DONT KNOW if the 14th Amendment is the stepping stone for the statutory citizenship. I have shown that the State Department uses the 14th Amendment, and Wong Kim Ark, as its footing for statutory citizenship:

Quote:

Pursuant to this ruling: [Wong Kim Ark] http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that (B ) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

B: There is NOTHING requiring one to classify himself a 14th Amendment citizen, UNLESS Federal Rights or Jurisdiction are involved:

Quote:

see:”[W]e find nothing…which requires that a Citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved.”

[Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) ]

C: I have provided proof that the Federal Goverment specifically uses capitalization to differentiate between to DIFFERENT things, one being inferior. The Constitution TO THIS DAY, is still printed with a CAPITAL “C” Citizen all the way up to and including the 11th Amendment, THEN at the 14th and beyond it is ALWAYS lower case. WE cannot assume that this is a typo or error, it is intentional and clever. With the Capitalization different a “Citizen” and a “citizen” CAN NEVER be the same.

for example:

Quote:

.. [T]herefore, the militia law drops the language which is used when a full citizenship of the United States is intended, and provides that all able bodied “citizens” shall be liable to military duty. This change of phraseology was not accidental or unmeaning, but was entirely based upon the well understood distinction between a citizen of the state merely, and a citizen of the United States.

[In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443, 478 (1863)]

Quote:

See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) (“[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposefully in the disparate inclusion and exclusion.” (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir.1972)

Quote:

The maxim noscitur a sociis, that a word is known by the company it keeps, while not an inescapable rule, is often wisely applied where a word is capable of many meanings in order to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress. See, e.g., Neal v. Clark, 95 U. S. 704,[JARECKI V. G. D. SEARLE & CO., 367 U. S. 303 (1961)]

This is why, IN MY OPINION, one should ONLY declare to be a “national” or a “Constitutional Article II, Section I, Natural born Capital C Citizen, and specifically NOT a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States”.

By the Way, I think there may be 5 different types of citizens:

1: Citizen = Constitutional Citizen of one of the states of the Union at the adoption of the Constitution

2: Citizen of the United States = Constitutional Citizen of the United States (Territories and D.C.) at the adoption of the Constitution, see the use of “Citizen” as used separately from Citizen of the United States” :

Quote:

Art IV, Section. 2.

Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This could have said “Citizens of the United States shall be entitled to…” but they chose specific language, see also:

Quote:

Article II, Section I, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The comma after “Citizen of the United States” makes “at the time of the adoption” a qualifyer for both types of Citizens listed…such as:

“No Gorilla, or Chimpanzee, who throws feces, is allowed in the zoo.”

vs.

“No Gorilla, or Chimpanzee who throws feces, is allowed in the zoo.”

See the difference? The first sentence is including Gorillas and Chimpanzees that throw feces; whereas the second is excluding Gorillas that throw feces.

(I'm not sure why I chose this topic)

3: citizen of the United States = 14th Amendment federal citizen living anywhere

4: citizen of the STATE = 14th Amendment federal citizen living in a state of the Union

5: citizen of the United States = Statutory federal citizen

[juliusbragg]

Exactly, this is PROOF that Capitalization is used to distinguish between two different things.

One of the most amazing examples of this is in the California Revenue and Taxation code. The numbers are SOOOOO similar, and the wording is also similar, but devastatingly different meanings:

6017

“In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

60017

“In this state” or “in the state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.

The first one, “In this State” [upper case S] means all land within the border of California, as by cession to the country was made a state of the union; the second one “In this state” [lower case s] means all land ceded to the Government of the United States for Federal purposes, such as, Post Offices, Ports, Forts, etc. The ramification of ever claiming to live “in this state” could mean one is a statutory “citizen of the United States” per 8 USC 1401.