Acting as a Sovereign in a court of record and access to common law

[Bigjon]

I believe I have found an excellent source of rules governing our status as sovereigns of the republic.

We still have access to common law courts,if we don't let our current court system trick us into entering a court of equity.

http://www.1215.org/

[Bigjon]

Mr. Ed Snyder Certified Mail #P
Policy Unit Manager
Department of Motor Vehicles Dated
P.O Box 932345
Sacramento, Ca., 94232


ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE


Mr. Snyder:


The driver's license # , erroneously applied for and
issued to me , a white Citizen of
California, has been lost or misplaced, therefore, I am cancelling
said license, and is made void "ab initio", due to the use of
non-disclosure and constructive fraud by the State of California.
All other attachments, disclosed or undisclosed, are hereby
cancelled and revoked, due to the application of fraud (See exhibit
"A"). I am not involved in any taxable activity, nor am I a
juristic, commercial person, or a Federal citizen under the 14th
Amendment. I am a dejure California Citizen, and thus a Citizen of
the United States under the Original Constitution of the United
States, with full rights and privileges under the Constitution of
the State of California, as espoused in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19
How. 393 and Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43.

The driver's license is being used in a conspiracy by the State
and Federal revenue authorities to establish a juristic commercial
person for excise tax purposes. This is fraud, as nowhere in the
application does it qualify that the acceptance of the driver's
license changes one's status for revenue purposes, and that you
voluntarily waive your constitutional rights to accept a privilege
which is taxable and regulatable.

The original intent of the law was only as a "certificate of
competence", for the Citizen to travel in their own private
conveyance. A chauffeurs license denoted a juristic, commercial
person for revenue purposes. This category did not include the
private individual, who has the right to travel without any type of
encumbrance, nor did he have to pay tribute for the right to
travel. The perversion and extension of the juristic/commercial
person class to embrace each and every Citizen, by non-disclosure,
misrepresentation, entrapment as the elements of fraud, shows a
criminal intent to deprive a State Citizen of his liberty,
Privileges and Immunities and property for the purpose of raising
a revenue for the profit of private individuals.

Under Vehicle Code Sec. 17460, in which consent is granted to
the State in the form of power of attorney, proves conclusively
that accepting or retaining the driver's license is voluntary and
that it is not mandatory to commit perjury and surrender your
Citizenship. A juristic/commercial person, a Federal citizen under
the 14th Amendment, or a common-law Citizen operating under a
franchise or involved in a revenue taxable activity is required to
have a commercial/drivers license. A freeborn California Citizen,
is not required, as the right to travel applies to him versus a
privilege for the others. There is no provision in the Vehicle
Code for a "Citizen of California" to obtain a license, as they are
not within the intent and meaning of the Vehicle Code.

Therefore, under the above guidelines, which establishes certain
"facts" and imputes "knowledge", you are mandated to make the
proper changes in your computer system to reflect that I,
, is a white Citizen of California, and not
a "resident", therefore, is not within the scope of the Vehicle
Code, nor am I required to have a driver's license to travel for my
own pleasure and purposes, as a unenfranchised Citizen of
California.

Please send me proper notice reflecting the above, so that I
will not be unnecessarily harassed by any revenue officers which
includes law enforcement types, who may attempt to enforce a
non-existent contract upon me. Your failure to do this may cause
me damage and injury, in which you will be held personally
accountable and liable.

This document is hereby executed under Civil Code Secs. 18, 19
by service of certified mail, and as such shall be judicially
noticed in any and all proceedings legal or otherwise, that may be
initiated by anyone for any and all reasons.

Respectfully Submitted









Witness my hand this day of , 1989





STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

On this day of , in the year 1989, before me,
the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of
California, personally appeared , proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the Citizen who
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he
executed it.


Witness my hand and official seal.


Notary Public


[jetgraphics]

It is ironic that all that legalese is wholly useless.
The claimant calls himself a "Citizen" (subject) while asserting sovereign prerogatives of the American national (free inhabitant).

Also, at not point, does the claimant provide evidence that he is a non-resident, by virtue of a domicile (a legal, permanent home) within the boundaries of the United States of America.

Ergo, he has not defeated the charge of trespass upon the public highways.

Sigh.

[jetgraphics]

I believe I have found an excellent source of rules governing our status as sovereigns of the republic.

We still have access to common law courts,if we don't let our current court system trick us into entering a court of equity.

http://www.1215.org/

I would suggest caution with respect to the conclusions claimed by that site.

To illustrate:
"the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights). "

The term "United States" can refer to (a) geography, (b) the USA with respect to other nations, or (c) the U.S. government as distinct from the U.S.A.

In the Federal government, the form of government is a democracy.

The term "republic" is not synonymous with the "republican form of government".

The republican form (sovereignty of the people) is limited to private property (absolutely owned), while the democratic form is limited to those who consented to be governed (subject citizens) or who lack dominion over themselves and their property.

The common law is the prerogative of sovereigns, and too harsh for a democracy. The government operates as a democracy, and has enacted laws to punish crimes cognizable under the common law (i.e., murder, theft, assault, etc.).

Liberty has four types: natural, personal, civil and political.
Natural and personal liberties are prerogatives of the free inhabitants, domiciled within the U.S.A.
Civil and political liberties are privileges granted to the U.S. citizens, residing in the U.S.A.

What was omitted from the website was any linkage between sovereignty and property. A king without any domain is NOT a sovereign. He is merely a traveling prince, to be accorded respect but not sovereign prerogatives. Since 1935, all enumerated Americans have surrendered their birthright to absolutely own, and thus have no domicile. Furthermore, as "Contributors" equally liable for the national debt, they are compelled to accept worthless notes as tender in lieu of lawful money.

[Bigjon]

can you suggest a better site?

[Bigjon]

Here is another site, with very good info.
http://state-citizen.org/

http://section520.org/rjmseminar1.html The format at the link is much better.

Richard McDonald's Seminar on state Citizenship
I'm involved in a political movement to restore state's rights, and state Citizenship. I'm involved in 19 states right now, teaching citizenship. I'm involved in approximately 40 states teaching common law, and with people that I'm assisting.
I have a court case that says I have a right to go to any state in the Union to teach Citizens the law. I have another court case that says it is my absolute duty to protect my republican form of government. How do I protect my republican form of government? By teachin you the law. So, combining those two court cases, they can't stop me.
Every Patriot group out there has been raided -- except the Citizens groups. None of the Citizens have been raided. The district attorney has been asked questions about state Citizenship. The district attorney researched it and says that "yes, it is a legal thing to do."
This document you're getting is the Soldier's Training Manual of 1928. The government used to give training manuals to soldiers, teaching them that democracy was evil, in a republican form of government. One column gives the definition of democracy, as it was defined in1928. President Roosevelt had all these training manuals destroyed so that he could institute a democracy. That's his New Deal -- communism.
Democracy and communism are identical twin brothers. Look at the communist manifesto, look at what's happening here under democracy, and you'll see that all the planks are identical.
The next page is one of the first cases I found while I was researching Citizenship. I want you to read the top paragraph and tell me if you are a U.S. citizen.
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.
Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal 43.
You have to remember the 14th amendment is not law, it's never been passed, not ratified. So when you claim you are a U.S. citizen, you claim that you're a little green man from Mars with six heads; and that's the way the court looks at you, a dummy that doesn't know what he's talking about.
And how did you become a U.S. citizen? When you got your social security number. What you have now is the original social security act of 1935. I'd like you to read the top paragraph, and tell me where that trust fund is that they're talking about on television and radio. You hear them say, "give us your money, we'll keep it in the trust fund". Read what it says:
AN ACT To provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.
It's for revenue raising, and other purposes. There is no trust fund. Everything you give to the government is for revenue purposes. They do not have to pay you anything in Social Security. It's a gratuity given by government. It can be abolished, and taken away tomorrow. That's what the courts have ruled, many times.
And when you've got your social security number you said " I want some welfare, I want some workmen's comp, I want, I want, I want ... and you have my power of attorney to regulate and control me. I'm a fictitious entity. I'm not a human being anymore."
When you do that, you give the federal government power of attorney. Then the government gives it to their courts. You become a ward of the court. So, read what a ward of the court is:
Wards of court. Infants and persons ofunsound mind ... Their rights must be guarded jealously ...
Black's[Law Dictionary], Fifth Edition.
His [attorney] first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and whenever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.
Corpus Juris Secundum, 1980 Ed.
Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.
Corpus Juris Secundum, 1980 Ed.
Nobody here looks like an imbecile or and infant to me, but you claim you are, and the courts recognize you as such. That's why you have to have an attorney.
And when you became a U.S. citizen, you became a citizen of the United States government. Now read what the United States government is:
The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
In re Merriam, 163 US 625.
Ninety-nine percent of the time when they say small 's state, they're referring to the common law republic country. A capital 'S' State is a corporation. Large 'S" means corporation, fiction; small 's' means land mass, country.
Next is California Government Code section 242. Remember, as a U.S. citizen, you are a citizen of the District of Columbia. Is the District of Columbia a state of the Union? No. Now, you tell me under California law what you are, either (a) or (b):
Persons in the State not its citizens are either:
(a) Citizens of other States; or
(b) Aliens.
You're alien to California! Key words: Alien, resident, foreigner, franchisee, they all mean the same thing. The laws are very specific, and they tell you up front. A "person" fits in the same category.
Next is the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and after you read that, I have a question for you:
CHAP XXXI -- An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
My question is: Can you be this "person" and a Citizen at the same time?
No? Good! Because read what the court said in 1979:
Upon introducing the provisions which eventually became 18 USC 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 FSupp 1369, 1373.
Rights under [civil rights act] are for citizens of United States and not of state.
Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F 941.
All federal law only protects persons, aliens and foreigners, not Citizens. Federal law can't protect you if you're not subject to it. The laws of Japan can't protect me -- I'm not subject to them.
As a U.S. citizen, you have civil rights. I, as a state Citizen have no civil rights whatsoever. I have sovereign rights. God gave me my rights, the government gives me nothing. I am outside of their scope and all of their authority.
The next is an 1829 court case. Our Founding Fathers fought England, kicked England out, and went to France to sign the Treaty of Peace. The King of England relinquished all of his sovereign authority, and all of his God-given kingly rights to the People. That's when it used to be a man was "king of his own home", when we were state Citizens:
People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, 21 D 89.
Next we come to 1906, Kansas v. Colorado. I want you to go to the law library and xerox the whole court case. The federal government recognizes that there are three sovereigns; We the People, the state government, and the federal government. Remember that We, the People were state Citizens. People are not "persons". I'm not a "person", I'm people. A legal distinction. I may be a person figuratively speaking, but in law, I'm not a "person".
Now we jump to 1986:
[i]n our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. ... a United States citizen possesses a constitutional right to remain a citizen ... unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.
Richards v. Secty. of State, 752 F2d 1418.
So people have a right to remain a Citizen unless they voluntarily relinquish it. What happened when you voluntarily relinquished it? You got your Social Security number! Didn't you ask for your civil rights? A civil right is a right given, regulated, controlled, and taxed by the agency that granted it. The only one who gave me my rights is God. God is my government, personally, according to the Bible. I obey my government.
[Question] I'm trying to understand "people" versus "person".
The law is very distinct. Persons are not people. "We, the People" wrote the Constitution. They were state Citizens. "Persons" came along under the 14th amendment.
Everybody wants to talk about the income tax. I happen to like this court case. It's a very clear definition of the income tax:
An income tax is neither a property tax, nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax.
Sims v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925).
An income tax is an excise tax. What is an excise tax? You buy a wristwatch, you pay an excise tax. You buy tires for your automobile, you pay an excise tax. You put gas in your motor vehicle, you pay an excise tax. Anything you do not need can be taxed under an excise tax: You buy food and clothing, you don't have to pay an excise tax. Those are items of necessity. And all the courts have ruled that U.S. citizenship is a privilege, it's not a right.
You have a right to be a state Citizen. It is a privilege to be a U.S. citizen.
Next is a 1924 court case, Cook vs. Tate. Let me explain this case for you. Mr. Cook went down to Mexico City. There, he opened up a business and earned some money. The Bureau of Internal Revenue came down and said, "hey, you owe us some money." Cook said "no I don't! I didn't earn any money from the United States. I earned it all down here."
He paid the tax under protest, and appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the United States government has a right to tax its citizens wherever they are resident. Keyword: resident.
My father paid no income tax in 1924, because he was a state Citizen. He didn't begin paying income tax until he got his Social Security number, when he became a "resident", in 1941.
This next is the second court case that started me thinking:
Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges and immunities of citizen of state, since privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other.
K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545 (1927).
Why are they different? State Citizens are not subject to federal law. They have sovereign immunity. U.S. citizens are subject to just about everything -- even the local dogcatcher!
Then I found:
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.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875); quoted in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, 221 A2d 433 (1966).
You don't have to be a U.S. citizen in order to be a state Citizen. So why are you? Social Security, marriage license, driver's license are various entrapments. How many people here have marriage licenses? When you got your marriage license, you married the state. The state is the third party in your marriage contract.
The first marriage license ever issued in America was in1839, to a rich South Carolina plantation owner, so he could marry his mulatto slave. It was for an interracial marriage:
MARRIAGE LICENSE. A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry,..
INTERMARRIAGE. In the popular sense, this term denotes the contracting of a marriage relation between two persons considered as members of different nations, tribes, families, etc...
I, as a state Citizen, got my due process the day I was born. Now I want you to tell me when you got your due process, as a U.S. citizen:
As far as federal due process is concerned, the right to trial by jury in state trials only dates from May 20, 1968, the date of the decisions of Duncan v. Louisiana, Bloom v. Illinois, and Dyke v. Taylor Implement Co. J. F., In re, 268 CA2d 761 (1969).
As a U.S. citizen, you did not have due process prior to May 20, 1968. The courts decided you should have a little bit, so they gave it to you. The courts could decide tomorrow to take it away, and they could abolish it tomorrow. No bill of rights apply to you, except what the courts have decided. You have no natural rights. The only natural rights you have are to be a slave to the government.
All the states are sovereign countries. Each one has their own Citizens.
Generally, the states of the Union sustain toward each other the relationship of independent sovereigns or independent foreign states,..
81 CJS 8.
Each state is foreign to one another, except for the powers that we gave to the federal government; to create interstate commerce laws, bankruptcy laws, counterfeiting laws; but the federal government was given no power to enforce them. They could not come into any state to enforce any federal law, they could only go into a federal area and enforce it.
Next is from Ruling Case Law:
A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every citizen has a right to engage in freely. ... A right common to every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation cannot, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money.
26 RCL 131-132.
I'm the private Citizen. You're the franchisee. Can a corporation have citizens? No. They have franchises. Can the United States government have citizens? No, they can only have franchises. Have you heard of the Franchise Tax Board? They're taxing your franchise here, as a U.S. citizen!
They're legitimate! They tell you right up-front what you are! You're just too busy watching the boob-tube.
How many people here are registered to vote? Did you know that when you register to vote, you put an automatic lien on all your property?
Chapter 5 BOND ISSUES Sec. 5300. Application by chapter
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this chapter apply to all bond issues proposed by a county, city and county, city, district or other political subdivision or by any agency, department, or board thereof, the security for which constitutes a lien on the property within the jurisdiction and the proposal for which is required to be submitted to the voters for approval.
This law is written so broad, say the local school district goes belly up, they can march into your house, strip you buck-naked, and take everything you own.
That's why code-enforcement can come into your house, because they have a vested interest. You gave it to them when you registered to vote.
We're electors. Up 'till 1940 all the Citizens signed the Great Register. We're trying to get the Great Register reestablished. It was last sent to Sacramento in 1940, when they sent back federal voter registration instead. You register as a federal citizen, not as a state citizen.
They've done everything very legitimate, very honestly, very openly. You just didn't pay attention.
Everybody's seen the yellow fringe on the American flag, flying in schoolhouses, office buildings, courtrooms, I want you to read what that yellow fringe stands for:
Placing of fringe on national flag,.. are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within discretion of President as Commander-In-Chief of Army and Navy. 34
OpAttyGen 483 (1925).
That's a military flag! A territorial flag. When Arizona was a territory, before it became a state, that's what they had. They made a lot of movies of the yellow-fringed flag. They tell you up front, you're in a federal territory.
The proper place for that yellow-fringed flag would be in the post office, military bases, Washington, D.C., or someplace like that. If you're not in one of those federal areas, you shouldn't be flying that flag. It only applies in a military post.
The government keeps two bookkeeping entries, there's always two of everything. There's two constitutions in the state of California. One for us Citizens, and one for you slaves. You have here the California Constitution of 1879. I want you to read section two, and tell me where the boundaries are:
SEC. 2. The boundaries of the state are those stated in the Constitution of 1849 as modified pursuant to statute. Sacramento is the capital of California.
They refer you to the 1849 Constitution. The one that created California. That one (1879) did not do anything. All the courts recognize there are two constitutions. The1849 Constitution is a restriction and limitation on the government. The 1879 Constitution is a restriction and limitation on the slaves.
So, which do you want? The power to flow from the People to the government, or the government granting you a little privilege?
All the courts recognize that there are two constitutions. I want you to read the following. Everybody knows what a substitute school teacher is.
Although the present constitution is not the one under which the state was first formed, it is a substitute for that adopted in 1849, as amended in 1862, and the present government is a continuance of that established
11 Cal.Jur.2d 4.
It's merely a substitute, waiting for the Citizens to come back. They're always consistent! They never lie.
Next is the Congressional Record of 1967:
The 14th Amendment Is Unconstitutional.
The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I. Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I. Section 7.
3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union. Article V.

[Bigjon]

Congressional Record - House, June 13, 1967, p. 15641
In 1967 Congress tried to abolish the 14th Amendment.What would happen if they abolished the 14th Amendment? They would turn 250 million slaves free! Everybody would automatically revert back to state Citizens. The federal government would lose all their taxing, Food & Drug could not come in here, BATF could not come in here, IRS could not come in here, DEA could not come in here, code enforcement could not come in here. All their revenue raising measures would go down the tubes!
You've all heard judges say "I won't hear that constitutional crap in my court! The constitution doesn't apply in this courtroom!" Now read why he can say it:
An alien has no right to raise the question whether a statute is violative of Const. U.S. art. 4. Sec 2. declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.
In re Johnson's Estate, 73 P 424 (1903).
A citizen can challenge the constitutionality of a statute; an alien cannot. A U.S. citizen is an alien to California.
Next court case you are getting is Hendrick v. Maryland, 59 LEd 385. Mr. Hendrick was a resident of the District of Columbia. In 1914, Mr. Hendrick got in his motor vehicle and went into Maryland. Then he did something wrong, and the police stopped and cited him.
Maryland had laws that all commercial vehicles had to have registration, plates, and the drivers had to have a license. Citizens did not. He was a resident of the District of Columbia, a U.S. citizen, and the police officer knew the distinction, so he cited him. Hendrick was convicted, and he appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1914 the Supreme Court stated that a U.S. citizen, when they leave the District of Columbia, are under the interstate commerce clause. As such, they can be regulated, controlled, and taxed.
You, as a U.S. citizen, are here in California under the interstate commerce clause. You can be regulated and controlled, you have no rights whatsoever except what they want to give you -- civil rights.
That was in 1914. In that same year, read what the California supreme court says:
The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation, and therefore permitting a regulatory license fee, under the rule that when a calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires a certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in and imposes conditions upon its exercise.
In re Stork, 167 Cal 294 (1914).
They quote this as their authority to require U.S. citizens to have driver's licenses. They don't quote the rest of it, because it pertains to state Citizens:
The Motor Vehicle Act ... is not unconstitutional as making an arbitrary and unwarranted classification, in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license tax, but exempts all other operators of such vehicles from such tax and regulation.
In re Stork, 167 Cal 294 (1914).
Question: As a California Citizen, am I giving up my rights if I were to get a driver's license?
You'd have to commit perjury to get a driver's license.
I'd have to state that I'm a resident, right?
Right.
And citizens can't have driver's licenses, right?
Right. They won't even give you one. I'm trying to get one, but they won't issue it! Citizens are exempt. They can't have one.
How many people here have a motor vehicle outside? You've just convicted yourselves, read the definition of "motor vehicle":
"Motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
USC [United States Code] Title 18, Sec. 31.
You just told me you had a taxicab outside!
When you stand in front of the judge, and he asks if you have a vehicle outside, and you say "yes, your honor, I do" he takes judicial notice you admitted you're involved in commercial activity.
How many people here have gotten a traffic ticket? Ever look up the term "traffic" in the dictionary? Interstate commerce! That's why on the ticket, it says "traffic", "non-traffic", and "misdemeanor".
Right after the 14th amendment was allegedly ratified California passed four codes. The Political Code, the Civil Code, the Civil Code of Procedure, and the Penal Code. Here is the Penal Code of 1871. I want you to read the definition of "person" and tell me where the Citizen is mentioned:
19. Where the term "person" is used in this code to designate the party whose property may be the subject of any offense, it includes this state, any other state, government or country which may lawfully own any property within this state, and all public and private corporations or joint associations as well as individuals.
20. The word "person" includes bodies politic and corporate.
Where does it say "Citizen"? Tell me where I'm described in there.
There's always a motive for everything the government does. What they wanted to do here was take your allodial right to property away (Black's Revised 4th):
ALLODIAL. Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal...
ALLODIUM. Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof...
(Ballentine's 1948):
allodial ... Free; not held subordinately; opposed to "feudal." In England, all lands are held by the crown, and none are allodial. In the United States, all lands have been allodial since the American Revolution.
allodium ... An allodial estate; an estate not held under a superior. See fee.
A U.S. citizen does not have the right to hold property in allodium. You're a second-class citizen. If you have your property in allodium, you don't pay land taxes.
All the land in California was given to the people in allodium. There are several court cases which say that the land of the thirteen original colonies was given to the people in allodium. They have the absolute sovereign right to own property. Remember it says "people", it does not say "persons" when it refers to allodium. "Persons" are not "people"!
Next, you have California's admission into the Union. Read the second paragraph:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of California shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.
California was admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original colonies in all respects whatsoever. All the land in California is given to the people in allodium.
This building is not land. This building is property. Land is land. Property is anything that can be moved. You, as a U.S. citizen, are property. Land is held by a sovereign. All the land in England belongs to the King of England. I am on the same status as the King of England. If I were to buy land, I would have it in allodium. I have the same type of authority.
Next is a court case from 1982:
Slater's protestations to the effect that he derives no benefit from the United States government have no bearing on his legal obligation to pay income taxes. ... Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability.
U.S. v. Slater, 545 FSupp 179, 182 (1982).
They never lie! They are always consistent in what they say!
Next is Revenue Ruling 57-576. This is our prime authority for asking our Social Security money back:
Social Security coverage extended to individuals employed by a foreign subsidiary of a domestic corporation pursuant to an agreement under section 3121(l) of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act is limited to United States citizens. Accordingly, such coverage ceases on the date that such an employee becomes a citizen of another country. Amounts paid under the agreement with respect to coverage of such individual prior to the date on which he became a citizen of another country are not refundable.
Question: You mean we can ask for this money back?
Yes, but there's a problem. We allege fraud when we ask for our Social Security money back, because we were never a United States citizen. There's the problem, because if you allege fraud, they have to give you compound interest. But the government has written many, many letters stating if you do not have a Social Security number, you would not be subject to the income tax. So, if I was illegally and wrongfully entrapped into getting a Social Security number, I would get all my money from day one, plus compound interest. What they owe me would equal the federal debt!
Next is a deposition hearing by Virgil Cooper in Arizona. I want you to read the questions. Every question is a trick question, and every answer is the legally correct answer:
Q: Are you a citizen of the United States?
A: No, I am not.
Q: Are you a resident of Arizona?
A: No, I am not. I was born in Phoenix. I have lived in Maricopa County all my life, but I am not a resident. I do not reside.
Q: Are you registered to vote?
A: No, I am not.
Q: Do you have a driver's license?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Do you have any motor vehicles registered in Arizona?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Are you employed?
A: No. I am not. I am not employed. I am not unemployed. I am not self-employed. I am not gainfully employed. In fact, I am not employable. But, I work. Besides, Arizona is a right to work state.
Q: Do you pay state and federal resident income taxes?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Do you pay property taxes in Arizona?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Do you have a marriage license?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Do you have children enrolled in public school?
A: No, I do not. My children are home taught.
You've really done your homework!
You know what the definition of the word "employee" is? It was re-defined in the 1939 Public Salary Tax Act to mean "government worker". When you said you're employed, you told me that you work for the government.
When you sign a W-4, what does it say at the top? "Employee's Withholding Certificate". You just admitted under penalties of perjury that you work for the government. Remember, I told you that they always have two of everything? They have W-8 forms for state Citizens, and W-4 for slaves.
Next is what you have to say to a police officer when you get stopped with no driver's license, and no registration:
Officer: I pulled you over because your vehicle has no license plates.
Citizen: Yes, officer, I do not have plates on my car. I removed them and sent them back to the DMV because they belonged to a resident involved in commercial activity. I asked them to send me proper plates for a Citizen. They have not done so yet. I have the paperwork in the car if you would like to see it.
Officer: May I see your driver's license?
Citizen: I do not have a driver's license as I do not drive commercially. I cancelled it with the DMV and asked them to send me proper ID for a Citizen to travel. They have not sent me anything yet. I have the paperwork in the car if you would like to see it.
Officer: Do you have any ID?
Citizen: Here is how I identify myself (present Personal ID).
Remember to be sober, polite, agreeable, and businesslike while keeping good eye contact and an assured tone of voice.
NEVER challenge an officer's authority on the street --wait for court.
WORDS TO USE:
Car, machinery, conveyance.
Guests, friends, family.
Traveling, journeying.
Abode, living, housekeeping.
WORDS NOT TO USE:
Motor vehicle.
Passengers.
Driving.
Resident.
To learn more about state Citizenship, contact:
Sir Richard James, McDonald
2nd Judicial District
585 Box Canyon Rd.
Canoga Park, California

Join our Citizenship Educational program

(818) 703-5037 voice
http://www.state-citizen.org
Go To: A list of files that Richard McDonald offers to
Download For FREE to aid in one's understanding of their rights.

[jetgraphics]

ANY Citizen, whether State or Federal, is a subject.
With all due respect to Richard MacDonald (and his sincere followers), please do not jump to conclusions not supported by the data. He has yet to produce ONE court cite or law that says that STATE Citizens are not subject to the obligations that come with citizenship (jury duty, militia duty, etc).
Since those duties are compulsory, STATE Citizenship is NOT equivalent to sovereignty. It is somewhat superior to U.S. citizenship, but it is not the answer to the problems that plague Americans.

[jetgraphics]

Addendum: More refutation of R. MacDonald's claims
Though his site is replete with citations, he also offers conclusions without substantiation. Or he cites the "Congressional Record" which is not law, but merely the utterances of members.

To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. Constitution was not "done over" nor significantly changed, other than by amendment.
What has changed is the status of the people.

This change was by consent, officially. However, fraud, misrepresentation, and withholding of material facts were instrumental in getting that consent.

The major changes to one's status are:
[] subjugation via citizenship (political liberty) and
[] subjugation via socialism (FICA) and
[] subjugation via contracts for usury (Bank signature card).

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the governments in these united States were instituted to do two jobs:
1. secure rights, and
2. govern those who consent.

If one hasn't given consent, all that government is empowered to do is help secure (not guarantee) your rights to life, liberty, property, etc. (Job #1).

However, it appears that once consent is given, job #1 is waived.

In support of that claim:

In the Articles of Confederation *(1777), it plainly states that the governments have the delegated power to have a militia, equip and train them, and mobilize them. What most are unaware is that only male CITIZENS were obligated to train, fight, and if necessary, die, on command. {I think you will agree that being obligated to train, fight and die, on command, is a violation of inalienable RIGHTS.}

The Supreme court ruled that compulsory militia duty and selective service (conscription) were NOT involuntary servitude. Ergo, citizenship must be a voluntary act. And no one can be "born" a citizen, state or federal, unless they're slaves, obligated to perform compulsory duties.

In contrast, there are no compulsory laws governing non-residents, non-citizens, domiciled in the united States of America... at least I have not found any yet.
Look for yourself - find a law that targets any American national, free inhabitant, domiciled within the USA, who is endowed with natural and personal liberty, and who absolutely owns himself, his labor and all that he acquires by that labor.

I haven't found one yet. . .

P.S. - The REAL foundation for the substantial loss of status is pauperization - via FICA. Once you are eligible for charity from the public treasury (entitlements), you are a pauper. You are a status criminal, guilty until proven innocent, and excepted from the constitutional protections normally provided by the government. It has nothing to do with "Adhesion contracts", "Straw men", "Fictitious entities", or convoluted legal arguments. Once you are a pauper, you're lower than snail snot. Coincidentally, after 1935, and FICA / Socialist Insecurity, the federal government ended the requirement to take the Pauper's Oath. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauper%27s_oath

I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God.
That oath is implied by each enumerated American, who participates in their "entitlement" program.
Remember, since 1933, no DOLLARS have circulated. No one had $20. All property was pledged as collateral. No enumerated socialist American has absolutely owned anything, since 1935.

[iOWNme]

Great post again Jet....

That Pauper oath is incredibly interesting. Thanks for the insight....

PEACE