[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Status, ‘person’ and ‘individual.’ Status, ‘person’ and ‘individual.’ A few words on claiming and establishing one’s true ‘status’—which is defined as "[a] legal personal relationship, not temporary in its nature nor terminable at the mere will of the parties." (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition. Emphasis added.) State Citizenship is a status not created by either the corporate State or the common law state, but is a natural common law birthright. The right to such a determination is also supported by an international treaty, to which the United States is a party: International covenant on civil and political rights Article 1 All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development (U.N.T.S. No. 14668, vol. 999, p. 171 (1976).) To maintain one’s status requires an ongoing effort. For it can all too easily be relinquished, as most have done. Ben Franklin said: "When men make sheep of themselves, the wolves will eat them." For example, I would venture that in almost all states (I know of at least one exception—and it’s not California), one cannot register as a ‘qualified elector’ (voter) without certifying, under penalty of perjury, that s/he is a federal citizen. Someone told me that they had tried to register, stipulating that they were a de jure state Citizen, and therefore, a Citizen of the United States of America—but not a citizen of the United States. He was not permitted to register. Although he pursued the matter to the Secretary of State, he received no explanation. Far from being a birthright, everyone agrees that the ‘U.S. citizen’ was created by the 14th Article of Amendment. "The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution…created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state." Cory v. Carter, 48Ind. 427, 17 Am. Rep. 738. "No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction...or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment...was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country..." Van Valkenburg v. Brown 43 Cal 43. 47 (1872) (Emphasis added. See other quotes at the end of this paper.) Originating from a corporation, called the United States, s/he is a fiction, just as is the U.S.—not a ‘wo/man on the land.’ S/he is an abstraction, defined into being at the changing whim of the United States Congress, of which s/he is a franchisee and subject. As such, s/he is assigned statutory ‘privileges,’ for s/he has no inherent, unalienable ‘rights.’ S/he has a status comparable to a green card resident alien. For example, it has been ruled more than once that the first 10 Articles of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States—the so-called Bill of Rights—do not apply to such ‘persons.’ (They have their own, found in Title 48 § 1421b "Bill of rights!!"—without the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S., together with many other changes. However, being in the code, and therefore statutory and alterable, I believe that it would be more correctly termed a ‘Bill of Privileges.’) The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. Jones v. Temmer 829 F. Supp. 1226 (Emphasis added.) The 14th Amendment starts off: "All persons…"—because that’s who it addresses. A ‘person’ is an artificial entity, to which statutory law applies…whether it be in the guise of a corporation or a human being. All the codes refer almost exclusively to ‘persons.’ Only one time, in Title 26, for instance, is a legally necessary exception made…when having to do with inoculations, and the phrase "human being" is used. It was mentioned above that the IRS records for all taxpayers are stored in 126 ‘entity modules.’ You will find, in the lengthy definition of ‘entity’ in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), that there is no reference to, nor any indication that this term could possibly apply to, a human being. An entity is, in part: [a]n organization or being that possesses separate existence for tax purposes. Examples would be corporations, partnerships, estates and trusts. (Emphasis added.) Indeed, there was a class action suit recently, in the D.C. District Court, by several hundred people, demanding to know why there are no Privacy Act tax ‘records’ relating to them, …which, of legal necessity, could only be personal records, i.e. of living human beings, not entity documents, as for a business. (For, without such records—and they never exist—then there is no legal justification even to be approached by the IRS.) The government tax attorneys admitted, in open court, that there were no such records for them. But the case was defeated on a technicality, because of a grossly incompetent attorney. A fiction can only deal with a fiction. That is why the corporate government does everything it can to make you participate somehow in corporate activity. Thus, you become a ‘person,’ ‘individual,’ or ‘resident.’ In other words, a federal citizen. Only by treating you as a fictitious entity, can they attempt to tax you. And, just for good measure, they impute to you drug dealing activities in the Virgin Islands, an excise taxable activity…which also makes you a ‘person,’ a juristic entity, which they can approach in court. As was stated, federal and State statutes apply primarily to ‘U.S. citizens.’ Theoretically, at least, state Citizens need not submit to them, except where they have to do with one of the 17 "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States…" (1:8:18). For example, note the State of California CCP § 1898. Public and private statutes defined states that Statutes are public and private. A private statute is one which concerns only designated individuals, and affects only their private rights. All other statutes are public, in which are included statutes creating or affecting corporations. (Emphasis added. Notice how it always seems to come back to corporations.) Interestingly and importantly, another restriction is that such fictional creations as ‘U.S. citizens’ cannot invoke the common law Constitution of the state wherein they reside—e.g., in California, the original one, of 1849, rather than the corporate statutory law substitute, of 1879, as amended—which has not ‘replaced’ it. For the 14th Amendment operates within admiralty jurisdiction, i.e., civil law, not common law. For example, in California Republic the Constitution (1:11) provides state Citizens with a writ of habeas corpus. In 1872, however, it enacted in the Penal Code (Title 12, Chapter 12, Section 1473) a statutory writ of habeas corpus…for other ‘persons,’ who could not avail themselves of the former, because it operated under common law. After the war between the states, every former Confederate state was required to rewrite its constitution, and others chose to, as well…like California, in order to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1865 and the 14th Amendment of 1868. For at that time they were presented with the problem of legislating for two political classes of citizens. Previously, there were only de jure state Citizens, with unalienable rights. Now, they were required to accommodate the newly decreed federal subjects, the collectively-proclaimed citizens of the District Government, and make each of them a "citizen of the state in which he resides." The original constitutions were not sufficient, because they didn’t address persons like this new class of citizen, who had only statutory rights (read privileges). These new constitutions were, in reality, merely ‘statutory acts’ with the appearance of being constitutions. Which is why it was not necessary that they be signed or have dates of enactment…as is the case with the recent Constitution of Missouri (1945). The main thing to remember is that de jure U.S. citizens, as well as the 200 plus million self-proclaimed ones, owe their main allegiance to Uncle Sam. They are merely strangers, aliens, ‘residing’ in their chosen States. Since the time the federal government was infused with unconstitutional powers by Lincoln, the states have become ever weaker. They merely act as "baby sitters," as Dave Champion puts it, for these 14th Amendment statutory creatures. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||