Restore The Constitution

I am glad the discussion of the U.S. constitution is finally swinging back to states rights and hopefully later for inhabitants.
The law works as such, the oldest law prevails. Later amendments can never abrogate the intent of earlier documents, they harmonize with them. Rights are unalienable, they cannot be taken away by the states or the federal government. They are self-evident and god-given, America founded by protestants incorporated the idea of Martin Luther that there is no higher law than one’s own conscience. Privileges are state granted and hence revoke-able; they are contingent on receiving a privilege from the state. An example would be a postal worker, he is granted a job by the federal government and as such is under the rules of that institution. The federal government operates under Roman-Civil law or Admiralty- the laws of seizure. The states are supposed to operate under the common law. The U.S. constitution is grounded in the common law. The UNITED STATES is only the territories of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, ect. The laws written by congress only apply to their jurisdiction, yes this includes tax laws.
The problem herein lies with the 14th amendment. After the Civil War, the supreme court interpreted the meaning of persons as corporations. Persons at that time were only slaves. The 14th amendment did not restrict any of the rights of inhabitants, it could not it would have been struck down as unconstitutional. What it did do was create a secondary class of citizenship known as a UNITED STATES CITIZEN. It was a privilege granted to blacks, that was revoke-able, it established a power base for the Whigs/Republican party after the Civil War. There was no new power granted to restrict the rights of inhabitants, it just transferred ownership of the slaves to the federal government,.. war booty.
1933 rolls around and the U.S. Government is declared bankrupt, the gold standard is removed and the free Americans become debtors, slaves again.The power to regulate persons hangs on a small thread known as the interstate commerce clause; the ability to regulate trade between the sovereign nation-states. Eventually the UCC is constructed regulating the privileges of persons but still not inhabitants. The unrestricted right to travel becomes a privilege. Alloidal titles- the rights to the land are removed and one begins to pay property tax to the state for the use of their land. However all statutory law has been harmonized with the U.S. Constitution by providing a remedy and recourse, in other words it is voluntary. An inhabitant with knowledge of the law can remove himself from statutory regulation. An inhabitant is still not subject to the laws of the UNITED STATES, he/she is sovereign and is the source of all power of the State.

“Without Prejudice”
Inhabitant

Kevin C. Kevin@uscivilflags.org

P.S. I will close with a quote from Justice Scalia from Yahoo. I normally would never agree with him but here me makes some sense.

“If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us,” he said, explaining that’s why senators increasingly probe nominees for their personal views on positions such as abortion.
“When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless,” Scalia said.

Most of the federal statute laws do not apply to Citizens of a state. If the authority for the statute can be found in the organic Constitution, then the statute is of a National character, as it applies to both state Citizens and aliens.

“Upon introducing the provisions which eventually became 18 U.S.C. 242, its sponsor, Senator Stewart, explicitly stated that the bill protected all ‘persons’… He noted that the bill ’simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protection of our laws’.” United States v. Otherson, 480 F.Supp. 1369, 1373 (1979). What could this mean? Well, it implies that Citizens of a state already had the protections introduced by this statute, but it extended to foreigners this protection also. What is a “foreigner” if they are not also an “alien”?

Privileges granted by the sovereign (governments) in their capacity to license (condone) what might otherwise be illegal are always taxable and regulatable. Rights such as those envisioned by the founding fathers are not taxable or regulatable because they are exercises of the common right that could be completely destroyed by government through taxation and/or regulation. These are maxims of law so well established that they are irrefutable. For example, look to Frost & Frost Trucking v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U.S. 583, 70 L.Ed. 1101 (1925).

Now, in 1868, we have a class of citizenship created [14th Amendment] which is “subject” by grant of privilege from a sovereign power [federal Congress] exercising exclusive authority to govern its territory under Article I, sect. 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution. Federal citizens are created by Congress. It is self-evident that all state Citizens are created equal; that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain inalienable rights, and that governments are instituted to secure these rights.

It is also a self-evident truth that the sovereign creator can never create an entity (government) and assign it more power than what the creator possesses to begin with. Further, the Constitution for the United States of America did not repeal the Articles of Confederation, it was only intended “to make a more perfect union.” Therefore, it logically follows that the creator did not purposely intend to alter their status as MASTER to accept a role as SERVANT to its own creation. This is plainly shown throughout the Constitution, but especially set forth in the Tenth Amendment. (cf. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958))

“The right to tax and regulate the national citizenship is an inherent right under the rule of the Law of Nations, which is part of the law of the United States, as described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.” The Luisitania, 251 F.715, 732. And, “This jurisdiction extends to citizens of the United States, wherever resident, for the exercise of the privileges and immunities and protections of [federal] citizenship.” Cook v. Tait, (1924) 265 U.S. 37,44 S.Ct 447, 11 Virginia Law Review, 607.”

The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment.” West v. Louisianna, 194 U.S. 258.

The privileges and immunities [civil rights] of the 14th Amendment citizens were derived [taken] from….the Constitution, but are not identical to those referred to in Article IV, sect. 2 of the Constitution [which recognizes the existence of state Citizens who were not citizens of the United States because there was no such animal in 1787]. Plainly spoken, RIGHTS considered to be grants from our creator are clearly different from the “civil rights” that were granted by Congress to its own brand of franchised citizen in the 14th Amendment.

The origin of the federal citizen

So far I have not given any proof that the government actually recognizes two distinct classes of citizens. I will give that evidence now by describing the 13th and 14th Amendments.

In 1865, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. The Supreme Court ruled that the 13th Amendment operated to free former slaves and prohibit slavery, but it in no way conferred citizenship to the former slaves, or to those of races other than white, because the founders of the Constitution were all of the white race.

The federal government did not have the authority to determine if former slaves could become a Citizen of one of the several states because the 9th and 10th Amendments said that powers not granted specifically to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the People. History shows that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and New York State were nationalizing blacks as State Citizens. In other states blacks were not Citizens and therefore did not have standing in any court. The answer to this problem was the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment used the term “citizen of the United States.” The courts have ruled that this means federal citizenship which is similar to a citizen of the District of Columbia. Since the federal government didn’t step in and tell Pennsylvania or New York that it couldn’t make State Citizens out of former black slaves, an argument could be made that the 14th Amendment was written primarily to afford [voluntary] citizenship to those of the black race that were recently freed by the 13th Amendment (Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71), and did not include Indians and others NOT born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (McKay v. Cambell, 2 Sawy. 129), Thus, the Amendment recognized that “an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several States without being a citizen of the United States,” (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, “a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a State.” (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875)).

To restate: In the Slaughter-House Cases, supra the Court said: “It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances of the individual. . . . Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state, and what they respectfully are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.”

The court has also ruled that “The term United States is a metaphor [a figure of speech]”. Cunard S.S Co. V. Mellon, 262 US 100, 122; and that “The term ‘United States’ may be used in one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of sovereign in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be a collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652, 672-73.

Did the Courts really say that someone could be a Citizen of a State without being a citizen of the United States? Yes, they did. It’s true that the cases cited above are old, some over 100 years old. None of these cases have ever been overturned by a more recent decision, so they are valid. A more recent case is Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966) which says: “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Citing U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra.

The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that there are different classes of citizens. It is up to you dispute this. “Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability.” U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).

In 1866, Congress passed the first civil rights act which only applied to the District of Columbia and other federal territories. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed to be passed. At this point the number of subjects that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over increased to all of the former slaves that had not become state Citizens.

There are many reasons why I do not like the 14th Amendment. The first is that is was never ratified!

“I cannot believe that any court in full possession of all its faculties, would ever rule that the (14th) Amendment was properly approved and adopted.” State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936; Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266. (The court in this case was the Utah Supreme Court.)

Further, in 1967, Congress tried to repeal the 14th Amendment on the ground that it is invalid, void, and unconstitutional. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE, June 13, 1967, pg. 15641. The nine pages of argument that are recorded here detail the infirmities that prove that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, and thus is no law!

The 14th Amendment reads in pertinent part, “All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside….The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.”

There is a wealth of deception in the above wording, because of sheer number of words that have specific or multiple meanings in law depending upon how they are used.

Go the part “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The word the is used in a singular form, not the plural, as is the word jurisdiction. If Congress meant the several States, rather that the District of Columbia, it would have been more correct to say “and subject to their jurisdictions.”

In addition, a new pecking order is established with the phrase. “are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

If you research the terms “resident” and “legal residence”, you find that it is the nexus that binds us all to the State and federal enforcement of commercial law statutes today. “Resident” is the short form of “Resident Alien” and is used in State statutes to mean someone who exhibits actual presence in an area belonging to one nation while retaining a domicile/citizenship status within another foreign nation [The United States/District of Columbia]. The term “legal residence” further indicates that these two terms may be applied either to a geographical jurisdiction, or, a political jurisdiction. An individual may reside in one or the other, or in both at the same time. In California, Government Code, section 126, sets forth the essential elements of a compact between this State and the federal government allowing reciprocal taxation of certain entities, and provide for concurrent jurisdiction within geographical boundaries.

Both state Citizens and federal citizens are Americans. US citizens are “domiciled” in the District of Columbia and are privileged alien to the state wherein the reside and state Citizens are domiciled in their state and not aliens in their state. They also do not reside in their state; they are Citizens of the state. The distinction may seem insignificant to you but it is not to the court. A state Citizen has the right to travel in each of the 50 states. He/she can file papers at any county courthouse in any state and become a Citizen of that state.

To show how the government uses common English words in such a way that they have meanings that are different from what you might think, I will show how the word ’state’ is redefined. In the IRS code, it says you are subject to the income tax if you live in: one of the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Quam, or the northern Marranara Islands. From this definition it sounds as if I need to pay income tax. But, if you look at how the IRS defines the word state you probably will be confused. In the definition of the word state, it uses the word state. If you check this definition in years back you will see it has been modified several times. Before Alaska was admitted into the Union, it was in this list of states. After it became one of the states of the Union, it was not listed in the IRS definition of a state. The same thing happened to Hawaii. What does this mean? The definition that is used in the IRS code for the word state, is not a state like Texas but a state like Quam, that is a federal territory. The Federal Zone is a book listed in the other source’s section of this paper describes this and other words that have specific legal definitions that are, sometimes, the opposite of the common definition.

So far I have stated some unconventional ideas. To substantiate them I will cite standing decisions made by the courts and statutes passed by Congress. Unless the decision or statute is in quotation marks, it has been paraphrased. Please look up the decision or statutes to verify my paraphrase. At the end of this paper, I will give the names of books and publications that give more information on the subject. One of the books will teach you how to find and understand the law.

“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89.

“At the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves: the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm Exp v. Georgia (US) 2 Dale 419, 454; I L Ed 440, 445 @DALL 1793 pp 471-472.

“as general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1925), 71 C.A. 386, 235 P. 664.

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” In re Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287; 20 C.J.S., Section 1785. Title 28, United States Code, Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being “freely associated compact states” in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact states as being “countries” in subsection(b). Did you know that the individual states were considered to be foreign countries to the United States and to each other?

In 1818, the Supreme Court stated that “In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.” U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 WHEAT) 336 (1818), reaff. 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401(h).

When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, it is important to remember that it has full authority to enact legislation as private acts pertaining to its boundaries, and it is not a state of the union of States because it exists solely by virtue of the compact/constitution that created it. The constitution does not say that the District of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form of Government to its own subject citizens within its territories. (See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 US. 445(1805); Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass’n., 55 F. Supp., 925 (1944); Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (1966), among others).

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.

The Constitution provides limited powers to federal government over the state Citizens. The federal government has unlimited powers over federal citizens because it is acting outside of the Constitution. Administrative laws are private acts and are not applicable to state Citizens. The Internal Revenue Code is administrative law.

“We are a republic. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.” - Alexander Hamilton.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth is one of the “several states” described in the Constitution. The “several states” were severed from each other. The law treats the several states as independent countries. The Buck Act in 1940 created federal areas inside the states. If you live in a federal area, you are subject to federal territorial laws and the municipal laws of the District of Columbia. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is internal to the District of Columbia. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth is not part of the District of Columbia, but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is. PA is the name that the post office recognizes for mail sent into the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is a federal area. Pa., Penna., and Pennsylvania are the names that the post office uses for mail sent into the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, which is not a federal area. If I accept mail sent to PA, I am saying that I live in part of the District of Columbia. The same situation exists in the other states.

Your ZIP Code determines which ZIP Code region you live in. ZIP Code regions are federal areas. The IRS has adopted the ZIP Code regions as IRS regions. If you accept mail that has a ZIP Code on it, you are in a federal territory and thus subject to the IRS and all other municipal laws of the District of Columbia.

I find the most offensive trick to get me to lose my sovereignty was that if I do not protest using the only legal tender in America, the Federal Reserve Notes (FRN), also know as U.S. Dollars, I am receiving a benefit. This is a complicated trick that I will explain in detail later.

Of course there are many other benefits that many people use that the sovereigns cannot. Among these are Social Security checks, welfare checks, food stamps, federally insured bank accounts, Medicaid, Medicare, and sending children to publicly funded schools.

I am not trying to get everybody to give up government benefits. If you wish to support and be supported by the federal government, much like people in other countries do, then by all means, go ahead and do so. But, if you wish to be a sovereign protected by the Bill of Rights and not pay many of the taxes that you are paying now but also not receive benefits, then there is an alternative. It is not an easy alternative. The law makers want control over you. They have made the legal system complex. It takes years for attorneys to learn the language and procedures of our legal system. Fortunately you do not need to know everything an attorney needs to know. You do need to have a basic understanding of how our legal system works. You may be surprised that it bears little resemblance to television courtroom dramas.

I also must warn you that reclaiming your state Citizenship status may have negative effects on your life. Besides the lack of benefits, such as unemployment checks, you are treated more harshly if you get convicted of a common law crime if you are a state Citizen. If you get convicted of rape and you are a federal citizen, you may get five years in an air conditioned prison with cable TV and three meals a day. If a state Citizen gets convicted, by a common law jury, of rape, he could be put to death.

All of the information describing how the United States really works and how it is supposed to work was so spread out that few people could see the big picture. The communication revolution has changed this. Computer bulletin boards across the country provided a means to share research. Tax protesters, ranchers, religious people, historians, gun owners, and others have all found pieces of the puzzle. Perhaps there are more pieces to find.

These researchers started on different legal threads. They followed and untangled the threads until they reached the source; The Constitution for the United States of America. The surprising thing is that the researchers did not know about each other but they each came to similar conclusions. Some of the minor details are being debated by researchers. The overall conclusions are described in this paper. Some of their research is not described here. The longer this paper is, the more unlikely it is that people unfamiliar with this subject will even attempt to read it.

If every Citizen in the colonies became a sovereign, how could any Citizen lose their sovereignty? The Citizens of each of the several states in the Union were sovereigns. But the people in a territory or in the District of Columbia were not because the territories and the District of Columbia were not in the Union. Congress had/has exclusive legislative control over these areas. The states were governed by a “constitutional republic” while the territories were ruled by a “legislative democracy”. In a legislative democracy the citizens have no rights except what Congress gives them. In the constitutional republics, the Citizens have rights given to them by their Creator and Congress is the Citizens servant. This is why Citizens, having left a state to buy or conquer land from the native Americans, would apply for statehood as soon as possible.

How is it that someone who was born in and has lived in a state all his/her life can be treated like a citizen of the District of Columbia? There has been a series of steps that Congress has made to convert the state Citizens into federal citizens. Over the years, our laws have been made unreadable by the average intelligent person. The 14th Amendment was illegally passed creating a federal citizen who can not question the federal debt. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 turned over our money to a private banking cartel. Social Security created Social Security Districts (or territories) in which people with SSN lived. The Buck Act created federal areas inside the states. Let’s describe each of these steps in detail.

Reasons I believe this

To show that Congress has made the laws unreadable by the average person, an objective method of measuring the readability of English text must be discussed. English scholars use a scale known as the “Flesch Index” that measures the level of understanding necessary for an individual to comprehend the written English language. Newspapers are written at an average comprehension level of 7. The average high school graduate reads and understands at a level of 10. The average law school graduate reads and comprehends at a level of 15. The Internal Revenue Code ranks on this index at an average level of 31, with some specific provisions as high as 55. And the words that are used in the law have specific legal definitions that are different from the common English definitions. If the laws that we are supposed to obey are written at a level that an individual of reasonable intelligence cannot understand then perhaps we should be highly suspect of the law writer’s motives. My word processor’s grammar checker tells me that this paper is written at level 11.5. People in this country cannot understand at this level. How many people have the time, energy, and ability to go into a law library and piece this together? By making the law so difficult to read, Congress has effectively removed our access to it.

In December 1921, the American industrialist Henry Ford and the inventor Thomas Edison visited the Muscle Shoals nitrate and water power projects near Florence, Alabama. They used the opportunity to articulate at length upon their alternative money theories, which were published in 2 reports which appeared in The New York Times on December 4, 1921 and December 6, 1921.

Objecting to the fact that the Government planned, as usual, to raise the money by issuing bonds which would be bought by the banking and non-banking sector — which would then have to be paid back with money raised from taxes, and with interest added — they proposed instead that the Government simply create the currency it required and spend it into society through this public project.

This is also the Prosperity proposal.

Thomas Edison made it plain in the following excerpt from The New York Times, December 6, 1921 issue (”Ford Sees Wealth In Muscle Shoals”). Here, the reporter is quoting Edison:

“That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

“Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 — that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

” … if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt.

“It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.

“Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people’s credit in interest-bearing bonds?”

I was born a first class citizen. I entered into contracts that, without my knowledge, made me a second class citizen. I am working on the legal process of restoring my first class citizenship status.

I was surprised to find that the United States government recognized two distinct classes of citizens, let alone that my citizenship status had changed. At first I did not believe it. It was not until I learned how to use the law library in the county court house that I was able to confirm my status. I am not an attorney so this paper should not be considered as legal advice. It may be used for the basis of your own research. This paper does not have a copyright, so you can copy all or part of it. This paper borrows research from other papers without copyrights written by people across the nation. I will describe the big picture first, then I will substantiate the claims made and give a more detailed picture later.

You may find the ideas presented here conflict with the model of government that you have been taught. You may also find these ideas impossible to believe. This is understandable. The further you read, the more you may change the way you filter information about what the government is doing. If you cannot believe any of this, please set this paper aside. Sometime in the future, you may come back to this paper and it may make more sense. I believe that the concepts described here are true. But, you should not! If you accepted the ideas in this paper without confirming them from other sources, then you are a fool! If I can change your model of reality in one paper then someone else might be able to fill your head with nonsense. Please be skeptical. Even if you do not agree with the central premise, you may agree with some of the research. If so, you will still get something out of this paper. There are many Citizens doing research on the topics described in this paper. Some will sell the results of their research while others will practically give it away. This paper does not discuss some of the more advanced topics (Citizen militia, commercial liens, common law liens, common law trusts). At the end of this paper, I will supply you with the names of books, magazines, newspapers, computer bulletin boards that fill in some of the details that I have excluded.

The big picture

The United States of America is a unique nation. It was the first constitutional republic in the world. Before the American Revolution, the King of England owned all the land in his colonies. The inhabitants of the colonies were his subjects. When the war was over, the King signed the Treaty of Peace. In that treaty he said that all the land in the former colonies was owned by the people and all of his sovereign powers that he held in the colonies were transferred, not to the government of the colonies but, to the People of the colonies. This made all of the Citizens of the colonies sovereigns. This has never happened before or since in any other country. In other countries, the government is sovereign. It makes laws for its subject-citizens and it gives them their rights. In the United States, the People were sovereigns. The People were endowed, by their creator, with certain rights and the government was instituted to secure those rights. We the People, gave a portion of our sovereignty to the state government, and the states gave a small portion of the sovereignty we gave to them, to the federal government so that it would be strong enough to defend the People. The Constitution for the United States of America describes the powers that the states gave to the federal government.

If the federal government is defined by the Constitution, and the Constitution says that I am a sovereign, why do I feel like a subject? I own my house. If I don’t pay my property tax the government will go to a court and remove me from it just as the courts would remove me from an apartment if I did not pay the rent. Do I really own the land if someone can take it away from me simply because I don’t pay them for the use of it? Could the King of England have the land taken away from him if he did not pay a tax? So long as I don’t cause injury to someones person or property or defraud them shouldn’t I, as a sovereign, have the right to do anything I want? Today there are so many rules and regulations that the government has that I think nearly everything I do is against some law. What has happened to my sovereignty? Isn’t the government sovereign over me? Are there any sovereign People left in the United States of America?

There are hundreds of thousands of sovereigns in the United States of America but I am not one of them. The sovereigns own their land in “allodium.” That is, the government does not have a financial interest in the their land. Because of this they do not need to pay property tax (school tax, real estate tax). Only the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution for the United States of America define the laws that they have to follow. This is a very small subset of the laws most of us have to follow. Unless they accept benefits from or contract with the federal government, they do not have to pay Social Security tax, federal income tax, or resident individual state income tax. They do not need to register their cars or get a driver’s license unless they drive commercially. They will not have to get a Health Security Card. They can own any kind of gun without a license or permit. They do not have to use the same court system that normal people do. I am sure that most people reading this are saying to themselves that this can not be true. I know I did when I first heard of it.

The government recognizes two distinct classes of citizens: a state Citizen and a federal citizen.

A state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an individual whose inalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his/her state Constitution against State actions and against federal intrusion by the Constitution for the United States of America.

A federal citizen, also called: a 14th Amendment citizen, a citizen of the United States, a US citizen, a citizen of the District of Columbia, has civil rights that are almost equal to the natural rights that state Citizens have. I say almost because civil rights are created by Congress and can be taken away by Congress. Federal citizens are subjects of Congress, under their protection as a “resident” of a State, a person enfranchised to the federal government (the incorporated United States defined in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution). The individual States may not deny to these persons any federal privileges or immunities that Congress has granted them. This specific class of citizen is a federal citizen under admiralty law (International Law). As such they do not have inalienable common rights recognized, secured and protected in the Constitutions of the States, or of the Constitution for the United States of America, such as “allodial” (absolute) rights to property, the rights to inheritance, the rights to work and contract, and the right to travel among others.

A federal citizen is a taxable entity like a corporation, and is subject to pay an excise tax for the privileges that Congress has granted him/her.

The rights that most people believe they have are not natural rights but civil rights which are actually privileges granted by Congress. Some of these civil rights parallel the protection of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution), but by researching the civil rights act along with case law decisions involving those rights, it can be shown that these so-called civil rights do not include the Ninth or Tenth Amendments and have only limited application with regard to Amendments One through Eight.

If you accept any benefit from the federal government or you claim any civil right, you are making an “adhesion contract” with the federal government. You may not be aware of any adhesion contracts but the courts are. The other aspect of such a contract is that you will obey every statute that Congress passes.

State Citizens cannot be subjected to any jurisdiction of law outside the Common Law without their knowing and willing consent after full disclosure of the terms and conditions, and such consent must be under agreement/contract sealed by signature. This is because the Constitution is a compact/contract created and existing in the jurisdiction of the Common Law, therefore, any rights secured thereunder or disabilities limiting the powers of government also exist in the Common Law, and in no other jurisdiction provided for in that compact!

Federal citizens are presumed to be operating in the jurisdiction of commercial law because that is the jurisdiction of their creator — Congress. This is evidenced by the existence of various contracts and the use of negotiable instruments. All are products of international law or commercial law[Uniform Commercial Code]. Under Common Law your intent is important; in a court of contract (commercial law) the only thing that matters is that you live up to the letter of the contract. Because you have adhesion contracts with Congress, you can not use the Constitution or Bill of Rights as a defense because it is irrelevant to the contract. As stated previously, the contract says you will obey every statute passed by Congress. A federal citizen does not have access to Common Law.

To restate: state Citizens are bound and protected by the Constitution, like the founding fathers intended and like we are taught in school what citizenship means. Federal citizens have made further agreements with the federal government and are bound by these contracts.

The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to;

Operate on behalf of the several States in dealing with foreign relations and matters of treaties, trade agreements, etc., under the purview of International Law.

Exercise limited constitutional jurisdiction to interact with the several States in regulating trade, commerce, etc., between the States to insure equitable continuance of the compact.

Exercise exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, in the same manner that a state exercises jurisdiction within its boundaries.

Rights are considered gifts from the Creator, and not to be disturbed by acts of man. Some of these rights were considered important enough to be specifically stated to be secured from Federal encroachment in the Bill of Rights, upon the theory that these rights existed long antecedent to the creation of the nation, and the theory that a government, left to its own devices without restriction, could and would use man made law to defeat the liberty that this Republic was intended to represent.

I was born in one of the several states, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, so why am I not a state Citizen? The answer is that I was born a state Citizen but, I unknowingly gave it up to become a federal citizen so that I could receive benefits from the federal government. Some of the benefits that I received were: a Social Security Number, receiving mail sent to the state of PA, receiving mail with ZIP Codes, having FDIC insurance on the money left in a bank, and using Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) without protest. This sounds crazy. Would you give away sovereign powers for benefits like these?

If you have a Social Security Number (SSN), you are not a state Citizen. In the near future, I will send papers into the District of Columbia stating that I am recinding my application for a SSN. If I had known that applying for a SSN would affect my citizenship status, I would not have applied. I found out that Social Security is voluntary and that I can work without a SSN.

The National sales tax is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The Congress does not have the power to lay an Un-apportioned tax, period. A sales tax is un-apportioned and a tax on consumption, which is a reverse income tax. Is the Income tax legal? Only in the United States. What is the jurisdiction of the United States? In the USC code, the jurisdiction of the United States are: the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virigin Islands. It is not the several states known as the State ‘Republics’. A person in the USC code; IRC Chapter 75 26 U.S.C. 7343 which contain all the criminal penalties in the code.
[A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a “person” subject to criminal penalties. Unpriviledged natural persons, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon themselves by volunteering to file returns and be liable, are not subject by law to the tax and they are not “persons” who can lawfully be subjected to criminal charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax.

A flat tax of say $500 per person is Constitutional, a direct tax on consumption is not. The money is taken out of your hands after you purchase your basic goods for survival. This is another version of the communistic graduated income tax. Do you really want the federal government to regulate every one of your personal transactions? You will need a federal ID to buy or sell. Sounds like the Real ID Act; starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you’ll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver’s license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards. Remember the book of Revelations. The second beast of Revelation 13 will cause “all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name” (verses 16-17).

I rather keep the voluntary tax of the IRS, than the mandatory tax of a national sales tax. Atleast, I have a choice not to pay the IRS. Will the government issue me an exemption, for not being under their jurisdiction? Even if they do, I will then have to fight with every merchant to get it honored. In order to sell on the internet, I will need a national merchant ID, if I do not collect every single itty-bitty scrap of tax for the vamps;they will be breaking down my door and locking my ass up. Currently the iRS cannot do this they have to actually have to use the court system,… sometimes. A flat tax no way baby. Without ever admitting the fraud of the IrS? I like Huckabee’s idea to Terraform Mars, before a flat tax.

This is the fundamental question in regards to the law. Do you believe that you are free and that the purpose of the state is to protect your property and liberty! Or do you believe that you are a taxpayer and a subject citizen of the state and that you should sacrifice yourself to some vague greater good known only as the public interest? Are you the Master or the Slave? The engine or the genius behind the design? How you decide on this question will determine whether you support the idea of a Republican form of government; that is a limited government based on the rule of law or one that is based on protecting the interests of the people as a whole. The rule of law is a set of unchanging principals, such as the Ten commandments which are the root of the Common law, which is the basis of what is known as Constitutional law.
Constitutional Law is actually a misnomer; the laws of the land are not the Constitution but the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a separate and distinct document from the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the limits of the government; it has nothing to do with the Law. The Bill of rights is derived from Thomas Paine concept of Natural law as expressed in his book Commonsense. The whole meaning of the American Common Law can be extrapolated from the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. “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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
All men are created equal, that the power is endowed not granted; God is a part of Man indivisible. Unalienable Rights- Unable to take away, unable to lien. The state is unable to tax the human being, nor restrict one’s liberties, nor limit one’s ability to procure happiness. Which can be interpreted as declaring a certain moral code or limit the choice of an occupation.
The key is found in the definition of a “person”; 4 U.S.C. Section 110(a) defines the person by pointing to a nonexistent 26 U.S.C. Section 3797. 26 U.S.C. 7701(a) (a) defines “person” as follows:
Sec. 7701(a)(1) Person. The term “person” shall be constructed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership,association,company or corporation.

An Inhabitant as defined in the Articles of Confederation, is a natural born person who is sovereign and is not subject to the UCC, but rather the Common Law. There is a big difference between the legal rights of a natural person and that of an artificial person. The artificial person is subject to the UCC and does not have rights as defined in the Bill of rights, but privileges granted solely by the government within the laws written and enforced by that government.

In 1775, a mysterious figure known only by the nickname the professor appeared to the flag committee headed by Benjamin Franklin. This man of European descent, recommended the flag of the British-East India company as the banner of the American colonies. The Union Jack, a horizontal striped-flag with the Union Jack logo,was the flag flown during the American Revolution, not the Betsy Ross as seen in the Patriot.
The founding of the American Republic is intertwined with a mysterious figure only known as the “Professor”. The Professor became the advisor, to Benjamin Franklin and the flag committee and recommended the “Grand Union flag” as the banner for the American colonies warring against England. The Grand Union flag a horizontal striped red and white flag with a British Jack in the upper left corner was also the flag of the British East-India Company. The British East-India Company was at the time of the American Revolution controlled by the Jesuits and the afore-mentioned enigimatic figure was none other than Jesuit General Lorenzo Ricci. Two years earlier the Jesuit order was suppressed by Pope Clement XIV and General Ricci alleged died six months after the Pope was poisoned.

The Vatican Treasurer all through the time of this intrique was General Ricci’s best friend and former classmate, Cardinal Braschi. Braschi controlled the Vatican Treasury during the American Revolution; as General Ricci re-appeared in America under a new identity. The Jesuits heavily influenced by the Art of War; which was translated by Ricci, himself into Latin most likely posed as an agent of the British East India company, offering help to the American Revolutionairies. The founding fathers all protestant were voraciously anti-Catholic having seen the harsh suppression by the Popes in Europe never would have accepted the help of a Catholic and certainly not the Jesuit General himself!
It appears the Jesuits via the Vatican Treasury may have funded the American Revolution. The Grand Union Jack was then simply the banner of the Corporation that sponsored the American Revolution. It would also explain the seat of the New American government being set up in a Roman Catholic territory and the institution of Roman-Civil law, as the law of the United States! This week we saw the removal of the dreaded Jesuit General, Father Kolvenbach.
The resignation of Father Kolvenbach and the election of Father Nicolas was just the beginning of the General Congregation’s work; as of Jan. 19, the Jesuits had not announced an end date for the meeting, but it was expected to last at least another month and focus on questions of Jesuit identity and governance, vocations, mission and collaboration with the laity.
The New Man Father Nicolas is it a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows with the Jesuits, where-ever a Jesuit goes Revolution seems to break out, maybe that would be a good thing for America at this juncture. Thomas Jefferson said you need a Revolution every 50 years just to keep things honest.