This is the ANSWER WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR!!!!!!

[Edu]

Ron Paul wants the message of freedom and liberty to get out, it's a wake up call. Here's a little secret you may not know but can reverse.
( from http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42589 )

This chapter is about the best kept secret in America. The government knows about the information in this chapter, but they will not admit it.

As we learned in chapter 1, every individual born in one of the 50 sovereign states was born an individual American sovereign, with inalienable rights. Those inalienable rights included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness included the right to engage in a common occupation or business without a license, to travel freely from one place to another without permission from the state (driver's license), the inalienable right to acquire and possess property without paying property tax, etc.

Before the Declaration of Independence, there were no Americans Citizens, because there was no America, as a country. The people were subjects of the British Crown. After the Declaration, each state was its own sovereign state, and the citizens were state Citizens. State Citizens had inalienable rights secured by each state's constitution. But I have a problem with the word "citizen". Can you be a citizen and a sovereign at the same time? Is a king a citizen of his own country? Or is he a sovereign and not a citizen? I believe that a 'citizen' is the same as a 'subject', and a subject always has a superior power over him. So, you are either a sovereign, OR a citizen/subject. You cannot be both at the same time.

This is confirmed by an early Supreme Court decision.
Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dall (U.S.) 419, 456-480 (1793) (p.470) All the country now possessed by the United States was then a part of the dominions appertaining to the crown of Great Britain. Every acre of land in this country was then held mediately or immediately from that crown. All the people of this country were then, subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; . . . From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it; . . . Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; . . .
(p.471) 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.
(p.458) But in the case of the King, the sovereignty had a double operation. While it vested him with jurisdiction over others, it excluded all others from jurisdiction over him. The law, says Sir William Blackstone, ascribes to the King the attribute of sovereignty: he is sovereign and independent within his own dominions; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the King, even in civil matters; because no court can have jurisdiction over him: for all jurisdiction implies superiority of power. The principle is, that all human law must be prescribed by a superior.
(p.455) As the State has claimed precedence of the people; so in the same inverted course of things, the Government has often claimed precedence of the State; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence. By a State I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its rights: And it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members: It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out the private fortunes of individuals.
(p. 456) The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws, it that he binds himself. Upon the same principles, upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the Courts of Justice, which are formed and authorized by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this, why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do likewise? . . . In one sense, the term sovereignty has for its correlative, subject. In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the Constitution of the United States,. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.

"ALL jurisdiction implies superiority of power"! So if you are under the jurisdiction of a government, they have the superior power! You are bound by the laws only because you choose to be! When you pledge allegiance to any country, you become a subject of that country, and you waive your sovereignty. But, if you pledge allegiance only to YOUR creator, then you are the superior power, and no human government is over you. After the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, American sovereigns acquired citizenship status, called Citizen of the united States of America.Also known as American Citizen, with a capital "C".

DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 179 (1900) The Constitution is not a physical substance. It is in the nature of a grant or power, or what would be termed in private law a power of attorney. A real constitution is a grant of rights or powers by a sovereign. The sovereign cannot be limited, for he is the source of all law. Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 370

In another Supreme Court case they ruled:
Graves v. Schmidlapp 315 U.S. 657-665 (1941) The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is coextensive with that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends are objects of taxation.

Are the American people sovereigns OVER the government? Or are they subjects of the government, UNDER the government's jurisdiction and power?

Important points. Sovereign Americans are above the governments they delegated management powers to. Governments are artificial persons, legal fictions. Governments, as artificial persons, can own property and incur debts on their own, separate from the sovereign people. The personal fortunes of the sovereign people are not to be used to discharge the government's debts. Governments have complete power over their OWN property and subjects. All jurisdiction implies superiority of power. All subjects UNDER the jurisdictional power of a government, are objects of taxation. As the Supreme Court stated above, a free man is subject to human laws only because he binds himself. You, as one of the joint owners of this country, have agreed to abide by certain laws, that you have agreed to. These laws are designated in the Constitution. Remember these concepts. They are critical to the understanding of freedom from taxation.

The Supreme Court of Colorado has ruled:
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Case 380 P.2d 34 (1962) Natural rights - inherent rights and liberties are not the creatures of constitutional provisions either at the national or state level. The inherent human freedoms with which mankind is endowed are "antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."

You become subject to the human laws because you bind yourself to them as an artificial person. You waive your sovereign status, to become a subject. How do you do that? By contracting with the government and accepting benefits. The only way the government will contract with you, is if you waive your inalienable rights and agree to be UNDER their jurisdiction.

Before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, Americans were called Citizens (with a capitlal "C") of the united States of America. (American Citizen, or American, for short) If you were born in America, you were born a sovereign with inalienable rights. It was a common understanding among the people. Up until then, slavery was still accepted in America. Slaves were not Citizens, state or national, but were merely considered the personal 'property' of the slave holders. The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, just 3 years before the 14th. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. But that created a new problem. The newly freed slaves were not citizens of any state or country, because they were just property, and property did not have citizenship. To solve the problem, the 14th amendment was passed. This amendment created a new class of citizenship. This new class was legally called: 'United States citizen', (with a small "c"). NOT 'United States of America Citizen', but just 'United States citizen'. Notice that the U.S. citizen is spelled with a lower case 'c'. This is to show a lower class of citizenship. This class of citizen (U.S. citizen) is a privilege granted by the federal government, and not a sovereign inalienable right.

From Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition:

Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;

The Civil War was fought from 1861-1865. The significance of this will be seen later.

Let's see just what the 14th Amendment really does say.

Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment (1868). Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States 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.

Notice the wording of this amendment carefully. If they were talking about Citizens of the 50 states, then it would read "and subject to the jurisdiction(s) thereof". Jurisdictions would be plural if it applied to more than one entity. But since it applies only to the United States government, singular, is also shows the jurisdiction to be singular. Jurisdiction, not jurisdictions.

Several other things to notice here. This section 1 of the amendment has two parts.

The first part has to do with the citizenship of 'persons', subjects.

The second part has to do with the states being required to protect the privileges and immunities of the United States citizen. We will look at the first part first.

The first part of this amendment says that '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. We just learned that jurisdiction implies superiority of power, so is a United States citizen superior to the government? NO! The roles are reversed. Notice this does not say they are citizens of the United States 'of America'. Just the 'United States'. Is there a difference? Let's check it out.

First, what is a 'person'? There are legally two kinds of 'persons'. First there is the 'natural person' with inalienable rights. This is a flesh and blood human being, the sovereign individual. Second, there is just the term 'person'. When just the term 'person' is used, and not 'natural person', it means an artificial person, such as a corporation, trust, government, etc. A human being can be both a natural person and an artificial person at the same time. How do you tell the difference? It is as simple as whether you spell your name in all capital letters or not. More on this in a bit. The important thing to remember at this point is that artificial persons are property. Property in Latin is res. Property located in a certain territory, would be its place of residence. So property (res) belonging to and located in the State of Colorado, would be 'resident' of the state. Are you a resident of a state or of the United States?

Important point. Since a government is an artificial person, according to the Supreme Court, does an artificial person have jurisdiction over the sovereign that created the artificial person? No. Does the artificial person (government) have jurisdiction over any new artificial persons, or property, created by the government? Yes. A government has complete power over its subjects and its own property. Remember, the Constitution is just a power of attorney from the sovereign people to the government. That power of attorney extends to anything the government, as an artificial person, creates or owns.

So a 'resident' would be an artificial 'person' (property) located within the jurisdiction of a certain government. Almost all state and federal statutes apply to 'persons' who are citizens and residents, and are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They rarely apply to 'natural persons'.

Now to the second part of the 14th Amendment. It applies to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'." This could only mean the territorial jurisdiction of the federal government. As stated in the Supreme Court case of Chisholm v. Georgia quoted earlier, all jurisdiction implies superiority of power. So if you are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, that implies their power is superior to your sovereign power, or the sovereign power of your state. In other words, you are not a sovereign, but a subject, if you are a U.S. citizen, name spelled in all caps.

A 'U.S. citizen' is a subject of the federal government, subject to its jurisdiction. An 'American Citizen' is a sovereign individual, and the government is subject to him, and no court has jurisdiction over him, without his permission. When you present yourself to a court, you give them temporary jurisdiction for a certain issue to be settled. Once it is settled, then that jurisdiction ceases. That is why plaintiffs must prove jurisdiction before courts can hear a case.

An important distinction needs to be understood here. The sovereign technically has inalienable rights, NOT constitutional rights. We all call them constitutional rights, but they are not. They are inalienable rights SECURED by constitutions, state and federal. The basis of any inalienable right is established in the Declaration of Independence. This document very clearly states that "We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Look for the mention of God, or inalienable rights, in the Constitution, and you will not find them.

Many patriots are making constitutional arguments, when they should be making inalienable rights arguments. There is no basis for inalienable rights of property under the constitution, but there IS under the Declaration of Independence! We are using the wrong document to claim our rights under!

For example, the way to state a constitutional argument would be to state that you have the inalienable right to bear arms, stated in the Declaration of Independence, and 'secured' by the Bill of Rights, in the 2nd Amendment. You have the inalienable right to not be a witness against yourself, 'secured' by the 5th Amendment. This gives your argument a much stronger legal basis and is much harder to dismiss, if you ever did go to court. The Bill of Rights, means the Bill of Inalienable Rights, based on the Declaration of Independence, and secured by the Constitution!

If you are a citizen of the United States, then JUST WHERE and WHAT IS THE 'UNITED STATES'?

Is there a territorial difference between the United States of America, (the 50 sovereign states) and the United States government (10 miles square, plus possessions)?

What is the legal definition of United States?

Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition.
United States. This term has several meanings. (1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, (2) it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United states extends, (3) or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. from Hooven & Allison v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652

The first definition (1) only applies to other countries in their relationship to America. It doesn't apply to us.

The third definition (3) applies only to the 50 states united under the Constitution. That does apply to us.

The second definition (2) is the one we are primarily concerned about. This definition applies to the geographical territory over which the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States extends, pertaining to the 14th Amendment jurisdiction over citizens. Again, we must go the the Constitution to see where that territory is. The United States has exclusive jurisdiction only over certain areas. Since each of the 50 states were separate sovereign states, the sovereignty of the United States did not extend to these 50 states, unless they incorporated. What's left? The Constitution tells us.

U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the States in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings;

According to the Constitution, the territory of the United States of America includes the 50 sovereign states, each of which have their own constitution and jurisdiction. The geographical territory of sovereign jurisdictions do not overlap.

The territory of the United States 'of America' is different from the territory of the United States 'government'.

The territorial jurisdiction of the United States government only extends to tens miles square, to places purchased, and to property owned. This would include territories and possessions, temporarily acquired through treaties, that are not part of the 50 states. Persons who are under this exclusive jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States 'government', and of the state where they reside. This is a little confusing because Washington, D.C. is considered a state, and the possessions, like Puerto Rico, are considered states. They are political states, but are not part of the 50 sovereign states.

What does the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) say? IRC 7701 is a section devoted to definitions. What is their definition of the United States?

IRC 7701(9) United States. The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

The States? ONLY the States? Does that mean the 50 states, or just U.S.possessions, which are also called states? The use of the word "only" would indicate that this is a restrictive definition. Back to the definitions.

IRC 7701(10) State. The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

When definition statutes are issued with the word "includes" it means that only the items or categories listed in the definition are included, everything else is excluded. The District of Columbia is a political state of the United States. It is property of the federal government, just like the U.S. possessions like Guam and the Virgin Islands are. Since the 50 states are not mentioned in the definition of state, they are not included.Why? Because the jurisdiction of the United States government, for income tax purposes, includes only areas under its jurisdiction, as stated in the Constitution. The 50 states are separate sovereign states, according to the state constitutions, and therefore would not come under the geographical jurisdiction of the United States federal government, a corporation. As you saw above, the 14th amendment created citizens who WERE under the jurisdiction of the federal government! The IRC defines United States person for us.

IRC 7701(30) United States person. The term "United States person" means - (A) A citizen or resident of the United States.

So if you were a U.S. citizen, you would be in that jurisdiction subject to the federal income tax. And you would be defined as a "Taxpayer".

IRC 7701(14) Taxpayer. The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

So if the 50 states were not under the jurisdiction of the United States government, how come they are NOW subject to all the laws handed down by Congress? We know that states can voluntarily give up their sovereignty to the federal government, just the same as we can. They have not done that, have they? Or have they? When the Civil War was fought, all states were not admitted back into the union until their constitutions were approved by Congress. Why was this approval needed? When the southern states seceded from the union, were they then sovereign states, separate from the United States of America, or U.S. territories? When these states, and all future states, were admitted to the new union, were they conquered states, through an act of war? Were they new territory acquired by the federal government, and now under their jurisdiction? Are the 50 states now just political states of the federal government, just like D.C.?

What about territory, or states, acquired through conquest (war)? This territory is not purchased. Is this territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States government? Yes. Temporarily. Any territory acquired by war, or treaty, is acquired for the sovereign people, and this territory is held, in trust, for the people until they decide to make the territory into sovereign states and add them to the Union.

Let's check with the Supreme Court again.
Hooven & Allison Co. v Evatt 324 U.S. 675 (1945) That our dependencies, (possessions) acquired as the result of our war with Spain, are territories belonging to, but not a part of the Union of states under the Constitution, was long since established by a series of decisions in this court . . . This status has ever since been maintained in the practical construction of the Constitution by all the agencies of our government in dealing with our insular possessions. It is no longer doubted that the United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of power of Congress conferred by Sec. 3 of Article IV of the Constitution "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States." In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the United States. (the 50 united States)

When Congress passes laws for the territories of the United States they are not limited by the Constitution. When they pass laws for the 50 states they must follow the limitations of the Constitution, because the 50 states only delegated certain powers to Congress. Powers not delegated were reserved to the states or to the people. (10th Amendment) The 50 states are superior to the federal government. So how does the federal government get the power to make laws for the 50 states?

DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 179 (1900) If the law or treaty making power enacts that the territory over which the military arm of the government has extended shall come under the permanent absolute sovereign jurisdiction of the United States, a new and different status arises. The former sovereign then loses all right of reverter, and the territorial limits of the United States are in so far enlarged.

Ponder this thought. If the federal government acquired ALL the states, after the Civil War, through the military arm of the government, OR, even today just through a declared national emergency by the Commander in Chief, and instituted martial law, would the 50 states lose their sovereign status and come under the sovereign jurisdiction of the federal government, by conquest? Yes they would. Then the President, as commander in chief, would rule the country by presidential order. This is exactly our status today. The government pretends that you still have inalienable rights secured by the constitutional, because if they let on what the truth was, there would be a revolution. As we will see in the next chapter, in 1933, the United States declared a national emergency that is still in force today.

This doesn't sound like what they taught us in school, does it? Maybe we should check out another authority. In 1956 -1957, President Eisenhower commissioned a study of this very issue. There were problems with the jurisdictional status of federal lands located within the 50 states. He wanted to clarify the jurisdictional limits of the federal government.

The study was called:

JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES
It was a 2 part report and I will quote from it below:

Part II
Letter of Acknowledgement. It is my understanding that the report is to be published and distributed, for the purpose of making available to Federal administrators of real property, Federal and States legislators, the legal profession, and others, this text of law of legislative jurisdiction in these areas. The Honorable Herbert Brownwell, Jr. Attorney General, Washington, D.C.

Letter of Transmittal. Together, the two parts of this Committee's report and the full implementation of its recommendations will provide a basis for reversing in many areas the swing of "the pendulum of power * * * from our states to the central government" to which you referred in your address to the Conference of State Governors on June 25, 1957. Attorney General.

Pg. 45. Since Congress has the power to create States out of Territories and to prescribe the boundaries of the new States, the retention of exclusive legislative jurisdiction over a federally owned area within the States at the time the State is admitted into the Union would not appear to pose any serious constitutional difficulties.

No Federal legislative jurisdiction without consent, cession, or reservation. -- It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possess no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the States, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions, and subject to the free exercise by the Federal Government of rights with respect to the use, protection, and disposition of its property.
Necessity of State Assent to Transfer of Jurisdiction to Federal Government: Constitutional consent. -- The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State.
Pg. 66 LIMITATIONS ON AREAS OVER WHICH JURISDICTION MAY BE ACQUIRED BY CONSENT OF STATE UNDER CLAUSE 17: In general.-- Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation over "Places" which have been "purchased" by the Federal Government, with the consent of the legislature of the States, "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." The quoted words serve to limit the scope of clause 17. They exclude from its purview places which were not "purchased" by the Federal Government, . . .

Chapter VII (pg 169) Relation of States to Federal Enclaves. Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction: States basically without authority. --When the Federal Government has acquired exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area, by any of the three methods of acquiring such jurisdiction, it is clear that the State in which the area is located is without authority to legislate for the area or enforce any of its laws within the area. All the powers of government with respect to the area are vested in the United States.

That is just a small sampling, but as you can see, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal government does NOT extend to the geographical territory of the 50 states, except with their consent, or by conquest (like declaring a national emergency). This was a government report done by the Attorney General for the President. But, hey, what does he know? So, for the federal government to have jurisdiction over you, in one of the 50 states, it must own you as property. That property, or artificial person, is called 'U.S. citizen'.

The distinction that I make here, is, either you are a Citizen of the United States of America (American Citizen), or a United States citizen (federal citizen).

An American citizen lives in one of the 50 states and has inalienable rights secured by the state and national constitutions. He spells his name in upper and lower case letters.

A United States citizen may also live in one of the 50 states, as a resident, but has only privileges and immunities, with no constitutional protections. He spells his name with all capital letters.

Check all your licenses, bills, mortgages, deeds, credit cards, etc and see which one you are claiming to be!

(continued)

[Edu]

You will notice that the 14th Amendment says that the States shall uphold the 'privileges and immunities' of United States citizens. What about their 'rights'? United States citizens, subject to the government, do not have a constitution, or inalienable rights. You cannot get that FROM a government. Property (artificial persons) can only have civil rights, privileges and immunities granted by the government. They are people that have been slightly upgraded from property (slaves) to having the privilege of being a citizen/subject of the United States government. It sounds much nicer! Remember that the amendment says U.S. citizens are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the government. And you just read how far that exclusive jurisdiction extends.

But don't rely on this Attorney General's report, or the Supreme Court decisions in court. The IRS and the courts consider it a frivolous argument!

The 14th Amendment says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

What does "subject to" mean?

Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition says;
Subject to. Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for."

Part 2 of the 14th amendment also says that the states: shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; . Why does it make that statement? Didn't the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) already secure the inalienable rights of the American people? They sure did. Then why a second prohibition?

Legal scholars have argued that the Constitution only limited the powers of the federal government, not the state governments, so this was added in the 14th amendment to restrict the power of the states. Sounds good, doesn't it? But don't the constitutions of the 50 states already protect the inalienable rights of the state Citizens? They sure do! Do they need a national constitutional amendment to make them uphold their own state constitutions? Only if the state constitutions were no longer valid. Is your state constitution still valid? Yes. But, the truth is, state constitutions do NOT apply to federal 'property' (U.S. citizens).

The governments, state and federal, are not OVER the sovereign people and their sovereign territory. Both governments have been delegated powers to secure the rights of the people, and their jurisdiction in exercising that power, is limited to the property they actually own or control. This property is known as 'persons' or 'residents'.

The United States 'government' has jurisdiction only over areas delegated to it by the states and over property acquired by conquest. The state governments also, only have jurisdiction over the areas delegated to them by the state Citizens. Do the people control the government or does the government control the people? Can the government exercise powers not delegated to them? No. The problem is that you DID give them the power, when you waived your inalienable rights and claimed to be a U.S. citizen, subject to their jurisdiction. They just dangled a few carrots (federal benefits, ie: Social Security) over your nose and you grabbed them and asked to be a subject, so you could get MORE benefits. The states did the same thing, so they could get subsidies also.

There is an old saying: "If you give the average person a choice between freedom and a free lunch, he will choose the free lunch". Which did you choose?

So the only logical conclusion is, that the newly created "United States citizens" (former slaves) were no longer the property of individuals, and they were not American Citizens. And they still didn't have a constitution to protect them since the Constitution 'of the United States of America' did not apply to the federal possessions (property) and territories. The U.S. Constitution only applied to the federal government, and delegated and limited its powers. The federal government was created BY the states. And since U.S. citizens were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the state constitutions did not cover them. U.S. citizens are just federal property, artificial 'persons' or 'residents', in one of the 50 states. And this also placed them squarely within the legal definition of U.S. jurisdiction.

The states each had their own constitutions. But the jurisdictional powers delegated in these state constitutions also only applied to 'government' property in the states, not to the sovereign 'territory' of the states. So the 'United States citizens' were also citizens of the corporate state governments, (not of the sovereign states themselves) and were not protected by the state constitutions. They technically became dual 'property'. They were property (persons - residents) of the state government and of the federal government. Today, all state governments are corporations, not sovereign states. They are just sub-corporations of the federal government, and therefore are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. They have traded their sovereignty for federal subsidies, just like you have traded your sovereignty for the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment!

For proof: If you claim constitutional rights in court, the judge will tell you that if you mention constitutional rights again, he will find you in contempt of court, and throw you in jail. He could do that ONLY if you were resident (property) of the state. Because then you would not have inalienable rights, secured by the state constitution. To find out if you have rights, look at how your name is spelled in the heading of the court case. By the way, this principle also applies to local property tax and driver's license and registration, but that is 2 other books.

Inalienable rights are flagrantly violated on a daily basis by all levels of government, because most people have waived these rights and traded them for privileges. The problem is that so few people claim their inalienable rights anymore that they are no longer recognized by the government. The people would rather have privileges from the government. You can't claim to be a sovereign over the government, and at the same time claim benefits handed out by the government for their subjects. Does the King or Queen (you) apply for their own government's benefits, thereby becoming subjects of their own government?

Since both the state and federal governments are now just corporations, can you be the citizen of a corporation? Yes. The corporation is an artificial 'person'. But, artificial persons can ONLY create new artificial persons (property) that they control. Remember, the United States federal government is just a corporation! So if you are a U.S. citizen, you are a corporate citizen.

These new United States citizens, created by the 14th Amendment, had no one to protect their new status and rights. Worse yet, they had no rights to protect, just privileges and immunities (civil rights) granted by the federal government. The privilege was, being 'subject' to the federal government, instead of to a foreign nation, and the immunities were to be added later. And they were.

One by one, the courts gradually added, to U.S. citizens, each of the rights that American citizens had under the first 10 amendments. But they were not inalienable rights, they were only civil rights. Civil rights are rights given to you by the government. Governments cannot give you inalienable rights. You already have those. But civil rights can also be taken away by the government. Since the federal possessions and territories (federal states) had their own governments, just like the 50 states, this amendment prevented both the 50 state governments, and the federal states, from making laws that violated the civil rights of these United States citizen subjects.

And this is where the controversy comes in. The government wants you to believe that a citizen of the United States, is the same as a Citizen of the United States of America. In a court case, if you make this argument, that you are not a resident of the United States, and therefore not a U.S. citizen, because you live in Colorado, the courts will call this a frivolous argument and fine you. And they are right, if you look at how your name is spelled in the heading of that case.

But think about this. If United States citizens are not protected by the U.S. Constitution, then they also lose the Constitutional limitation that all direct taxes be apportioned. That means that they COULD be taxed on their incomes, from whatever source, directly, without apportionment. United States citizens are not protected by the Constitution. Scary, isn't it?

American Sovereign OR United States citizen? Which are YOU?

You have the right to choose your status as a sovereign in America. But, not as a citizen in the United States. The 50 united States of America are republics, guaranteed a republican form of government. The United States government is a democracy. You must learn the difference! If you choose to be an American Citizen with inalienable rights secured by the constitution, then the constitution says that direct taxes must be apportioned among the states.

On the other hand, if you are a United States citizen, then you have no constitution to protect you, only your civil rights. And those civil rights do not prevent the federal government from taxing your income directly, without apportionment. This is possible because states CAN directly tax their citizens property. So if you are a U.S. citizen, you are in effect the citizen of the state of Washington D.C. And that state can tax its citizen's property directly. Remember the definition of "State" above, from the Internal Revenue Code? A state is the District of Columbia. The IRC applies to this state and not to the 50 states.

If you live in one of the 50 sovereign states, then you cannot also live in one of the federal states. Their jurisdictions do not overlap. But, can you create an artificial entity, (like a corporation or trust is an artificial entity) and call yourself a United States citizen? Yes you can. How? You may not be aware of it, but it has already been done for you. The way to tell is to look at your name. When an artificial person is named (such as a corporation), proper English grammar says that the name will be spelled in all capital letters. So if your name is Joseph John Smith, the spelling indicates that you are a real live flesh and blood natural human (natural person). But if you spell your name in all capitals, JOSEPH JOHN SMITH, then that indicates that you are an artificial entity (person). There are really two entities with your name! The real person (you) and the fictional corporate U.S. citizen. The problem arises when the natural person contracts to be an artificial person. Which one are you claiming to be?

The 14th Amendment essentially opened the door to classify everyone as a corporate citizen/employee. Let me ask you this. Since the United States is a corporation, how many employees can there be in a corporation? Would it be possible for every U.S. citizen to be unofficially classified as an employee of this corporation United States, as one of the privileges of U.S. citizenship? And as an employee of the federal government, you would be liable for federal income tax. That is why their name is "Internal" Revenue. It is only collected internally, from its own employees, who are exercising a taxable privilege, government employment! And as a corporate employee, you would be "presumed" to have corporate income!

Since all United States citizens are creations and subjects of the federal government (a public corporation), they are still property. For property (ie: corporations) to have legal existence, with civil rights, it must be done as an artificial entity, just like a corporation is legally considered a person with civil rights, but not inalienable rights. Since the federal government is also an artificial person (a corporation), it can only have jurisdiction over other artificial persons it has created. It has created the artificial person "U.S. citizen", subject to its jurisdiction. You can contract for this corporate privilege and be protected by their corporate laws as one of your privileges as an employee of the corporation United States. And you will probably get lots of other free lunches (benefits) to boot!

Property cannot have inalienable rights. So all United States citizens are property (artificial 'persons'), with their names spelled in all capital letters. These artificial entities are subject to different laws than you, their sovereign representative, and if they mess up, you do the time, or pay the fine, for them! Just like you can't put a corporation in jail, but you can put their representatives, the corporate officers, in jail in their place.

Can you claim that you are NOT a sovereign American, so that you can collect some of the benefits of the subjects of the federal government's U.S. citizens? Yes you can. And you already have.

Now let's see which status you claim. First look at the spelling of your name on your driver's license. Is it spelled in all caps, indicating an artificial corporate person? Then look at your social security card. Then look at your check book. Then look at your credit cards. Then look at the deed to your real estate if you own some. Then look at the title to your vehicle. Then look at your name in the heading of any court case you may have been in. Check the sworn statement you signed with your voter registration, or your gun registration. Look at ANY correspondence from the government. Look at your bills. These documents will tell you for sure who you really are. When you applied for Social Security, this artificial person U.S. citizen was created. Unknowingly, you contracted to be an artificial corporate person, not realizing that you created a new government employee. This is known as voluntary slavery. Involuntary slavery was forbidden by the 13th Amendment, but you agreed, by contract, to give up American Citizenship and inalienable rights, for U.S. citizenship with civil rights. Remember, the income tax is a corporate tax, so if you are a U.S. corporate citizen, then you are subject to a corporate excise tax on your income.

Do you get my point?

Now look at the mailing label for your tax return. Are you the artificial entity, United States citizen? If not, prove it. Make believe you are in court. Where is your identification that you are a sovereign American with inalienable rights? Can you show that you are an American, and not a U.S. citizen? What documents would you use? The only possible one is your birth certificate, and you used that to show that you are the representative/agent of the person on the SS card. But even those are now issued with the name spelled in all caps, indicating an artificial person. In that case, who are you?

Pretty scary, huh?

When you are in court, would any judge tell you you that you that you are NOT an 'American' Citizen and that the Constitution is not valid for you? No, they cannot let the truth out. But then they don't have to because you are claiming to be a U.S. citizen. Because the TRUTH is: As a sovereign, you have no legal standing in the corporate courts of this country, so you would not be in court in the first place! Why is that? Because you, as a sovereign, are above the laws issued by the corporate federal government to regulate its own property. ALL courts in this country are statutory non-constitutonal courts. ONLY the corporate employee can claim any corporate privileges in these courts. More on this in the "court" chapter.

So now go back to the last chapter and look again at the 16th Amendment. Did they really need to pass a whole amendment, just to clarify the existing Constitution? Or was it really passed to apply to these new United States citizens? Let's let the Treasury regulations tell us.

26 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1.1-1 "Income tax on individuals. (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States . . . The tax imposed is upon taxable income . . ."

This Treasury Regulation explains who the income tax applies to. Does it apply to Citizens of the United States of America? No. Just to U.S. citizens, who are corporate employees, and their property.

ARE YOU BORN AN AMERICAN, OR A UNITED STATES CITIZEN?

I believe that when you are born, you are born a sovereign American with inalienable rights. A lot of birth certificates have the spelling of your name correct, in upper and lower case, so the birth certificate is NOT the document that creates the U.S. citizen. All the birth certificate does, is provide proof that a real live sovereign was born. A corporation cannot have a live birth. Only a real sovereign can be born live.

So then what does create the U.S. citizen, if it is not the birth certificate? I believe the U.S. citizen is born by commercial contract. And that contract is your Social Security application, among others. You cannot get a social security number without the birth certificate of someone who is contracting, to be this new entity U.S. citizen. The U.S. citizen status is created along with your social security number, and it is this number that identifies the corporate government employee. If the government is the beast that enslaves you, then this truly would be the mark of the beast. You waive your inalienable rights when you contract to have a social security number. When someone asks you for a Social Security number, then are just ,making sure that they are dealing with the U.S. citizen.

The entity you are applying to, for this number, is an artificial person, a government corporation, a fiction. Can a fiction create a real person? No. A fiction can only create another fiction. So when you get your social security number, it is the number of a brand new person, a corporate U.S. citizen. Since a corporation created the number, they can only apply that number to their property. Which they did.

Many birth certificates today have your name in all caps. I believe this is just the government's attempt to usurp your sovereign status, long before you apply for a social security card. Maybe that is why the IRS wants every newborn to be assigned a SS# at birth. So they can attempt to eliminate your presumption of sovereignty right from your birth and start right out as a U.S. citizen.

I have run into attorneys and government officials that say, "It doesn't make any difference if you spell your name in all caps or not. You are not a corporate citizen." Is this true? Is there a difference between an artificial person and a natural person? How can you prove it? For those who need proof, I have compiled some facts that you can use to show the difference. Check it out! American Citizen , or U.S. citizen? http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/AffTruth.html

Another interesting observation is that the 14th Amendment was certified on July 28, 1868. The day BEFORE, on July 27, Congress passed an Act called the Right of Expatriation. If Congress was going to create a new corporate citizen, then they also had to create a remedy to get out of it if you didn't want to be a U.S. citizen. This was the way!

SUMMARY

The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship, the United States citizen. This citizenship applies only to 'persons subject to the jurisdiction' of the federal government. All jurisdiction implies superiority of power. A 'person' is always an artificial corporate entity with it's name spelled in all caps.

YOU are "presumed" to be a U.S. citizen, unless and until you can prove otherwise.

A Sovereign/Citizen of the United States of America (American Citizen), lives in one of the 50 sovereign states, and has inalienable rights secured by state and national constitutions.

The artificial person, U.S. citizen, is a legal fiction that has been created by the federal government, via the social security application, and is a corporate employee of the United States by virtue of being a U.S. citizen. He is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government and of the state government and subject to the corporate income tax.

The U.S. citizen is created property, created to raise revenue for the government, your employer. You have essentially contracted to be liable for the debts of your master, the federal government.

You can reverse this situation and regain your birthright:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citizenship-jurisdiction/
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/success-stories/
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/service-providers/
http://abrrp.us/

Edit: I forgot to post a good read "The Federal Zone" book. A bit outdated but still good for people just starting (and free).
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

[TruthAtLast]

interesting. thanks for sharing and providing a summary.

[Ex Post Facto]

If this was true, it would be deemed FRAUD and TREASON (in Capital letters) by WE THE PEOPLE. Our constitution is an agreement we gave to government permission to govern us, not the other way around.

[AFM]

Interesting...

[Mr. White]

For more info go to abrrp.us and pay $3,000. Please note the disclaimer:

Disclaimer
We [abrrp.us] are not Attorneys, CPA’s, or Accountants and do not intend that any information we are conveying is a substitute for legal or
financial guidance or direction, nor is it intended to be legal or financial instruction. We are conveying however, information, which,
to the best of our knowledge, provides considerable information about the benefits of the Americans’ Birthright Recovery process.

Interesting idea, best of luck with the fundraiser.

[Edu]

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/citizenship-jurisdiction/ <-- Free

Lots of people post their documents and info for free on other sites like the suijuris one. Google works too. I feel that it's a good idea to study this in depth yourself. Depending on your situation, you may want other choices, it's up to you.

I know people who have pushed this to the limit and are "driving" without licenses and if they go to court usually due to the lack of officers knowledge, they get their case dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. A lot of times the officer at the pull over quickly apologizes saying he's sorry to bother you.

Which to me is proof that this is all true and the courts are doing this because some early adopters of this forged a path by suing and winning a lot of money and/or getting some officials arrested. The word gets around quickly when this happens and now the "officials" are treading very lightly.

The "state of the art" latest updates on all this is people going into court and create a Article III court right there where the "judge" is now only acting like a clerk and asks "what would you like to do next?", in one case the "judge" said "I don't see a motion to dismiss the charges on the record, if you submit one I would be happy to sign it", showing me that the power is in the People.

You have to take personal responsibility and study this yourself, it can't be explained in a 2 minute sound bite. That's why they have gotten away with this for so long, because people have been trained in high school to just say "where do I sign up?" and go the easy way. The government makes it super easy to sign away your power, and don't want you to wake up because then they lose power.

Governments are defined by what they control.

Is it really unreasonable to ask Ron Paul supporters to study this issue and possibly further learn how they have lost their liberty and freedom?

(BAR, British Accredited Registry, a private little "association" up on the hill, BAR attorneys are officers of the court whose first allegiance is to the court and not to their clients)

[Kotin]

thanks alot.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

EDU,

I posted the bankers manifesto of 1892 a few days ago. (from www.abrrp.us/)
It met with some resistance but most seemed interested.
Here's the thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=128180

Mr. White didn't have anything nice to say about it.

I did want to ask you about the 3,000 and see if have done it.

Hunter

p.s. was going to PM you but you don't allow that or emails.

[Hook]

Still looking for that magic incantation using semantic gymnastics that can be used in any court to make the judge and jury do your bidding?

This is all well and good, but like the tax protesters, it ain't gonna get you anywhere in a court of law. In the end, it is the people with the guns that get to interperet the law how they see fit. So you better get some people in those positions that interperet it the way you think is right.

[Mr. White]

Still looking for that magic incantation using semantic gymnastics that can be used in any court to make the judge and jury do your bidding?

This is all well and good, but like the tax protesters, it ain't gonna get you anywhere in a court of law. In the end, it is the people with the guns that get to interperet the law how they see fit. So you better get some people in those positions that interperet it the way you think is right.

Now THAT I'll agree with.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

Still looking for that magic incantation using semantic gymnastics that can be used in any court to make the judge and jury do your bidding?

This is all well and good, but like the tax protesters, it ain't gonna get you anywhere in a court of law. In the end, it is the people with the guns that get to interperet the law how they see fit. So you better get some people in those positions that interperet it the way you think is right.




Now THAT I'll agree with.


That's what the 3,000 $ program does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From what I can tell and from what I know about the Canadian
movement that does this, you get a super education, the documents
to opt out of government/state/city corporations and you get the
verbage to handle yourself properly in court.

It's about opting out of the system so that the courts can't automatically
control you and your every move.

If this is what I think it is, this is your 'magic bullet' if you put the time
and effort into taking the steps.

[Hook]

That's what the 3,000 $ program does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From what I can tell and from what I know about the Canadian
movement that does this, you get a super education, the documents
to opt out of government/state/city corporations and you get the
verbage to handle yourself properly in court.

It's about opting out of the system so that the courts can't automatically
control you and your every move.

If this is what I think it is, this is your 'magic bullet' if you put the time
and effort into taking the steps.

Yes, and when you present your legal theory to the judge, he will rule against you. There is no "silver bullet". It takes hard work and effort to fix the mess we are in.

Sorry.

[Edu]

Yes, and when you present your legal theory to the judge, he will rule against you. There is no "silver bullet". It takes hard work and effort to fix the mess we are in.Not true on the rule against you stuff. If you study this and ACTUALLY DO THIS you will find that they are very nervous and apologize once you set the court properly. When their PERSONAL pocketbook is at stake, they listen up.

I agree that this should not be a sidetrack to hard work in getting RP selected people in high places. But it will give you more power over the officials that think they can just do whatever they want, like as if they own you. It helps put them in their place, what's wrong with that? Grass roots, from the bottom up.

It works. I've seen it. I've been involved in this since the 80's, it wasn't easy back then because information was scattered and people hadn't forged a path like they have now. Yea, denial, disbelief, anger, "it can't be" and all that as you wake up and study this, it's the normal process and some people would rather fall back to a ignorant bliss and whatever is "easy", just sign here please, the government will help you with everything in life.

You have to ask yourself how you are "subject to the jurisdiction", if you like being "subject to", then have a nice life, you aren't a RP supporter that wants REAL liberty and freedom. It's pretty simple, either you are free or you are not (and don't pretend, or bury your head in the sand, that doesn't count).

They have the jails and they have the guns because the People have those powers. RP is all about taking back YOUR lost freedoms and liberty.

Taking back our Sovereignty - that's what it really means, that's the point. You have no freedoms or liberty if they are GRANTED to you by government. You need to be Sovereign, you need to know that you are and why other people are not.

Without jurisdiction and clear delegation of authority public officials are liable PERSONALLY for any acts against a Sovereign. They need to know you are serious. It only took a few people to take them to task on this and now things are a lot easier for the rest. Word spreads quickly when it's their personal $ on the line. Since they don't care about the constitution, or morals, what else do you have to fight them with?

I don't know why anyone is stuck on this $ price, the information is out there for free if you want to piece it together yourself, and I recommend that you study all you can online.

These people are now at the point that they take control of the ENTITY IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS (nicknamed the "strawman"), meaning they now control that ENTITY and it's SS# and can use it in commerce. It can get complicated if you like, but that's how far the government has pushed this thing and these people have figured it out.

If a group has practice sessions with mock court and such, this is good because practice is the best thing you can do. But don't expect that for free. Don't expect anyone with 20+ years of study to take their time and teach you for free. You get what you pay for in a lot of situations.

In high school they taught you this was "the land of the free".

Then you asked and payed the gov for permission to travel on your own roads that you paid for. Were you paying attention in school? Did the school leave a few details out?

Then you asked/contracted the gov to take care of you when you get older because you can't do it yourself. You signed up to have them save money for you because you are irresponsible, not responsible for your own retirement. You told them you were indigent, a ward of the court. Save me government!

NOTICE: This information has been presented for your entertainment. It's not really happening. Go back to sleep.... sleep..... sign here then you can sleep..... submit... work hard.... don't ask questions.... sleep....

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

bump

[Mr. White]

Not true on the rule against you stuff. If you study this and ACTUALLY DO THIS you will find that they are very nervous and apologize once you set the court properly. When their PERSONAL pocketbook is at stake, they listen up.

I agree that this should not be a sidetrack to hard work in getting RP selected people in high places. But it will give you more power over the officials that think they can just do whatever they want, like as if they own you. It helps put them in their place, what's wrong with that? Grass roots, from the bottom up.

It works. I've seen it. I've been involved in this since the 80's, it wasn't easy back then because information was scattered and people hadn't forged a path like they have now. Yea, denial, disbelief, anger, "it can't be" and all that as you wake up and study this, it's the normal process and some people would rather fall back to a ignorant bliss and whatever is "easy", just sign here please, the government will help you with everything in life.

You have to ask yourself how you are "subject to the jurisdiction", if you like being "subject to", then have a nice life, you aren't a RP supporter that wants REAL liberty and freedom. It's pretty simple, either you are free or you are not (and don't pretend, or bury your head in the sand, that doesn't count).

They have the jails and they have the guns because the People have those powers. RP is all about taking back YOUR lost freedoms and liberty.

Taking back our Sovereignty - that's what it really means, that's the point. You have no freedoms or liberty if they are GRANTED to you by government. You need to be Sovereign, you need to know that you are and why other people are not.

Without jurisdiction and clear delegation of authority public officials are liable PERSONALLY for any acts against a Sovereign. They need to know you are serious. It only took a few people to take them to task on this and now things are a lot easier for the rest. Word spreads quickly when it's their personal $ on the line. Since they don't care about the constitution, or morals, what else do you have to fight them with?

I don't know why anyone is stuck on this $ price, the information is out there for free if you want to piece it together yourself, and I recommend that you study all you can online.

These people are now at the point that they take control of the ENTITY IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS (nicknamed the "strawman"), meaning they now control that ENTITY and it's SS# and can use it in commerce. It can get complicated if you like, but that's how far the government has pushed this thing and these people have figured it out.

If a group has practice sessions with mock court and such, this is good because practice is the best thing you can do. But don't expect that for free. Don't expect anyone with 20+ years of study to take their time and teach you for free. You get what you pay for in a lot of situations.

In high school they taught you this was "the land of the free".

Then you asked and payed the gov for permission to travel on your own roads that you paid for. Were you paying attention in school? Did the school leave a few details out?

Then you asked/contracted the gov to take care of you when you get older because you can't do it yourself. You signed up to have them save money for you because you are irresponsible, not responsible for your own retirement. You told them you were indigent, a ward of the court. Save me government!

NOTICE: This information has been presented for your entertainment. It's not really happening. Go back to sleep.... sleep..... sign here then you can sleep..... submit... work hard.... don't ask questions.... sleep....

I visited the board you mentioend for several hours last night EDU, ironically to avoid writing a brief. What I saw was a bunch of intellectual exchanges which ranged from philosophical masturbation to historical rape. Several of the "prominent members" admitted to serving time in prison. Most sounded like crotchety old men. When anyone actually posted a question for clarification, they simply talked in circles and made vague references and refused to post "secrets."

"A friend of a friend found his bond folded into another bond paid for by merril lynch and used montana freemen funny money to pay for it and got out of prison, I certainly won't reveal him here, but member x kknows to whom I refer."

All of them hated lawyers and seemed to despise their presence on their board, but seldom did they actually address the isues which were raised. I understand the hating lawyers part.

The group seemed to thrive on anecodotal evidence and constantly indicated that the absence of a conviction equated to confirmation of their theories. Meanwhile their rhetoric constantly referred back to the Magna Carta and notions of little-letter and ca[pital letter self-sovereignty.

In sum, this stuff is a fantastic intellectual exercise. I'm all for people learning more about our legal system. It appears that they have learned it based on the absence of common-law, sort of an "anti-law" where loop-holes equate to vindication. Points for thinking outside the box, but it looks more like a "last-resort" and motivational self-help for those who feel downtrodden. Philosophically, great. Means of ignoring the government, great, until you break the law.

[soapmistress]

Question:

From the OP:

26 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1.1-1 "Income tax on individuals. (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States . . . The tax imposed is upon taxable income . . ."This Treasury Regulation explains who the income tax applies to. Does it apply to Citizens of the United States of America? No. Just to U.S. citizens, who are corporate employees, and their property.

I understand your point about citizen but how do you get around the part that says or resident? Is it because you are declaring yourself only a resident of your state?

[kigol]

:cool:

[brooklyn]

EDU

would love to know your thoughts on the McWar issue of citizenship.

[torchbearer]

The pirates run the courts. You can be 10000% correct, it matters not... the judge will remind you that he is sworn to uphold the constitution and in the same breathe let you know that what he thinks is the constitution.

[xCakex]

Bump!

[Mr. White]

The pirates run the courts. You can be 10000% correct, it matters not... the judge will remind you that he is sworn to uphold the constitution and in the same breathe let you know that what he thinks is the constitution.

Hopefully (at least) in line with what the Supreme Court thinks is in the Constitution.

What I find interesting is these people start with a philosophy, apply that philosophy to the Constitution and then despise the courts which do the same..

[torchbearer]

Hopefully (at least) in line with what the Supreme Court thinks is in the Constitution.

What I find interesting is these people start with a philosophy, apply that philosophy to the Constitution and then despise the courts which do the same..

I've seen federal judges threaten school board members in very serious manners... judges who are off their rocker insanse.. ie. Judge Melancon.
They are out of control and all have agendas that doesn't seem to fit with the common man.
Your judges may be different, but in Louisiana, only the rich and affluent get the rulings in their favor.

[Mr. White]

I've seen federal judges threaten school board members in very serious manners... judges who are off their rocker insanse.. ie. Judge Melancon.
They are out of control and all have agendas that doesn't seem to fit with the common man.
Your judges may be different, but in Louisiana, only the rich and affluent get the rulings in their favor.

That's a shame, but fabricating intricate patterns of alternative interpretations of 900 years of law is not going to fix the problem. I see now you were simply discussing the injustices caused by human error within our justice system, not saying our entire justice system is literally a fallacy.

[Hook]

A lot of these same kinds of semantic voodoo are used in the tax protester community. In fact, the same legal theories have been tried so many times by so many tax protesters that the courts will now charge you with a frivolous defense if you try to use them. The judge will tell you the legal theory has been disproven many times by case law, and will charge you money for wasting the court's time.

[Mr. White]

A lot of these same kinds of semantic voodoo are used in the tax protester community. In fact, the same legal theories have been tried so many times by so many tax protesters that the courts will now charge you with a frivolous defense if you try to use them. The judge will tell you the legal theory has been disproven many times by case law, and will charge you money for wasting the court's time.

LOL, oh those forums addressed that too. They dismissed it by saying that anytime someone made a motion to dismiss under a lack of jurisdiction as they've described, the judge would dismiss and the case would not be published. From an intellectual standpoint, some of the ideas are interesting, but fail to acknowledge that their philosophy is a contrivance. Russo's delusion about the income tax is only the tip of the iceberg

It's interesting stuff to read, but grounds itself in unproven, suspicious, cobbeled-together rhetoric.

[clintontj72]

Hmmm...interesting...even if there was truth in this...it sounds fraught with peril. Peril...well it would seem even if true...that most judges and people in the legal 'industry' wouldn't have a clue about it. Their ignorance...if truly ignorant...could royally screw you. Haven't read the links, but if even possibly viable...boy...you'd have to be spot on.

[clintontj72]

After thinking on this for a bit...boy does this bring new meaning to 'Corporatism' :(

[Number19]

I've been acquainted with this legal argument for, maybe, ten years, having been introduced by a friend who is very much into it full time with his life style. This individual actually has gotten a law degree, not to practice law as a profession, but to be able to represent himself properly in a court.


You will notice that the 14th Amendment says that the States shall uphold the 'privileges and immunities' of United States citizens. What about their 'rights'? United States citizens, subject to the government, do not have a constitution, or inalienable rights. You cannot get that FROM a government. Property (artificial persons) can only have civil rights, privileges and immunities granted by the government. They are people that have been slightly upgraded from property (slaves) to having the privilege of being a citizen/subject of the United States government. It sounds much nicer! Remember that the amendment says U.S. citizens are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the government. And you just read how far that exclusive jurisdiction extends...

There is currently a case before the Supremes - District of Columbia vs Heller. This is the Second Amendment case, and is the first time the SC has addressed the actual intent and interpretation of the Second Amendment.

To us, it is an open and shut case - the Second Amendment secures our unalienable Right to possess firearms.

If this is decided against the People, pay attention to whether the 14th Amendment plays a role. Even if decided in our favor, pay attention to the dissenting opinions.

[Edu]

Question:

From the OP:

26 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1.1-1 "Income tax on individuals. (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States . . . The tax imposed is upon taxable income . . ."This Treasury Regulation explains who the income tax applies to. Does it apply to Citizens of the United States of America? No. Just to U.S. citizens, who are corporate employees, and their property.

I understand your point about citizen but how do you get around the part that says or resident? Is it because you are declaring yourself only a resident of your state? Ahhh, a good question. When a governmentally created entity, the commercial one, the one IN ALL CAPS, the one that is government property, goes into a state it's in commerce and is only resident (temporary place of abode) in that state and is always in commerce while there, so it's under the interstate commerce clause at all times, and regulated like crazy (and you know how that feels).

Just to describe why they always call it resident. A domicile is a permanent place and probably better description of a typical American home, on the land (not property).

But in the case of "resident of the United States" you have to look at the word "United States" again and remember it means the government, or a government owned area.

In a geographical sense it means the whole country / land mass, and it's just a lawyer trick when they define that one only because it's hardly ever used in that context in the relevant documents. Meaning that it always means the government, so remember that when reading stuff.

So "resident of the United States" to me would mean something temporarily staying in a government owned area, or possibly some governmental commercially created entity floating about the states always in interstate commerce and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the owners and the government that has authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Yup, it's a big huge lawyer trick. Always twisting words. To "turn" "aturn", twist to gain power.

[Mr. White]

Ahhh, a good question. When a governmentally created entity, the commercial one, the one IN ALL CAPS, the one that is government property, goes into a state it's in commerce and is only resident (temporary place of abode) in that state and is always in commerce while there, so it's under the interstate commerce clause at all times, and regulated like crazy (and you know how that feels).

Just to describe why they always call it resident. A domicile is a permanent place and probably better description of a typical American home, on the land (not property).

But in the case of "resident of the United States" you have to look at the word "United States" again and remember it means the government, or a government owned area.

In a geographical sense it means the whole country / land mass, and it's just a lawyer trick when they define that one only because it's hardly ever used in that context in the relevant documents. Meaning that it always means the government, so remember that when reading stuff.

So "resident of the United States" to me would mean something temporarily staying in a government owned area, or possibly some governmental commercially created entity floating about the states always in interstate commerce and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the owners and the government that has authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Yup, it's a big huge lawyer trick. Always twisting words. To "turn" "aturn", twist to gain power.

motivational analysis to live life by - great
legal advice - horrible

[torchbearer]

the key words are "taxable income" what is that?

[Edu]

There is currently a case before the Supremes - District of Columbia vs Heller. This is the Second Amendment case, and is the first time the SC has addressed the actual intent and interpretation of the Second Amendment.The problem here is that DC is the 10 square miles we told them they could do what they want with. It's like it's own country and they have total control over it.

So whatever the decision is, it won't apply to the States at all.

However, the stupid slaves, not understanding that will think it applies to them, just like all the other federal BS, and will happily gift their guns to their god. The government will accept them as a gift and say thank you as they cart you off to the local camp so they can move in the foreigners to your house, the foreigners who have foreclosed on the banks that say YOU are in debt because of their blundering.

OK, that probably goes a little far and some geek here will say that's crazy, whatever.

I hope the judges will state that it only applies in DC, but they will probably leave it open as usual so that the government can gain more power. And the "trusted" MSM will push it like it's the law everywhere.

[Mr. White]

The problem here is that DC is the 10 square miles we told them they could do what they want with. It's like it's own country and they have total control over it.

So whatever the decision is, it won't apply to the States at all.

However, the stupid slaves, not understanding that will think it applies to them, just like all the other federal BS, and will happily gift their guns to their god. The government will accept them as a gift and say thank you as they cart you off to the local camp so they can move in the foreigners to your house, the foreigners who have foreclosed on the banks that say YOU are in debt because of their blundering.

OK, that probably goes a little far and some geek here will say that's crazy, whatever.

I hope the judges will state that it only applies in DC, but they will probably leave it open as usual so that the government can gain more power. And the "trusted" MSM will push it like it's the law everywhere.

Thankfully none of that applies to you because you're outside the system, and therefore have nothing to worry about? This stuff is fascinating, but you're not answering any of my questions.

[Edu]

motivational analysis to live life by - great
legal advice - horribleAren't you even the least bit interested in why the courts are dismissing these things due to lack of jurisdiction? If you believe that everyone is subject just because they are "resident" in a state, then isn't it really, really interesting to someone studying law like you are, when a DA first thing dismisses the charges?

I mean, they have the guy for no license, no plates, no insurance. In your opinion, what happened? Details please, give us some substance instead of lame negative comments.

Do you have access to court cases that have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in situations like this? Maybe you should help the freedom seeking group here by making a list and post it here.

[jmag]

This looks like Keith Anderson's type of stuff - he used to sell an audio series with this type of info. But the government does not care about the truth - they care about their agenda. They raided the organization both in the states and down in Costa Rica if I'm not mistaken, and last I heard Keith is in their custody and this was at least a few years ago. They were providing offshore shelters and apparently getting a significant amount of participation from hopeful citizens.

I mean they even raided the Liberty Dollar, a barter currency - come on - they don't give a *&% about the law. You think you can resend your social security contract/14th amendment slave status and they will leave you alone? If they know about wealth/property moving to you, they are coming for their piece. They only way they won't is if they don't know anything about your affairs.

[Edu]

Thankfully none of that applies to you because you're outside the system, and therefore have nothing to worry about? This stuff is fascinating, but you're not answering any of my questions.DC is not a State. It's not one of the several States of the union. Prove otherwise.

Are you studying law? How many years so far?

[Mr. White]

DC is not a State. It's not one of the several States of the union. Prove otherwise.

Are you studying law? How many years so far?

How does that even apply to what you quoted?

You lamented the fact that us slaves would give up our guns due to the actions of the msm. You prophesized that the SC, in its ruling in Heller, will e intentionally vague and limited, allowing the Federal Govt to gain more power.

I merely stated that as you believe yourself outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, what do you have to fear?

[Mr. White]

Aren't you even the least bit interested in why the courts are dismissing these things due to lack of jurisdiction? If you believe that everyone is subject just because they are "resident" in a state, then isn't it really, really interesting to someone studying law like you are, when a DA first thing dismisses the charges?

I mean, they have the guy for no license, no plates, no insurance. In your opinion, what happened? Details please, give us some substance instead of lame negative comments.

Do you have access to court cases that have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in situations like this? Maybe you should help the freedom seeking group here by making a list and post it here.

I havn't analyzed Heller at all. My negative comments were directed at the hodge-podge of rhetoric levied by the forum you directed me too. Fascinating stuff, but not something I'm going to take at face value.

[Hook]

Aren't you even the least bit interested in why the courts are dismissing these things due to lack of jurisdiction? If you believe that everyone is subject just because they are "resident" in a state, then isn't it really, really interesting to someone studying law like you are, when a DA first thing dismisses the charges?

I mean, they have the guy for no license, no plates, no insurance. In your opinion, what happened? Details please, give us some substance instead of lame negative comments.

Do you have access to court cases that have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in situations like this? Maybe you should help the freedom seeking group here by making a list and post it here.

Since your assertions are quite extraordinary, the burden of proof really should be on you. If you have some court cases that back up your assertions that were not appealed and reversed, I'm sure we would all be interested in them.

[Number19]

The problem here is that DC is the 10 square miles we told them they could do what they want with. It's like it's own country and they have total control over it.

So whatever the decision is, it won't apply to the States at all...

...I hope the judges will state that it only applies in DC...And the "trusted" MSM will push it like it's the law everywhere.Points taken. I find opposition to the 2nd Amendment an intriguing study, particularly whether the 14th Amendment comes into play. The part about the militia being relevant but outdated is fascinating because "they" never address the need for Citizens to safeguard loss of their freedom by their own government. The 14th Amendment is there on the fringes but never mentioned out loud for fear of letting the cat out of the bag.

Today in the Houston Chronicle, it was mentioned that both Clinton and Obama were taking a middle ground, saying they believed the 2nd Amendment preserves an individual right, but one that is subject to government restrictions. Left unasked is: where does the power to restrict Rights come from; and we know the answer is the 14th Amendment.

[Edu]

I havn't analyzed Heller at all. My negative comments were directed at the hodge-podge of rhetoric levied by the forum you directed me too. Fascinating stuff, but not something I'm going to take at face value.Please don't take it at face value. I didn't. I continued studying it instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I just hope other people will spend the time too.

You aren't going to grasp this in a 10 minute look at a few posts.

So you agree then that a ruling for DC doesn't apply to the several States. Good start.

And the "hodge-podge" is the internet. Get used to it. Did you expect perfect steps 1, 2, 3 to being able to drive without a license from a forum? Yea, lots of posts with links pointing to info but sometimes not. That's why people charge a fee to teach people this stuff and put it all in a package when it works. As a future lawyer you will charge people for your knowledge and time studying, and it's not going to be cheap if you are good, and -- you sometimes may be wrong and mislead a client, what's your problem with charging for good info?

If you want to be constructive, fine. But I fear you like antagonizing people way too much and it's a complete waste of my time.

As for my comments about the slaves thinking that something in DC applies to them, well - it's a comment, my opinion. Do I have to indicate that to you with each post? Hell, consider all my posts as my opinion, because they are. What do you think is going to happen? Do you have any facts or experience to back that up? Grain of salt. I'm not buying it. I'm not going to take your opinions at face value. Ever wonder why people get mad at you?

[Edu]

Points taken. I find opposition to the 2nd Amendment an intriguing study, particularly whether the 14th Amendment comes into play. The part about the militia being relevant but outdated is fascinating because "they" never address the need for Citizens to safeguard loss of their freedom by their own government. The 14th Amendment is there on the fringes but never mentioned out loud for fear of letting the cat out of the bag.

Today in the Houston Chronicle, it was mentioned that both Clinton and Obama were taking a middle ground, saying they believed the 2nd Amendment preserves an individual right, but one that is subject to government restrictions. Left unasked is: where does the power to restrict Rights come from; and we know the answer is the 14th Amendment.Well written. It's nice to know someone else out there understands this stuff.

We know they have complete jurisdiction over DC and it's "residents" and since that property can travel outside DC they will bring their law with them as mommy gov watches over them, and well.... we know how that works out. Just hope they rule to uphold the constitution anyway. In a twisted sort of way that is. That ruling is going to take reading three times to get through all the lawyer word twisting tricks and really understand it, what a nightmare.

I forgot to post a good read "The Federal Zone" book. A bit outdated but still good for people just starting (and free).
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

Disclaimer for hard heads: Take it with a grain of salt, not at face value, study please.

[Mr. White]

Well written. It's nice to know someone else out there understands this stuff.

We know they have complete jurisdiction over DC and it's "residents" and since that property can travel outside DC they will bring their law with them as mommy gov watches over them, and well.... we know how that works out. Just hope they rule to uphold the constitution anyway. In a twisted sort of way that is. That ruling is going to take reading three times to get through all the lawyer word twisting tricks and really understand it, what a nightmare.

I forgot to post a good read "The Federal Zone" book. A bit outdated but still good for people just starting (and free).
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/

Disclaimer for hard heads: Take it with a grain of salt, not at face value, study please.

I think part of your problem is the way you communicate ideas. For example, using the terms, sheeple, slaves, etc. discourages your initiates. Since really all your attempting to do is influence the political process, you might try being a little more civil.

[Mr. White]

While we're throwing out work not compiled by ourselves, here's some reading for you:

The income tax cannot apply to natural-born “sovereign state citizens” because they are not “citizens” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
There are actually a number of problems with the concept of “citizens” of the states of the United States who are not “citizens” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. If this tax protester claim were true, then:

The words “citizen of the United States” would have a meaning in the 14th Amendment that is different than the meaning given those same words in other parts of the Constitution.

The words “United States” would have a meaning in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment that is different than the meaning given those words in other parts of the Constitution.

The word “jurisdiction” would have a meaning in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment that is different than the meaning given that word in other parts of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment would extend the power of Congress to legislate for “federal citizens” without regard to the limits on Congressional power found in other parts of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment would have created a new kind of citizenship, and did not merely extend the existing definition of “citizen” to include former slaves as well as whites.

The 14th Amendment would not mean what it says, and would not apply to “all persons.”

The power of Congress to tax would limited by citizenship, and Congress would not be able to tax immigrants or foreigners who are within the United States but not citizens of the United States.

All of the above statements are wrong, but for the purpose of this FAQ the last fallacy is the most important, because there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the power of Congress to tax only citizens, however defined. The power to tax that is given to Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, and by the 16th Amendment, is not limited to the taxation of citizens, whether “sovereign state citizens,” “14th Amendment citizens,” or any other type of citizen. The power to tax applies to all residents of the United States whether or not they are citizens, as well as to all income earned within the United States whether or not the income is earned by residents or non-residents. (The income tax also applies to citizens of the United States living in other countries, but that is another issue. Cf., Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).) Therefore, even if the claim of two types of citizenship were correct (which is a big “if”), the claim is still irrelevant to the federal income tax because Congress can tax noncitizens as well as citizens.

As explained above, tax protesters often have trouble with the concept of the concurrent sovereignty of the federal government with the states. For that reason, tax protesters often fail to understand that our Constitution recognizes state and federal citizenship as two different relationships, with the rights and obligations of state citizenship being separate from the rights and obligations of federal citizenship. However, the Supreme Court has clearly recognized the reality of concurrent citizenship, referring to “a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).

Before the 14th Amendment, it was not clear how citizenship was determined. This uncertainty culminated in the infamous Dred Scott decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), in which it was held that, because slaves (and even former slaves) were not considered citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, they could never be considered citizens (or even persons) under the Constitution, regardless of any state law or federal statute to the contrary. Following the Civil War, this ruling was reversed by the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

This history was summarized by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:

“The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a definition of citizenship--not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled; and if it was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen, were still, not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.

“To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

“‘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 in which they reside.’

“The first observation we have to make of this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we state to have been the subject of differences of opinions. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”
The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1873), (emphasis in original).

Following the plain words of the 14th Amendment and the decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the federal courts have consistently ruled that all persons born within the United States are citizens of the United States, and state citizenship follows from federal citizenship.

“By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; ... and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.”
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427, n. 3 (1935), quoting the opinion of Judge Woods in United States v. Hall, 26 Fed.Cas. No. 15,282, page 79, 81.

So the Supreme Court has held that a state cannot deny rights of state citizenship to a citizen of the United States who resides within that state. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970).

The principle was more recently expressed as follows:

“Citizens of the United States, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose to be citizens ‘of the States wherein they reside.’ U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, section 1. The States, however, do not have any right to select their citizens.”
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), aff’g 134 F.3d 1400.

One Circuit Court of Appeals has put it this way:

“Relying on this Supreme Court authority, circuit and district courts have treated the question before us today as one long decided: ‘[I]n order to be a citizen of a state, it is elementary law that one must first be a citizen of the United States.’”
Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090-1091 (9th Cir. 1983), (citations omitted).

Tax protesters (and white supremacists) argue that the phrase “all persons” does not mean all persons, but only refers to former slaves (i.e., blacks), because the purpose of the amendment was to grant rights of citizenship to blacks and whites were already citizens. Even assuming that it is possible to conclude that the amendment does not mean what it says, it cannot be concluded that the amendment only applies to blacks if the effect would be to treat blacks differently than whites. The purpose of the amendment was to give blacks the same rights of citizenship as whites. That purpose would be defeated if blacks were to enjoy a form of citizenship that is somehow different than the citizenship enjoyed by whites.

Tax protesters (and white supremacists) also argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes those born within the states of the United States because only those born in the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the federal government. This is completely wrong, on several grounds:

The Supreme Court has plainly stated that “The phrase ’subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 678-688 (1898).

The phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had previously been used in Supreme Court opinions to include the states of the United States (e.g., The Exchange,), and similar language had been included in naturalization acts of Congress that were clearly intended to operate within the states of the United States. The Supreme Court has therefore concluded that “It is impossible ... to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the states of the Union are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1898).

Those born within the states of the United States are within the “jurisdiction” of the United States as that word is used within other clauses of the Constitution, including the reach of the judicial power of the United States in Article III. As explained above, the laws of the United States enacted by Congress under the Constitution of the United States are the “Supreme Law of the Land” and so all of the residents of all of the states of the United States are within the “jurisdiction” of the United States.

It has been uniformly held that the possessions (territories) of the United States are not within the meaning “United States” as used in the Constitution, and so persons born in territories of the United States are not citizens of the United States under the 14th Amendment. So, the Ninth Circuit has held that “birth in the Philippines during the territorial period does not constitute birth ‘in the United States’ under the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus does not give rise to United States citizenship.” Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994). See also, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 250, 251 (“[I]t can nowhere be inferred that the territories were considered a part of the United States.”) (Notice that this is the exact opposite of what most tax protesters claim. They believe that “United States” in the 14th Amendment means the territories of the United States and not the states, but the courts have ruled the opposite, and denied U.S. citizenship to someone born in a territory of the United States.)

If the 14th Amendment did not apply to those born within the states, it would not apply to most former slaves (born in the Southern states), which would defeat the entire admitted purpose of the amendment.

So, what have the federal courts said about the claim that a person born in a state of the United States is not a “citizen of the United States” and is not subject to the federal income tax?

“Also basic to Mr. Sloan’ “freedom from income tax theory” is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a “master”--not “servant”--of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. “All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages,” regardless of whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. Lovell [v. United States], 755 F.2d [517] at 519 [7th Cir. 1984]; cf. [United States v.] Studley, 783 F.2d [934] at 937 [9th Cir. 1986] (Studley’ argument that “she is not a ‘taxpayer’ because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous. An individual is a ‘person’ under the Internal Revenue Code.”). Moreover, the tax code imposes a “direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves,” such as postal offices and Indian reservations. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916)). Mr. Sloan’ proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong.”
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

“And, finally, we reject appellants’ contention that they are not citizens of the United States, but rather “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota” and, consequently, not subject to taxation. See United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 587-88 (8th Cir.1991) (rejecting similar argument as “absurd”).”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).

“Appellant challenges the district court’ jurisdiction by contending that because he is a state citizen, the United States government lacks the constitutional authority both to subject him to federal tax laws and to prosecute him for failing to comply with those laws. Citing to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), appellant argues that as a white, natural born, state citizen, he is not subject to the taxing power of Congress. This argument is completely without merit. As this court has made clear in the past, claims that a particular person is ‘not a [federal] taxpayer because [he or] she is an absolute, free-born and natural individual’ constitutionally immune to federal laws is frivolous and, in civil cases, can serve as the basis for sanctions. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937, n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986).”
United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1990).

To the extent the Monfortons contend that as ‘Sovereign State Citizens of Washington States’ they are not subject to federal income tax, this contention is frivolous.”
Monforton v. United States, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, KTC 1995-354, n. 2, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished).

“The Epperlys next argue that since they are ‘American Inhabitants’ who possess sovereign powers and immunities, they are properly classified under the tax code as ‘nonresident aliens’ and are not subject to taxation by the federal government. Such an argument is frivolous.”
Epperly v. United States, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32286 (9th Cir. 1992), (unpublished).

“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals (“free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law `de jure’ citizens of a state, etc.”) are not “persons” subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue code; ....”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

“Plaintiff claims that he is a nonresident alien or ‘foreign individual of America’ in relation to the United States, and that his residence and citizenship rest solely with the States of Washington, ‘a free, independent, sovereign, territory’ with ‘coequal authority with the other compact states of America.’ ... Despite plaintiff’ creative argument, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that the state of Washington is one of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America, entering the Union in 1889 as the forty-second state. [Citations omitted.] The Fourteenth Amendment states 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.’ U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, section 1. Plaintiff, therefore, along with being a citizen of the state of Washington, is a United States citizen because he was born in Washington State to parents who were United States citizens. ... As a United States citizen, plaintiff is required to pay federal income tax.”
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998)

See also, United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nelson (In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992).

[Number19]

I think part of your problem is the way you communicate ideas. For example, using the terms, sheeple, slaves, etc. discourages your initiates. Since really all your attempting to do is influence the political process, you might try being a little more civil.You think this counter-productive? Just start a conversation on the need to repeal the 14th Amendment.

[Mr. White]

You think this counter-productive? Just start a conversation on the need to repeal the 14th Amendment.

I don't see a need to repeal the 14th amendment, I DO see aneed to amend the commerce clause and address all SC cases which stemmed from it.

[Number19]

I don't see a need to repeal the 14th amendment, I DO see aneed to amend the commerce clause and address all SC cases which stemmed from it.Article 1 states that a certain class of citizen are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - are subservient to the government - and you have no problem with this? Explain? Do you, by the way, recognize that there is another class of citizen where the government is subservient to the People. And you are OK with us having a society where we have two classes of citizens which would be unequal in a court of law?

[Paul Revered]

I posted the original post on MySpace. Thank you for the source.

[Mr. White]

Article 1 states that a certain class of citizen are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - are subservient to the government - and you have no problem with this? Explain? Do you, by the way, recognize that there is another class of citizen where the government is subservient to the People. And you are OK with us having a society where we have two classes of citizens which would be unequal in a court of law?

I'd be concerned if your statements were correct, I have yet to see any indication that they are.

[Mr. White]

Please don't take it at face value. I didn't. I continued studying it instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I just hope other people will spend the time too.

You aren't going to grasp this in a 10 minute look at a few posts.

So you agree then that a ruling for DC doesn't apply to the several States. Good start.

And the "hodge-podge" is the internet. Get used to it. Did you expect perfect steps 1, 2, 3 to being able to drive without a license from a forum? Yea, lots of posts with links pointing to info but sometimes not. That's why people charge a fee to teach people this stuff and put it all in a package when it works. As a future lawyer you will charge people for your knowledge and time studying, and it's not going to be cheap if you are good, and -- you sometimes may be wrong and mislead a client, what's your problem with charging for good info?

If you want to be constructive, fine. But I fear you like antagonizing people way too much and it's a complete waste of my time.

As for my comments about the slaves thinking that something in DC applies to them, well - it's a comment, my opinion. Do I have to indicate that to you with each post? Hell, consider all my posts as my opinion, because they are. What do you think is going to happen? Do you have any facts or experience to back that up? Grain of salt. I'm not buying it. I'm not going to take your opinions at face value. Ever wonder why people get mad at you?

I owe you an apology, I was deriving great pleasure from antagonizing those who watch freedom to fascism and think they know what they're talking about. It seems you have spent much more of your time researching the subject. I enjoy the reasonably civil discourse we have been having in the fast few posts.

I do not concede that a Ruling in DC has no bearing on the states. I was simply pointing out your concern over a DC ruling when you claim it doesn't affect you. It appears I misinterpreted.

To clarify your position, is it fair to say that you fear the excessive power the Federal Government will claim it received from a collective ruling and you fear the actions of your countrymen, responding to erroneous interpretations by the msm but you do not fear the (as you perceive them) legal ramfications of such a ruling because you feel they do not apply to you?

[Edu]

To clarify your position, is it fair to say that you fear the excessive power the Federal Government will claim it received from a collective ruling and you fear the actions of your countrymen, responding to erroneous interpretations by the msm but you do not fear the (as you perceive them) legal ramfications of such a ruling because you feel they do not apply to you?When the general public, the large group does stupid things, yes it effects everyone.

As for your posting of a bunch of cases, now I see why you like this 14th amendment stuff, that totally twisted everything around and now everyone is a slave to the government, no choice, you are screwed so give up now. I say slave because "subject" just doesn't get the point across. So that's it. America is not a land of the free anymore and everyone should just submit and give up. Does this somehow make you money or something?

Like Number19, I don't understand why this is OK with you.

Now, one thing you could try is taking some of those cases and tell me what the word "United States" means in each instance. I know it's a lot of work but lets see what happens just for fun and you may see all the twisting going on. I mean try to quote the actual words the courts use, not what this guy says his conclusions are. I will give an example.

The power to tax applies to all residents of the United States [gov] whether or not they are citizens, as well as to all income earned within the United States [gov] (but I think this example was some guy's conclusion, I'm not sure)

[gov] being the government or a government owned area.
[country] would be good for when (if ever) they are talking about the geographical whole country.

Also, watch out for "state" vs. State. The government can have subdivisions, and those can be called "states", and could exist for interstate commerce. People call it a floating fiction. It's all on paper.

state [sub] is a subdivision of the [gov]

Try it and see how you do. You can see how even judges can get confused about this.

Let's screw things up just for fun, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States [country] and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States [country] and of the state [real State] wherein they reside".

I mean, that's not right. You can't be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the whole country, geographically can you? And what citizenship are you at that point? If you are a citizen of (of means belonging to, owned) the whole geographic country why not just stop there? Why also be a citizen owned by the "state" too?

It's because the "state" they are talking about is a subdivision of the United States [gov], so it just makes sense and of course you are owned by the subdivision of the same thing you are owned by in the first place, the U.S. [gov].

So if you are born or naturalized in the United States [gov] (governmental area), you are owned by them and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (US [gov] style jurisdiction) and also would be owned the same way by a state [sub].

Any way you look at it those people are then a slave (subject) owned by the [gov]. Doesn't sound like America, land of the free to me. No wonder they don't want people to make sense of this, they would revolt in a hot second.

It even sucks worse, the [gov] granted this citizenship, blessed people with it, created it out of thin air. When there was already a better "citizenship" already available. Real stupid to accept something you don't need.

Get it now? Read it twice if you don't.

[clintontj72]

Don't stop now Mr. White, Edu, and 19...I'm really enjoying this intellectual exercise. You all are going more and more in depth and keeping it a very civil discourse...very refreshing...thank you...more please! :D

[Number19]

Don't stop now Mr. White, Edu, and 19...I'm really enjoying this intellectual exercise. You all are going more and more in depth and keeping it a very civil discourse...very refreshing...thank you...more please! :DUnfortunately, I understand just enough to understand that I understand too little. One thing I've had to learn is that law is very precise - and Webster's in no good. Law has it's own dictionary - Black's - and not just any edition. Legalese has changed through the editions and it is sometimes critical that you refer to the one in print at the time of writing. There's an old saying : follow the money. Well, in law its : follow the definitions. It can be an eye opening experience when you start to patiently wade through the wording of statutes and how inappropriately it seems the law is rendered.

[Mr. White]

Unfortunately, I understand just enough to understand that I understand too little. One thing I've had to learn is that law is very precise - and Webster's in no good. Law has it's own dictionary - Black's - and not just any edition. Legalese has changed through the editions and it is sometimes critical that you refer to the one in print at the time of writing. There's an old saying : follow the money. Well, in law its : follow the definitions. It can be an eye opening experience when you start to patiently wade through the wording of statutes and how inappropriately it seems the law is rendered.

What we're progressing through is osmething very typical of a tax protestor discussion. The Protestor will make references to something dubious, connect this to something else and then draw false conclusions. The premise of the main argument will then be taken for granted by the tax protestor. When I refute the premise, the tax protestor will then move up the chain to the next nonsense argument they have.

Conclusory statements will be made unsupported by any evidence. The tax protestor will direct me to read something, but not state specifically what and then state that I must side with the tax protestor or I simply am not reading things correctly. The giveaway is always the tax protector's fuzzy logic. The fuzzy logic will be backed up by an unsupported statement, an emotional or moral plea, or followed by a simple, correct statement in an attempt to connect the dubious with the true.

For an example, look at this argument just made by Edu

When the general public, the large group does stupid things, yes it effects everyone.

As for your posting of a bunch of cases, now I see why you like this 14th amendment stuff, that totally twisted everything around and now everyone is a slave to the government, no choice, you are screwed so give up now. I say slave because "subject" just doesn't get the point across. So that's it. America is not a land of the free anymore and everyone should just submit and give up. Does this somehow make you money or something?

Like Number19, I don't understand why this is OK with you.


Notice there how he starts off making a very broad, unsupported, obviously negative statement and then connects me to it. He equates "subject to" with slavery and this is the characterization the rest of his argument will take.



Now, one thing you could try is taking some of those cases and tell me what the word "United States" means in each instance. I know it's a lot of work but lets see what happens just for fun and you may see all the twisting going on. I mean try to quote the actual words the courts use, not what this guy says his conclusions are. I will give an example.

The power to tax applies to all residents of the United States [gov] whether or not they are citizens, as well as to all income earned within the United States [gov] (but I think this example was some guy's conclusion, I'm not sure)

[gov] being the government or a government owned area.
[country] would be good for when (if ever) they are talking about the geographical whole country.

Notice I am to do the work, he specifies no case, makes marginally unconnected and incoherent statements. His [bracketed] interpretations of his uncited statements are dubious


Also, watch out for "state" vs. State. The government can have subdivisions, and those can be called "states", and could exist for interstate commerce. People call it a floating fiction. It's all on paper.

state [sub] is a subdivision of the [gov]

Try it and see how you do. You can see how even judges can get confused about this.

Dubious statements unsupported by cases. Again, I am to do the work, but am assured that even the judges get confused.


Let's screw things up just for fun, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States [country] and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States [country] and of the state [real State] wherein they reside".

I mean, that's not right. You can't be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the whole country, geographically can you? And what citizenship are you at that point? If you are a citizen of (of means belonging to, owned) the whole geographic country why not just stop there? Why also be a citizen owned by the "state" too?

I'm not quite sure what he's screwing up for fun. He makes a statement. He then makes an unfounded conclusion that "that's not right" He then introduces his concept that being a citizen means you belong to and are owned. Note he has also made some seperation between the whole geographic country in this paragraph and the one before where it is merely country. No explanation, just another bit of unsupported rhetoric.


It's because the "state" they are talking about is a subdivision of the United States [gov], so it just makes sense and of course you are owned by the subdivision of the same thing you are owned by in the first place, the U.S. [gov].

He then answers his own question with a dubious statement supported by "it just makes sense and of course..." Note that all of these statements and presumptions have had no basis in anything thus far.


So if you are born or naturalized in the United States [gov] (governmental area), you are owned by them and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (US [gov] style jurisdiction) and also would be owned the same way by a state [sub].

This statement is relatively correct, but given the destruction of language up to this point, let's tread cautiously. If he is saying that a citizen of the United States of America in a state is subjuct to that state's jurisdiction as well as the Federal Government's jurisdiction, he is correct. It's completely unclear if that is what he is saying due to the incoherence of his prior statements.


Any way you look at it those people are then a slave (subject) owned by the [gov]. Doesn't sound like America, land of the free to me. No wonder they don't want people to make sense of this, they would revolt in a hot second.

It even sucks worse, the [gov] granted this citizenship, blessed people with it, created it out of thin air. When there was already a better "citizenship" already available. Real stupid to accept something you don't need.

And here is the dubious conclusion. Note the plea to emotion: "we are now slaves, this doesn't sound like America land of the free. " Note the sinister unidentified "they" who are perpetuating this.


Get it now? Read it twice if you don't.

Now the assurrance that he is correct, and if I don't understand I must merely read again because certainly the information is clearly there.