White Paper on State Citizenship
T. Collins -- 10/04/94
I was born a first class citizen. I entered into contracts that, without my
knowledge, made me a second class citizen. I am working on the legal process of
restoring my first class citizenship status.
I was surprised to find that the United States government recognized two
distinct classes of citizens, let alone that my citizenship status had changed.
At first I did not believe it. It was not until I learned how to use the law
library in the county court house that I was able to confirm my status. I am not
an attorney so this paper should not be considered as legal advice. It may be
used for the basis of your own research. This paper does not have a copyright,
so you can copy all or part of it. This paper borrows research from other papers
without copyrights written by people across the nation. I will describe the big
picture first, then I will substantiate the claims made and give a more detailed
You may find the ideas presented here conflict with the model of government
that you have been taught. You may also find these ideas impossible to believe.
This is understandable. The further you read, the more you may change the way
you filter information about what the government is doing. If you cannot believe
any of this, please set this paper aside. Sometime in the future, you may come
back to this paper and it may make more sense. I believe that the concepts
described here are true. But, you should not! If you accepted the ideas in this
paper without confirming them from other sources, then you are a fool! If I can
change your model of reality in one paper then someone else might be able to
fill your head with nonsense. Please be skeptical. Even if you do not agree with
the central premise, you may agree with some of the research. If so, you will
still get something out of this paper. There are many Citizens doing research on
the topics described in this paper. Some will sell the results of their research
while others will practically give it away. This paper does not discuss some of
the more advanced topics (Citizen militia, commercial liens, common law liens,
common law trusts). At the end of this paper, I will supply you with the names
of books, magazines, newspapers, computer bulletin boards that fill in some of
the details that I have excluded.
The big picture
The United States of America is a unique nation. It was the first
constitutional republic in the world. Before the American Revolution, the King
of England owned all the land in his colonies. The inhabitants of the colonies
were his subjects. When the war was over, the King signed the Treaty of Peace.
In that treaty he said that all the land in the former colonies was owned by the
people and all of his sovereign powers that he held in the colonies were
transferred, not to the government of the colonies but, to the People of the
colonies. This made all of the Citizens of the colonies sovereigns. This has
never happened before or since in any other country. In other countries, the
government is sovereign. It makes laws for its subject-citizens and it gives
them their rights. In the United States, the People were sovereigns. The People
were endowed, by their creator, with certain rights and the government was
instituted to secure those rights. We the People, gave a portion of our
sovereignty to the state government, and the states gave a small portion of the
sovereignty we gave to them, to the federal government so that it would be
strong enough to defend the People. The Constitution for the United States of
America describes the powers that the states gave to the federal government.
If the federal government is defined by the Constitution, and the
Constitution says that I am a sovereign, why do I feel like a subject? I own my
house. If I don't pay my property tax the government will go to a court and
remove me from it just as the courts would remove me from an apartment if I did
not pay the rent. Do I really own the land if someone can take it away from me
simply because I don't pay them for the use of it? Could the King of England
have the land taken away from him if he did not pay a tax? So long as I don't
cause injury to someones person or property or defraud them shouldn't I, as a
sovereign, have the right to do anything I want? Today there are so many rules
and regulations that the government has that I think nearly everything I do is
against some law. What has happened to my sovereignty? Isn't the government
sovereign over me? Are there any sovereign People left in the United States of
There are hundreds of thousands of sovereigns in the United States of America
but I am not one of them. The sovereigns own their land in "allodium." That is,
the government does not have a financial interest in the their land. Because of
this they do not need to pay property tax (school tax, real estate tax). Only
the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution for the United
States of America define the laws that they have to follow. This is a very small
subset of the laws most of us have to follow. Unless they accept benefits from
or contract with the federal government, they do not have to pay Social Security
tax, federal income tax, or resident individual state income tax. They do not
need to register their cars or get a driver's license unless they drive
commercially. They will not have to get a Health Security Card. They can own any
kind of gun without a license or permit. They do not have to use the same court
system that normal people do. I am sure that most people reading this are saying
to themselves that this can not be true. I know I did when I first heard of it.
The government recognizes two distinct classes of citizens: a state Citizen
and a federal citizen.
A state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an individual whose
inalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his/her
state Constitution against State actions and against federal intrusion by the
Constitution for the United States of America.
A federal citizen, also called: a 14th Amendment citizen, a citizen of the
United States, a US citizen, a citizen of the District of Columbia, has civil
rights that are almost equal to the natural rights that state Citizens have. I
say almost because civil rights are created by Congress and can be taken away by
Congress. Federal citizens are subjects of Congress, under their protection as a
"resident" of a State, a person enfranchised to the federal government (the
incorporated United States defined in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the
Constitution). The individual States may not deny to these persons any federal
privileges or immunities that Congress has granted them. This specific class of
citizen is a federal citizen under admiralty law (International Law). As such
they do not have inalienable common rights recognized, secured and protected in
the Constitutions of the States, or of the Constitution for the United States of
America, such as "allodial" (absolute) rights to property, the rights to
inheritance, the rights to work and contract, and the right to travel among
A federal citizen is a taxable entity like a corporation, and is subject to
pay an excise tax for the privileges that Congress has granted him/her.
The rights that most people believe they have are not natural rights but
civil rights which are actually privileges granted by Congress. Some of these
civil rights parallel the protection of the Bill of Rights (the first 10
Amendments to the Constitution), but by researching the civil rights act along
with case law decisions involving those rights, it can be shown that these
so-called civil rights do not include the Ninth or Tenth Amendments and have
only limited application with regard to Amendments One through Eight.
If you accept any benefit from the federal government or you claim any civil
right, you are making an "adhesion contract" with the federal government. You
may not be aware of any adhesion contracts but the courts are. The other aspect
of such a contract is that you will obey every statute that Congress passes.
State Citizens cannot be subjected to any jurisdiction of law outside the
Common Law without their knowing and willing consent after full disclosure of
the terms and conditions, and such consent must be under agreement/contract
sealed by signature. This is because the Constitution is a compact/contract
created and existing in the jurisdiction of the Common Law, therefore, any
rights secured thereunder or disabilities limiting the powers of government also
exist in the Common Law, and in no other jurisdiction provided for in that
Federal citizens are presumed to be operating in the jurisdiction of
commercial law because that is the jurisdiction of their creator -- Congress.
This is evidenced by the existence of various contracts and the use of
negotiable instruments. All are products of international law or commercial
law[Uniform Commercial Code]. Under Common Law your intent is important; in a
court of contract (commercial law) the only thing that matters is that you live
up to the letter of the contract. Because you have adhesion contracts with
Congress, you can not use the Constitution or Bill of Rights as a defense
because it is irrelevant to the contract. As stated previously, the contract
says you will obey every statute passed by Congress. A federal citizen does not
have access to Common Law.
To restate: state Citizens are bound and protected by the Constitution, like
the founding fathers intended and like we are taught in school what citizenship
means. Federal citizens have made further agreements with the federal government
and are bound by these contracts.
The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to;
Operate on behalf of the several States in dealing with foreign relations and
matters of treaties, trade agreements, etc., under the purview of International
Exercise limited constitutional jurisdiction to interact with the several
States in regulating trade, commerce, etc., between the States to insure
equitable continuance of the compact.
Exercise exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Territories,
and enclaves, in the same manner that a state exercises jurisdiction within its
Rights are considered gifts from the Creator, and not to be disturbed by acts
of man. Some of these rights were considered important enough to be specifically
stated to be secured from Federal encroachment in the Bill of Rights, upon the
theory that these rights existed long antecedent to the creation of the nation,
and the theory that a government, left to its own devices without restriction,
could and would use man made law to defeat the liberty that this Republic was
intended to represent.
I was born in one of the several states, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, so
why am I not a state Citizen? The answer is that I was born a state Citizen but,
I unknowingly gave it up to become a federal citizen so that I could receive
benefits from the federal government. Some of the benefits that I received were:
a Social Security Number, receiving mail sent to the state of PA, receiving mail
with ZIP Codes, having FDIC insurance on the money left in a bank, and using
Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) without protest. This sounds crazy. Would
you give away sovereign powers for benefits like these?
If you have a Social Security Number
(SSN), you are not a state Citizen. In
the near future, I will send papers into the District of Columbia stating that I
am recinding my application for a SSN. If I had known that applying for a SSN
would affect my citizenship status, I would not have applied. I found out that
Social Security is voluntary and that I can work without a SSN.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth is one of the "several states" described in the
Constitution. The "several states" were severed from each other. The law treats
the several states as independent countries. The Buck Act in 1940 created
federal areas inside the states. If you live in a federal area, you are subject
to federal territorial laws and the municipal laws of the District of Columbia.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is internal to the District of Columbia. The
Pennsylvania Commonwealth is not part of the District of Columbia, but the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is. PA is the name that the post office recognizes
for mail sent into the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is a federal area.
Pa., Penna., and Pennsylvania are the names that the post office uses for mail
sent into the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, which is not a federal area. If I
accept mail sent to PA, I am saying that I live in part of the District of
Columbia. The same situation exists in the other states.
Your ZIP Code determines which ZIP Code region you live in. ZIP Code regions
are federal areas. The IRS has adopted the ZIP Code regions as IRS regions. If
you accept mail that has a ZIP Code on it, you are in a federal territory and
thus subject to the IRS and all other municipal laws of the District of
I find the most offensive trick to get me to lose my sovereignty was that if
I do not protest using the only legal tender in America, the Federal Reserve
Notes (FRN), also know as U.S. Dollars, I am receiving a benefit. This is a
complicated trick that I will explain in detail later.
Of course there are many other benefits that many people use that the
sovereigns cannot. Among these are Social Security checks, welfare checks, food
stamps, federally insured bank accounts, Medicaid, Medicare, and sending
children to publicly funded schools.
I am not trying to get everybody to give up government benefits. If you wish
to support and be supported by the federal government, much like people in other
countries do, then by all means, go ahead and do so. But, if you wish to be a
sovereign protected by the Bill of Rights and not pay many of the taxes that you
are paying now but also not receive benefits, then there is an alternative. It
is not an easy alternative. The law makers want control over you. They have made
the legal system complex. It takes years for attorneys to learn the language and
procedures of our legal system. Fortunately you do not need to know everything
an attorney needs to know. You do need to have a basic understanding of how our
legal system works. You may be surprised that it bears little resemblance to
television courtroom dramas.
I also must warn you that reclaiming your state Citizenship status may have
negative effects on your life. Besides the lack of benefits, such as
unemployment checks, you are treated more harshly if you get convicted of a
common law crime if you are a state Citizen. If you get convicted of rape and
you are a federal citizen, you may get five years in an air conditioned prison
with cable TV and three meals a day. If a state Citizen gets convicted, by a
common law jury, of rape, he could be put to death.
All of the information describing how the United States really works and how
it is supposed to work was so spread out that few people could see the big
picture. The communication revolution has changed this. Computer bulletin boards
across the country provided a means to share research. Tax protesters, ranchers,
religious people, historians, gun owners, and others have all found pieces of
the puzzle. Perhaps there are more pieces to find.
These researchers started on different legal threads. They followed and
untangled the threads until they reached the source; The Constitution for the
United States of America. The surprising thing is that the researchers did not
know about each other but they each came to similar conclusions. Some of the
minor details are being debated by researchers. The overall conclusions are
described in this paper. Some of their research is not described here. The
longer this paper is, the more unlikely it is that people unfamiliar with this
subject will even attempt to read it.
If every Citizen in the colonies became a sovereign, how could any Citizen
lose their sovereignty? The Citizens of each of the several states in the Union
were sovereigns. But the people in a territory or in the District of Columbia
were not because the territories and the District of Columbia were not in the
Union. Congress had/has exclusive legislative control over these areas. The
states were governed by a "constitutional republic" while the territories were
ruled by a "legislative democracy". In a legislative democracy the citizens have
no rights except what Congress gives them. In the constitutional republics, the
Citizens have rights given to them by their Creator and Congress is the Citizens
servant. This is why Citizens, having left a state to buy or conquer land from
the native Americans, would apply for statehood as soon as possible.
How is it that someone who was born in and has lived in a state all his/her
life can be treated like a citizen of the District of Columbia? There has been a
series of steps that Congress has made to convert the state Citizens into
federal citizens. Over the years, our laws have been made unreadable by the
average intelligent person. The 14th Amendment was illegally passed creating a
federal citizen who can not question the federal debt. The Federal Reserve Act
of 1913 turned over our money to a private banking cartel. Social Security
created Social Security Districts (or territories) in which people with SSN
lived. The Buck Act created federal areas inside the states. Let's describe each
of these steps in detail.
Reasons I believe this
To show that Congress has made the laws unreadable by the average person, an
objective method of measuring the readability of English text must be discussed.
English scholars use a scale known as the "Flesch Index" that measures the level
of understanding necessary for an individual to comprehend the written English
language. Newspapers are written at an average comprehension level of 7. The
average high school graduate reads and understands at a level of 10. The average
law school graduate reads and comprehends at a level of 15. The Internal Revenue
Code ranks on this index at an average level of 31, with some specific
provisions as high as 55. And the words that are used in the law have specific
legal definitions that are different from the common English definitions. If the
laws that we are supposed to obey are written at a level that an individual of
reasonable intelligence cannot understand then perhaps we should be highly
suspect of the law writer's motives. My word processor's grammar checker tells
me that this paper is written at level 11.5. People in this country cannot
understand at this level. How many people have the time, energy, and ability to
go into a law library and piece this together? By making the law so difficult to
read, Congress has effectively removed our access to it.
To show how the government uses common English words in such a way that they
have meanings that are different from what you might think, I will show how the
word 'state' is redefined. In the IRS code, it says you are subject to the
income tax if you live in: one of the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Quam, or the northern Marranara Islands. From this definition it sounds as
if I need to pay income tax. But, if you look at how the IRS defines the word
state you probably will be confused. In the definition of the word state, it
uses the word state. If you check this definition in years back you will see it
has been modified several times. Before Alaska was admitted into the Union, it
was in this list of states. After it became one of the states of the Union, it
was not listed in the IRS definition of a state. The same thing happened to
Hawaii. What does this mean? The definition that is used in the IRS code for the
word state, is not a state like Texas but a state like Quam, that is a federal
territory. The Federal Zone is a book listed in the other source's section of
this paper describes this and other words that have specific legal definitions
that are, sometimes, the opposite of the common definition.
So far I have stated some unconventional ideas. To substantiate them I will
cite standing decisions made by the courts and statutes passed by Congress.
Unless the decision or statute is in quotation marks, it has been paraphrased.
Please look up the decision or statutes to verify my paraphrase. At the end of
this paper, I will give the names of books and publications that give more
information on the subject. One of the books will teach you how to find and
understand the law.
"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the
king by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89.
"At the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are
truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects,
and have none to govern but themselves: the citizens of America are equal as
fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." Chisholm Exp v.
Georgia (US) 2 Dale 419, 454; I L Ed 440, 445 @DALL 1793 pp 471-472.
"as general rule men have natural right to do anything which their
inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the
rights of others." In Re Newman (1925), 71 C.A. 386, 235 P. 664.
"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a
state." In re Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163
U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287; 20 C.J.S., Section 1785. Title 28, United States Code,
Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being "freely associated
compact states" in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated
compact states as being "countries" in subsection(b). Did you know that the
individual states were considered to be foreign countries to the United States
and to each other?
In 1818, the Supreme Court stated that "In the United States of America,
there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the
jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other
being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of
Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17." U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 WHEAT) 336 (1818),
reaff. 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401(h).
When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction over the District of
Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, it is important to remember that it has
full authority to enact legislation as private acts pertaining to its
boundaries, and it is not a state of the union of States because it exists
solely by virtue of the compact/constitution that created it. The constitution
does not say that the District of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form of
Government to its own subject citizens within its territories. (See Hepburn &
Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 US. 445(1805); Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n., 55 F.
Supp., 925 (1944); Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987);
Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (1966), among others).
"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at
the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two
national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its
restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently
of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are
accustomed to exercise." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.
The Constitution provides limited powers to federal government over the state
Citizens. The federal government has unlimited powers over federal citizens
because it is acting outside of the Constitution. Administrative laws are
private acts and are not applicable to state Citizens. The Internal Revenue Code
is administrative law.
"We are a republic. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the
extremes of democracy." - Alexander Hamilton.
The origin of the federal citizen
So far I have not given any proof that the government actually recognizes two
distinct classes of citizens. I will give that evidence now by describing the
13th and 14th Amendments.
In 1865, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude
except as punishment for a crime. The Supreme Court ruled that the 13th
Amendment operated to free former slaves and prohibit slavery, but it in no way
conferred citizenship to the former slaves, or to those of races other than
white, because the founders of the Constitution were all of the white race.
The federal government did not have the authority to determine if former
slaves could become a Citizen of one of the several states because the 9th and
10th Amendments said that powers not granted specifically to the federal
government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the People.
History shows that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and New York State were
nationalizing blacks as State Citizens. In other states blacks were not Citizens
and therefore did not have standing in any court. The answer to this problem was
the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment used the term "citizen of the United States." The courts
have ruled that this means federal citizenship which is similar to a citizen of
the District of Columbia. Since the federal government didn't step in and tell
Pennsylvania or New York that it couldn't make State Citizens out of former
black slaves, an argument could be made that the 14th Amendment was written
primarily to afford [voluntary] citizenship to those of the black race that were
recently freed by the 13th Amendment (Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71),
and did not include Indians and others NOT born in and subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States (McKay v. Cambell, 2 Sawy. 129), Thus, the
Amendment recognized that "an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several
States without being a citizen of the United States," (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed.
Cas. 829, 830), or, "a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a
State." (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549
To restate: In the Slaughter-House Cases, supra the Court said: "It is quite
clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship
of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different
characteristics or circumstances of the individual. . . . Of the privileges and
immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the privileges and
immunities of the citizen of the state, and what they respectfully are, we will
presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which
are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and
the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional
protection by this paragraph of the amendment."
The court has also ruled that "The term United States is a metaphor [a figure
of speech]". Cunard S.S Co. V. Mellon, 262 US 100, 122; and that "The term
'United States' may be used in one of several senses. It may be merely the name
of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of sovereign in a family
of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United
States extends, or it may be a collective name of the states which are united by
and under the Constitution." Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652, 672-73.
Did the Courts really say that someone could be a Citizen of a State without
being a citizen of the United States? Yes, they did. It's true that the cases
cited above are old, some over 100 years old. None of these cases have ever been
overturned by a more recent decision, so they are valid. A more recent case is
Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966) which says: "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." Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra.
The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that
there are different classes of citizens. It is up to you dispute this. "Unless
the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has
the right to inquire and determine a tax liability." U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed.
Supp. 179,182 (1982).
In 1866, Congress passed the first civil rights act which only applied to the
District of Columbia and other federal territories. In 1868, the 14th Amendment
was proclaimed to be passed. At this point the number of subjects that the
federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over increased to all of the
former slaves that had not become state Citizens.
There are many reasons why I do not like the 14th Amendment. The first is
that is was never ratified!
"I cannot believe that any court in full possession of all its faculties,
would ever rule that the (14th) Amendment was properly approved and adopted."
State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936; Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266. (The court in
this case was the Utah Supreme Court.)
Further, in 1967, Congress tried to repeal the 14th Amendment on the ground
that it is invalid, void, and unconstitutional. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE,
June 13, 1967, pg. 15641. The nine pages of argument that are recorded here
detail the infirmities that prove that the 14th Amendment was never properly
ratified, and thus is no law!
The 14th Amendment reads in pertinent part, "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....The validity of the
public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned."
There is a wealth of deception in the above wording, because of sheer number
of words that have specific or multiple meanings in law depending upon how they
Go the part "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The word the is used
in a singular form, not the plural, as is the word jurisdiction. If Congress
meant the several States, rather that the District of Columbia, it would have
been more correct to say "and subject to their jurisdictions."
In addition, a new pecking order is established with the phrase. "are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
If you research the terms "resident" and "legal residence", you find that it
is the nexus that binds us all to the State and federal enforcement of
commercial law statutes today. "Resident" is the short form of "Resident Alien"
and is used in State statutes to mean someone who exhibits actual presence in an
area belonging to one nation while retaining a domicile/citizenship status
within another foreign nation [The United States/District of Columbia]. The term
"legal residence" further indicates that these two terms may be applied either
to a geographical jurisdiction, or, a political jurisdiction. An individual may
reside in one or the other, or in both at the same time. In California,
Government Code, section 126, sets forth the essential elements of a compact
between this State and the federal government allowing reciprocal taxation of
certain entities, and provide for concurrent jurisdiction within geographical
Both state Citizens and federal citizens are Americans. US citizens are
"domiciled" in the District of Columbia and are privileged alien to the state
wherein the reside and state Citizens are domiciled in their state and not
aliens in their state. They also do not reside in their state; they are Citizens
of the state. The distinction may seem insignificant to you but it is not to the
court. A state Citizen has the right to travel in each of the 50 states. He/she
can file papers at any county courthouse in any state and become a Citizen of
Most of the federal statute laws do not apply to Citizens of a state. If the
authority for the statute can be found in the organic Constitution, then the
statute is of a National character, as it applies to both state Citizens and
"Upon introducing the provisions which eventually became 18
U.S.C. 242, its
sponsor, Senator Stewart, explicitly stated that the bill protected all
'persons'... He noted that the bill 'simply extends to foreigners, not citizens,
the protection of our laws'." United States v. Otherson, 480 F.Supp. 1369, 1373
(1979). What could this mean? Well, it implies that Citizens of a state already
had the protections introduced by this statute, but it extended to foreigners
this protection also. What is a "foreigner" if they are not also an "alien"?
Privileges granted by the sovereign (governments) in their capacity to
license (condone) what might otherwise be illegal are always taxable and
regulatable. Rights such as those envisioned by the founding fathers are not
taxable or regulatable because they are exercises of the common right that could
be completely destroyed by government through taxation and/or regulation. These
are maxims of law so well established that they are irrefutable. For example,
look to Frost & Frost Trucking v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U.S.
583, 70 L.Ed. 1101 (1925).
Now, in 1868, we have a class of citizenship created [14th Amendment] which
is "subject" by grant of privilege from a sovereign power [federal Congress]
exercising exclusive authority to govern its territory under Article I, sect. 8,
cl. 17 of the Constitution. Federal citizens are created by Congress. It is
self-evident that all state Citizens are created equal; that they are endowed,
by their creator, with certain inalienable rights, and that governments are
instituted to secure these rights.
It is also a self-evident truth that the sovereign creator can never create
an entity (government) and assign it more power than what the creator possesses
to begin with. Further, the Constitution for the United States of America did
not repeal the Articles of Confederation, it was only intended "to make a more
perfect union." Therefore, it logically follows that the creator did not
purposely intend to alter their status as MASTER to accept a role as SERVANT to
its own creation. This is plainly shown throughout the Constitution, but
especially set forth in the Tenth Amendment. (cf. United States v. Darby, 312
U.S. 100, 124 (1941); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958))
"The right to tax and regulate the national citizenship is an inherent right
under the rule of the Law of Nations, which is part of the law of the United
States, as described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17." The Luisitania, 251
F.715, 732. And, "This jurisdiction extends to citizens of the United States,
wherever resident, for the exercise of the privileges and immunities and
protections of [federal] citizenship." Cook v. Tait, (1924) 265 U.S. 37,44 S.Ct
447, 11 Virginia Law Review, 607."
The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment
(walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the
2nd Amendment (presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252), have been distinctly held not
to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by
the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states, and in effect the same
decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by
indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v.
California, 110 U.S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with
witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisianna, 194 U.S. 258.
The privileges and immunities [civil rights] of the 14th Amendment citizens
were derived [taken] from....the Constitution, but are not identical to those
referred to in Article IV, sect. 2 of the Constitution [which recognizes the
existence of state Citizens who were not citizens of the United States because
there was no such animal in 1787]. Plainly spoken, RIGHTS considered to be
grants from our creator are clearly different from the "civil rights" that were
granted by Congress to its own brand of franchised citizen in the 14th
"A 'civil right' is a right given and protected by law [man's law], and a
person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it."
Nickell v. Rosenfield, (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 P. 760.
Title 42 of the USC contains the Civil Rights laws. It says "Rights under 42
USCS section 1983 are for citizens of the United States and not of state.
Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905, CC Cal) 136 F 941."
In summary, what we are talking about here is a Master-Servant relationship.
Prior to the 14th Amendment, there were state Citizens and non-citizens. State
Citizens were the masters in the relationship to government. After the 14th
Amendment was declared to be passed, a new class of citizenship was created,
which is both privileged and servant [subject] to the creator [the federal
How state Citizens were converted into federal citizens
In order for the federal government to tax a Citizen of one of the several
states, it had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual nexus
is the Social Security Number (SSN).
In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security. The Social
Security Board then created 10 Social Security "Districts." The combination of
these "Districts" resulted in a "Federal Area", a fictional jurisdiction, which
covered all of the several states like a clear plastic overlay.
In 1939, the federal government instituted the "Public Salary Tax Act of
1939." This Act is a municipal law of the District of Columbia for taxing all
federal government employees and those who live and work in any "Federal Area."
Now the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work
outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 in the
Constitution for the United States of America; also known as the ten square
miles of the District of Columbia and territories and enclaves. So, in 1940,
Congress passed the "Buck Act" now found in 4 U.S.C. Sections 105-113. In
Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to
create a "Federal Area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939."
This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C. Section 111. The rest of the taxing law is found
in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a
"Federal Area" overlay. U.S.C. Title 4 is as follows:
Sec. 110(d): The term "State" includes any territory or possession of the
Sec. 110(e): The term "Federal Area" means any lands or premises held or
acquired by or for the use of the United states or any department,
establishment, or agency of the United states; and any federal area, or any part
thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be
deemed to be a federal area located within such State.
Under the Provisions of Title 4, Section 105, the federal "State" (also known
as, "The State of...") is imposing an excise tax. That section states, in
Sec. 105: State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; sales or use
(a) No person shall be relieved from the liability for payment of, collection
of, or accounting for any sales or use tax levied by any State, or any duly
constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on
the ground that the sales or use, with respect to which such tax is levied,
occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing
authority shall have full jurisdiction to levy such a tax, by reason of his
residing within a Federal area or receiving income from transactions occurring
or services performed in such area; and such State or taxing authority shall
have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect such tax in any Federal
area within such a State to the same extent and with the same effect as though
such area was not a Federal area.
NOTE: Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce
revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C. Secs. 105-110]. See Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971),
affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d 234, 93 S.Ct.
For purposes of further explanation, a Federal area can include the Social
Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration; any public
housing that has federal funding; a home that has a federal (or Federal reserve)
loan; a road that has federal funding; schools and colleges (public or private)
that receive (direct or indirectly) federal funding, and virtually everything
that the federal government touches through any type of direct or indirect aid.
See Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d. 65 (1951 app.) This "Federal area" is
attached to anyone who has a Social Security number or any personal contact with
the federal or State government. (That is, of course, with the exception of
those who have been defrauded through the tenets of an Unrevealed Contract to
"accept" compelled benefits. Which includes me and perhaps you.) Through this
mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well
as the Sovereignty of the several states by creating "Federal areas" within the
authority of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 in the Constitution for the United
States of America which states:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice
any claims of the United states, or of any particular State."
Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia]
residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property and
franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity." See
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. Under the
"Buck Act," 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a "Federal
area" within the boundaries of the several states. This area is similar to any
territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or
treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon the people in this
"Federal area." Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch's
Admiralty flag (a federal flag with a gold or yellow fringe on it) flying in
schools, offices and courtrooms.
To enjoy the freedoms secured by the federal and state constitutions, you
must live on the land in one of the states of the Union of several states, not
in any "Federal area." Nor can you be involved in any activity that makes you
subject to "federal laws." You cannot have a valid Social Security Number, a
"resident" State driver's license, a motor vehicle registered in your name, a
bank account in a federally insured bank, or any other known "contract implied
in fact" that would place you in this "Federal area" and thus within the
territorial jurisdiction of the municipal laws of Congress. Remember, all acts
of Congress are territorial in nature and can only apply within the territorial
jurisdiction of Congress. See American Banana Co. v. United fruit Co., 213 U.S.
347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 402
This is not easy to do! Most banks are federally insured. It may be
inconvenient to bank at an institution that is not federally insured. There are
many things that become a little more difficult to do without a SSN, driver's
licenses, or a ZIP Code.
There has been created a fictional federal "State (of) within a state." See
Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed.
617 (1953); Schwarts v. O'Hara TP School District, 100 A 2d. 621, 625, 375, Pa.
440. Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional
State within a state. This fictional "State" is identified by the use of
two-letter abbreviations like "PA", "NJ", "AZ", and "DE", etc., as distinguished
from the authorized abbreviations for the sovereign States: "Pa.", "N.J.",
"Ariz.", and "Del." The fictional States also use ZIP Codes that are within the
municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. The Pennsylvania
Commonwealth is one of the several States. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
also known as PA, is a subdivision of the District of Columbia. If you accept
postal matter sent to PA, and/or with a ZIP Code, the Courts say that this is
evidence that you are a federal citizen or a resident. Use of the Zip Code is
voluntary. See Domestic Mail Service Regulations, Section 122.32. The Postal
service cannot discriminate against the non-use of the ZIP Code. See Postal
Reorganization Act, Section 403, (Public Law 91-375). The IRS has adopted the
ZIP Code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. See the Federal Register, Volume
51, Number 53, Wednesday March 19, 1986. The acceptance of mail with a ZIP Code
is one of the requirements for the IRS to have jurisdiction to send you notices.
When you apply for a Social Security Number, you are telling the federal
government that you are repudiating your state Citizenship in order to apply for
the benefits of citizenship in the federal Nation. Granting a Social Security
number is prima facie evidence that no matter what you were before, you have
voluntarily entered into a voyage for profit or gain in negotiable instruments
and maritime enterprise. This is the system that has been set up over the years
to restrict, control, and destroy our personal and economic liberties. Our legal
system is very complicated and you may not understand how it works. I believe
that this is intentional.
Common law versus commercial law
Besides the municipal laws for federal territory like the District of
Columbia, the Constitution specifies three other types of law: Common Law,
Equity Law, and Admiralty Law.
Common Law is criminal law. Equity Law deals with written contracts and is
civil law. Admiralty Law deals with international contracts and has both
criminal and civil penalties.
A cursory review of the Uniform Commercial Code proves that it was codified
to replace the Negotiable Instrument Laws. Further research reveals that the
Negotiable Instrument Laws have their foundation in the jurisdiction of
Admiralty Law (Maritime Law -- law of the sea), and, the U.C.C. has come to be
known in law as the substantive common law. (Bank v. Moore, 201 Ala. 411, 78 So.
789) This substantive common law has also been directly tied to the jurisdiction
of the Law Merchant [International Law]. (Miller v. Miller, 296 SW.2d 648).
Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable.
Common Law contracts must also be based on substance. For example, contracts
used to read, "For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint
your house, etc." That was a valid contract...the dollar was a genuine silver
dollar. Now suppose you wrote a contract that said "For one Federal Reserve Note
and other considerations..." And suppose, for example, I painted your house the
wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could
not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a "colorable" dollar, as it has no
substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be
The word colorable means something that appears to be genuine but is not. If
it looks like a dollar, and spends like a dollar but is not redeemable for
lawful money (silver or gold) it is colorable. If a federal Reserve Note is used
in a contract, then the contract becomes a colorable contract. And colorable
contracts must be enforced under a colorable jurisdiction. So by creating
Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the
kinds of contracts that use them. We now have what is called Statutory
Jurisdiction which is not a genuine Admiralty Jurisdiction. It is colorable
Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using colorable
This government set up a "colorable" law system to fit the colorable
currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable
instruments because it dealt with paper that was redeemable in something of
substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to
be a system of law which was completely colorable from start to finish. This
system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted
in every state.
One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code
that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally. Under the UCC, this is not so. First of all, contracts are
unnecessary. Under this new law, "agreements" can be binding, and if you only
exercise the benefits of an "agreement," it is presumed or implied that you
intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a
benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter,
each and every statute involved with that benefit. The trick has been to get
everybody exercising benefits that they don't believe they can live without.
One "benefit" that I accepted was the privilege of discharging debt with
limited liability, instead of paying debt. When I pay a debt, I give substance
for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought
the milk, and the milk bought the dollar -- substance for substance. But if I
used a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is no
substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in exchange
for something of substantive value. Congress offers this benefit. Debt money,
created by the federal United States, can be spent all over the continental
united States; it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and
the limited liability is that I cannot be sued for not paying my debts. It's as
if they have said, "We're going to help you out, and you can discharge your
debts instead of paying your debts." When I use this colorable money to
discharge my debts, I cannot use a Common Law court. I can only use a colorable
court. It would appear that I am stuck. If the only legal tender is colorable
money, then if I use any legal tender, then the only court that is available to
me is a colorable court. But there is a way out.
Volume 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code states "The making of a
valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses,
and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or
estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7) It also says "When a waivable right or claim is
involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right,
and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.4) It also says "The
Sufficiency of the Reservation--Any expression indicating an intention to
reserve such rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice." (UCC 1-207.4)
Whenever I sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes--in any
way, shape or manner--under my signature I write, or stamp: "Without Prejudice
UCC 1-207." When I use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with my
signature, I am saying: "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under
any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability
of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."
Some people use a rubber stamp that says "DISCHARGED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC
1-207" on every Federal Reserve Note that pass through their hands. I do not
think this is necessary.
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When
I use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No.
There is no lawful money, so I have to use Federal Reserve Notes--I have to
accept the benefit. The government has given me the benefit to discharge my
debts with limited liability. Therefore discharging my debts instead of paying
my debts is a compelled benefit.
The Uniform Commercial Code says in Volume 1, Section 103.6: "The Code is
complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced
by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law,
unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." It also
says: "The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action."
Most court proceedings today are under a colorable Admiralty jurisdiction
also known as Statutory jurisdiction. In Admiralty jurisdiction, "The technical
niceties of the common law are not regarded...", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury
does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit...the verdict of
the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p.
432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient
or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court
of admiralty ... acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. Have you
ever heard a court case where the judge overrules the decision of the jury? This
can only happen in a trial in admiralty jurisdiction. The jury is only the
conscience of the court. The judge is not an impartial referee who understands
Public Law but a commissioner that supports Public Policy which is private law.
And your attorney may not be working for you. In CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (complete
restatement of the entire American law) Volume 7, section 4 states: "an attorney
occupies a dual position which imposes dual obligations. His first duty is to
the courts and the public not to the client and wherever the duties to his
client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the
administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter....Clients are
also called 'wards of the court'." The fifth edition of Blacks Law Dictionary
states that a Ward of court is: "person of unsound mind".
What does this mean? If you don't know how the legal system works you will be
treated like a person of unsound mind that hires an expensive attorney, who is
an officer of the court, to defend you, and that if the judge does not want to
hear your arguments, he can command the attorney, without your knowledge, not to
use the defense, and the judge does not let the jury read the law, he only gives
his interpretation of the law, and that the laws are usually part of very large
bills that are not even read by members of Congress who voted on it, and that
if, in the unlikely event that the jury comes to conclusions that the judge does
not agree with, the judge can overturn the decision of the jury. As bad as this
is, it is not the worst case scenario. If you are accused of breaking certain
administrative laws, such as driving infractions, you do not have the right to
even this type of jury trial. In Tax Court, you are actually suing the IRS which
is presumed innocent until you prove that they are guilty. Because of this you
do not have the right to have council of your choice. Only the defendant has the
right to council. The judges are the most successful former prosecutors in Tax
Court. Is this the way our legal system was supposed to work? No! In Common Law
the jury determines both the facts and the law, the judge is an impartial
referee, and the council for both the Plaintiff and defendant are working for
their clients. If you know how the legal system works and you are a state
Citizen, you will challenge the jurisdiction of the court and never go into
anything but a Common Law court. If the flag in the courtroom has a gold fringe
on it, you are in an admiralty court.
The jury can nullify a law. The two most notable times in the history of the
United States were the end of slavery and the end of prohibition. Hiding escaped
slaves was against the federal law (stolen property transferred across state
lines). People arrested for hiding runaway slaves would be tried. In many cases
the jury would find the defendant not guilty because the law was not valid. The
same thing happened to bootleggers during prohibition. If a prosecutor can not
get a jury to convict people of crimes then the law has been effectively
nullified. This was a way Citizens defended their sovereignty from the
government. If the government passed a law that the Citizens disagreed with,
they would nullify it when someone was tried for breaking the law. This is the
way the country was supposed to be. By trying cases in admiralty jurisdiction
the jury can still try to nullify a law but the judge can overrule the decision
made by the jury. In many cases, the judge incorrectly tells the jury they must
follow the instructions to the jury. If Citizens can not nullify laws, the
federal government has more power.
From the last few paragraphs, you may think that I do not have a high opinion
of the integrity of our judges. This is not correct. The courts are there to
resolve disputes without violence. Since the vast majority of the people in this
country are either US citizens or residents, judges are correct to assume that
everyone that comes before them are under the exclusive jurisdiction of
Congress. It is up to the Citizen to challenge the jurisdiction of an admiralty
So if you are a state Citizen and you take precautions of not making it easy
for the federal government to make the presumption that you are involved in an
international contract, such as Federal Reserve Notes, then you will not be able
to be charged with any statutory offenses. You will be able to do anything you
wish, so long as you do not use force or fraud and you live with the
consequences of your actions.
More federal glue
You may also find it disturbing to know how an administrative procedure can
remove your children from you. In 1921 Congress passed the Sheppard-Towner
Maternity Act that created the United States birth "registration" area (see
Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, Chapter 135, 1921.) That act allows you
to register your children when they are born. If you do so, you will get a copy
of the birth certificate. By registering your children, which is voluntary, they
become Federal Children. This does several things: Your children become subjects
of Congress (they lose their state citizenship). A copy of the birth certificate
is sent to the Department of Vital Statistics in the state in which they were
born. The original birth certificate is sent to the Department of Commerce in
the District of Columbia. It then gets forwarded to an International Monetary
Fund (IMF) building in Europe. Your child's future labor and properties are put
up as collateral for the public debt.
Once a child is registered, a constructive trust is formed. The
usually become the trustee (the person managing the assets of the trust), the
child becomes an asset of the trust, and the state becomes the principal
beneficiary of the trust. See The Uniform Trustees' Powers Act (ORS 128.005(1)).
If the beneficiary does not believe the trustee is managing the assets of the
trust optimally, the beneficiary can go through an administrative procedure to
change trustees. This is the way that bureaucrats can take children away from
their parents if the bureaucrat does not like the way the child is cared for.
You may say that there is nothing wrong with this. If a parent is neglecting a
child, then the state should remove the child from the parents custody. Under
common law a child can still be removed from the parent but it takes twelve
jurors from that county to do so. Theoretically, a bureaucrat could remove your
children from you, if you disagree with some unrelated administrative procedure,
such as home schooling the child. This is another way the government can
intimidate citizens who question its authority. With all this in mind, the
statement that the President says every few months: "Our children are our most
valuable asset." takes on a different meaning. That is - your children are their
Part of the process of restoring my state Citizenship status is revoking my
Birth Certificate through a process called REVOCATION OF SIGNATURE AND POWER OF
ATTORNEY. If my Birth Certificate is not revoked, then the courts consider me to
be a 14th Amendment federal citizen and my labor and all of my assets are put up
as collateral for the public debt.
When the government communicates with corporations it spells the name of the
corporation in all capital letters. If the government refers to you with your
name in all capital letters, it is actually means to treat you like a
corporation. A corporation is created by government. It has no rights. The
government gives it privileges and the corporation must follow the rules of its
creator. I am not a corporation! A state Citizen should challenge the
government's assertion that he/she is a corporation. This applies to both postal
matter and court documents.
We gave the federal government the right to regulate commerce. Since the
government has started usurping our sovereignty, our language has been subtly
modified to include commercial terms. Most people do not realize or care that
they are using commercial terms but the courts do. If you describe your actions
in commercial terms in a court, the judge will take silent notice of your status
as being regulatable by the federal government. In the following examples, the
commercial terms are all in upper case letters: instead of a birthing room, you
are now born in a DELIVERY room. Instead of traveling in your car, you are
DRIVING or OPERATING a MOTOR VEHICLE in TRAFFIC and you don't have guests in
your car, you have PASSENGERS. Instead of a nativity you have a DATE OF BIRTH.
You are not a worker but an EMPLOYEE. You don't own a house but a piece of REAL
A state Citizen has the right to have any gun he/she wishes without being
registered. A federal citizen does not. In the District of Columbia, it is a
felony to own a handgun unless you are a police officer or a security guard or
the hand gun was registered before 1978. The District of Columbia has not been
admitted into the Union. Therefore the people of the District of Columbia are
not protected by the Second Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights.
Dispite the lack of legal guns in DC, crime is rampant. It is called Murder
Capital of the World. This should prove that gun control/victim disarmament laws
do not work in America. Across the country, there is an assault on guns. If you
are a federal citizen and you are using Second Amendment arguments to protect
your rights to keep your guns, I believe you are in for a surprise. First by
registering gun owners then renaming guns 'Assault Weapons' and 'Handguns',
those in power will take away your civil right to bear arms. Of course, they
won't tell you that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right and not a
natural right for a US citizens. The Supreme court has ruled that you as an
individual have no right to protection by the police. Their only obligation is
to protect "society". The real protection for state Citizens to keep their guns
is not the Second Amendment but the Ninth Amendment. Note in Switzerland, every
household must have, by law, a fully automatic machine gun and ammunition. The
crime rate is very low there.
A state Citizen has the right to travel on the public easements (public
roads) without being registered. A federal citizen does not. It is a privilege
for a foreigner to travel in any of the several states. If you are a US citizen,
you are a foreigner in the state. The state legislators can require foreigners
and people involved in commerce (chauffeurs, freight haulers) to be licensed,
insured, and to have their vehicles registered. When you register your car, you
turn over power of attorney to the state. At that point, it becomes a motor
vehicle. If it is not registered then it is not a motor vehicle and there are no
motor vehicle statutes to break. There are common law rules of the road. If you
don't cause an injury to anybody then you can not be tried.
If your car is registered, the state effectively owns your car. The state
supplies a sticker to put on your license plate every time you re-register the
motor vehicle. Look closely at the sticker on your plate right now. You may be
surprised to see that it says "OFFICIAL USE ONLY".(Note: In some states, they do
not use stickers on the plate) You may have seen municipal vehicles that have
signs on them saying "OFFICIAL USE ONLY" on them but why does yours? You do not
own your car. You may have a Certificate of Title but you probably do not have
the certificate of origin. You are leasing the state's vehicle by paying the
yearly registration fee. Because you are using their equipment, they can make
rules up on how it can be used. If you break a rule, such as driving without a
seatbelt, you have broken the contract and an administrative procedure will make
you pay the penalty. A state Citizen must be able to explain to the police
officers why they are not required to have the usual paperwork that most people
have. They should carry copies of affidavits and other paperwork in their car.
The state Citizen should also be prepared to go to traffic court and explain it
to the judge.
A reasonable person may ask - How did the government get so far removed from
the model of government defined by the Constitution? I'm not sure. Perhaps it
was a small group of bankers who realized that they could control a central
government much easier than many independent sovereigns. Perhaps it is the
natural outcome of specialization; that is, it might be said that a brain
surgeon should not be expected to be an expert on farming, manufacturing,
mining, retailing, politics, as well as medicine, therefore it is possible that
the people wanted to be governed by experts - allowing them to focus on their
pleasures and careers. Perhaps the elite thought they would help the poor masses
by making decisions for them because they believed that the common people could
not make good decisions for themselves. Perhaps it is the result of people
believing that they can get something for nothing; that is, the people believed
that the government was stealing more from other citizens that it was stealing
from them, so overall, they were helped by such policies more than they were
hurt. There is some evidence to support each of these propositions but, one
thing is important: The government is acting this way because the people allow
it to. If the people were very dissatisfied with the government, they would
change it. For all the complaining Americans do, they still elect the same
people again and again.
Another good question is: If all this is true, why haven't I heard these
ideas before? Again, I am not sure. It is very difficult to keep a conspiracy
secret for very long. If there has been a plan to steal the sovereignty of the
people, then many people would be affected and more than a few people had to
know about the plan in order to execute it. Unless all of the politicians,
bankers, media people were in on the conspiracy or were intimidated so that they
would not expose the plan, the People would, sooner or later, find out. It is
difficult for me to believe that every politician, banker, and media person are
corrupt. I think it is more likely that people thought that the experts could
run the country better than they could. Today, many people can not conceive the
government being run any other way. It is my belief that turning over the
government to experts was a mistake.
Who are these people?
The people who do research on state citizenship call themselves patriots.
This may sound strange to people who equate patriotism with support for whatever
the government does as long as the flags are waving and the politicians say have
the best interest of the nation at heart, but patriots like Thomas Jefferson saw
patriotism as supporting the value of liberty. The founders of the nation
thought it was unpatriotic to accept being ruled by a sovereign. In the
Constitutional Republic that they founded, each Citizen was a sovereign without
subjects. That is, we were all equal. This did not mean that we each had an
equal amount of money or an equal standard of living. Each Citizen had equal
opportunity to use the gifts we were given at birth. If you did not use your
gifts wisely or you did not have many gifts to start with, then you had to
accept a lower standard of living. People who received charity were not treated
with the same respect as a person who did not.
How does one reclaim their state Citizenship?
This paper cannot give you everything you need to know on how to restore your
first class citizenship status. It is only a starting point. With that being
said, here is a list of the papers that a state Citizen should to do to be free
of federal adhesion contracts. Some of these things are to be done at the county
recorder's office, others must be sent to the District of Columbia.
A notice of intent
A declaration of sovereignty.
An oath to your state.
A notice that you are using Federal Reserve Notes under protest.
A revocation of
signature and power of attorney
driver's license (you don't need one unless you drive commercially)
motor vehicle registration (if your car is not registered, it is not a motor
marriage license (but not your marriage contract)
birth certificate (the hospital still has a record of birth)
application for a Social Security Number
status as an employee (the word employee has a specific legal definition)
voter registration (you become an elector not a voter)
private or public pension benefits
You should also close credit cards, saving accounts, checking accounts, IRA
accounts, money market accounts, CD's, mutual funds, and 401k. You should pay
off all mortgages, car loans, and any other loan that you have. You may continue
to receive postal matter with ZIP codes but you should not accept them. You
should also remove your children from the schools that receive public money.
This is not easy! But, you can do it. If only a few people were doing this it
would be very difficult. But hundreds of thousands have done this just in the
past few years. This makes it much easier since alternative organizations are
being formed that are servicing the non federal citizens. Note: there are some
banks that have been around for more than 100 years that are safe and not
federally insured. Also common law trusts can be created to circumvent some of
the restrictions that the list above implies. There are many intelligent and
creative people working on these problems. As the years go by, it will be more
and more difficult to remain federal citizens. As the number of state Citizens
increases, the amount of revenue that the federal government receives will
decrease. The amount of money that the federal government spends will probably
not decrease because most of the people reclaiming their state Citizenship don't
use the services provided by the federal government. This will cause taxes to
increase which will cause even more people to drop out of the federal system. I
also expect to see the continuation of the trend to add more regulations that
the federal citizens have to follow.
Other sources of information
The best source of information is a law library. you can find a law library
that is open to the public in you county courthouse. You may find better law
libraries at a local college. The problem with the law library is that there are
so many books in it. Some of the court cases cited here are old. For one reason
or another, some of the books that had information on this subject seemed to
have been removed from my local county courthouse. I recommend that you visit
the county courthouse law library. If you have read this far, even if you decide
not to change your status you will probably find it very interesting.
If you have a computer and a modem you can connect up to bulletin boards that
are dedicated to the sovereignty issue. A very good bulletin board is located in
California. The telephone number is 1-818-888-9882 and the line attributes are
BAUD rate up to 14.4, Parity - none, Data bits - 8, Stop bits - 1. If you do not
live in the 818 area code, it will cost you the toll charges. There is no charge
for using the board. There is a file on there that contains the telephone
numbers of other bulletin boards. Perhaps you can find a number with your area
code so you can avoid the toll charges. The bulletin board has files pertaining
to two subjects. The first is restoring the rights that you lost when you lost
your state Citizenship. The second is trying to prevent the loss of more rights
by opposing the New World Order, that is losing your US citizenship status to
become a UN citizen. A word of warning must be given at this point. Some of the
people who do basic legal research start out with some extremely unusual
conspiracy theories that they try to prove. You may be offended at these
theories. Time will tell if the conspiracies exist or not. Dispite this the
research is very valuable.
ANTISHYSTER is a paper that is published six times a year. It is "A CRITICAL
EXAMINATION OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM." This excellent publication is about
60 pages. The annual subscription is $25.00 but, if you order as a group (3
subscriptions or more at the same time) it is only $15.00. This is money well
spent. You can reach them at (214) 418-8993 or send cash, check, or money order
to: AntiShyster c/o P.O.B. 540786 Dallas, Texas 75354-0786. You can order by
Visa or Master Card at (800) 477-5508.
The AMERICAN'S BULLETIN is a monthly newspaper that is dedicated to be "A
VOICE OF OPPOSITION TO TYRANNY". It is printed in Oregon and is mailed across
the nation. Accept for a few articles about unconventional ideas on alternative
health care the newspaper seems to be exclusively dedicated to Citizenship. You
can call them at 1-503-779-7709. The cost is $25.00 a year. You can get it
shipped without a ZIP Code but it cost $30.00 because it will be shipped via
first class mail. There are advanced topics that I have not described in this
paper printed every month.
PERCEPTIONS is a magazine that is published four times a year. It has
articles about Citizenship but it also has articles UFOs, Astrology, and
alternative health strategies. The cost is $15.00 a year. You can reach them at:
Perceptions, 11664 National Blvd., No. 314, Los Angeles, California 90064.
THE SPOTLIGHT is a newspaper that reports on the New World Order and how it
is being implemented. You can reach them at 300 Independence Ave. SE,
Washington, D.C. 20003.
The LA Lawman is a television show that is broadcast on cable TV in
California. You can by a copy of the 30 minute videotapes on issues relating to
state Citizens and perhaps even get them broadcast in your area. You can reach
The LA Lawman at 9245 Reseda Blvd Suite 450 Northridge CA 91324 or at (818)
There are many good books that you may want. LEGAL RESEARCH - How To Find and
Understand the Law by attorneys Stephen Elias & Susan Levinkind is a good
introduction to the law library. It is published by Nolo Press in 1992. It costs
$16.95. Before getting this book, I was never in a law library but now, I can do
The FEDERALIST PAPERS by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay is
published by Mentor. The paperback cost $5.99. This book can be downloaded from
the bulletin board listed above. It contains more than 500 pages of arguments
that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote to be published in the local papers for
the purpose of ratifying the Constitution. The Supreme Court sometimes quotes
the Federalist Papers in its decisions. If you want to know what the
Constitution means, then this is the book for you.
THE ANTI-FEDERALIST by the Opponents if the Constitution is published by The
University of Chicago Press. The articles in this book were published in the
local papers for the purpose of not ratifying the Constitution. It is not quite
as good as the Federalist Papers but, it also determines what the framers of the
constitution were thinking.
LIBERTY LIBRARY publishes a booklet that contains the Declaration of
Independence, US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and a description of jurors
rights. A single copy is $1.50; but if you buy 20 or more, the cost is only
$0.50 a piece. I find it amazing that all through public school, I never read
more than two paragraphs from any of these documents. Every child should have
the opportunity to have a copy of this booklet. You can reach Liberty Library at
300 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, D.C. 20003.
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA by Alexis De Tocqueville is published by Anchor Books
(DOUBLEDAY & COMPANY, INC.) De Tocqueville traveled around the United States of
America in the 1830s & 1840s. He compared, in minute detail, the differences
between how the American Republics were run and how the French Republic was run.
If you want to see how the nation existed without income taxes and government
bureaucracies, then this is the book for you. It is kind of long (almost 800
The Federal Zone by Mitch Modeleski can be downloaded from the bulletin board
listed above. It describes in more detail how the federal government usurped
power of the states by creating a federal zone that nearly swallowed the states.
The IRS code is explained.
Invisible Contracts by George Mercier can be downloaded from the bulletin
board listed above. This book describes the adhesion contracts that bind people
into federal jurisdiction. It also about conspiracies by the New World Order
people. It is written from the perspective of a Mormon. Mormon religious ideas
are described in great detail and with great fervor. The information on adhesion
contracts is very enlightening.
The ideas in this paper may be new to you. You may not believe them. You may
like the federal system. If you have read this far, I hope you will see the
government in a different light.
Let's restate the central premise of this paper.
The government recognizes two distinct classes of citizens: a state Citizen
and a federal citizen. Each has different rights and responsibilities. State
Citizens created the states who created the federal government who created
federal citizens. Most people are born state Citizens and become federal
citizens without their knowledge sometime after birth. You can reclaim your
state Citizenship status through a legal procedure. If you remain a federal
citizen, you will pay lots of taxes and have no rights. If you reclaim your
state Citizenship status, you will have to learn about our legal system and you
will have to change the way you bank, and save, and invest, and other aspects of
modern living that probably taken for granted. But a state Citizen that knows
the legal system has more control over his/her life.
Information is power. For decades the information, and the power, has been
centralized by the government class. Today, the balance of power is shifting. As
Citizens become more vigilant about government encroachments, the government's
power is lessened. As the number of state Citizens mushrooms, you will hear
about them in the press as the empire strikes back. This movement is not trying
to change the system -- this is the way it works now! In fact, any attempt to
change the Constitution via a constitutional convention or international treaty
should be opposed strongly. Can you imagine what sort of constitution would be
written if our current political leaders do the writing? Now you know what this
movement is all about. Whether you decide to change your status is up to you.
Please send a copy of this paper to everybody that you think is smart enough
to understand it.
to Freedom Stuff / Back