midnight rambler
22nd February 2011, 09:55 PM
(pardon the typos and grammar)
Governor Mark Sanford
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12267
Columbia, SC 29211
Ref: State Citizenship vs United States Citizenship.
Dear Mr Sanford.,
I wish there was only one or two questions that could be asked of your office that could be answered in a simple reply, but because of the long string of fraud, distortion, and duplicity that has been layered , embedded and engraved upon our minds concerning history, legal history, and the "law of the land" then the questions are in the legions, but I shall keep them down to a few. I have to admit that I really don't know where to begin. After all I was educated in the public/government school system, but I will make the best of this if my ill educated background will not interfere. If my private studies can serve me here then I shall attempt to brief you to some historical facts that leads up to these many questions that has me baffled. The subjects these questions will surround is Citizenship, Due Process( before, during and after the Civil War,) Military (the Union Army) participation in the Article V Amending process of the United States Constitution, The Congressional (Union Congress of Northerners) usurpation of the Article V amending process and the outright over throw of all former principles well settled in our jurisprudence of the time.
Senator Doolittle from Wisconsin quoting all the daily statements from the Senate said to wit: "What is said every day; the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet, and establish military power over them until they do adopt it" (See The Congressional Globe Feb 20th 1867 page 1644) This was not just talk for history bears out that they did what they said they would do. The Reconstruction Acts should be evidence enough. These subjects should be addressed in total honesty. Does your present office possess such honesty? True freedom, and liberty rest upon these virtues.
State Citizenship has been the proper (and may I add , "only") status that our forefathers possessed before the military enforcement of the 14th Amendment upon our Country. In this so called 14th amendment there was created a new citizenship called "United States Citizens" (See US v Susan B. Anthony, Van Valkenburg vs. Brown, The Slaughterhouse Cases, Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections 221 A 2nd 431 1966, Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 1908, just to name a few). Even though the proposed amendment can never be shown to comply with the Article V procedures and mandates or by any other true evaluation can this proposed amendment ever be constitutionally considered ratified, but it is being forced upon us in such grievous levels that it would take improper, immoral and out right distasteful language to describe. Like the Utah State Supreme Court in 1968 stated in the case called Dyett v Turner "We feel like slaves in a galley" Now, is that any way for a Court to feel? Is that any way for a Nation to operate? Specially when the Amendment never ratified through Article V which has very limited methods and procedures and may I add, "simple" instructions as to when an amendment can be lawfully added to the Constitution? but be assured that you, nor any jurist of any level will find the use of military power to be used anywhere in Article V. It will also be remembered that Article V required the willful votes of the State Legislatures. and forbids the deprivation of State suffrage unless such States consent. Guns
(1)
pointed at their heads can not be considered consent. Not to mention the surrogate government sent in with military support to take out of office the properly elected office holders. There can be no proper replacement of an office holder unless the one moved out is "properly" taken out (see Hoke v. Henderson , Brown et el. v board of Levee Commissioner, and White v White 5 Barb NY 474 1849). I could go on with literally hundreds of historical facts to further conclude the obvious, but redundancy would more than likely be looked down upon.
I would also like to take this time to cover a well known "hideaway" the Courts have used so as not to answer the questions of the validity of this amendment. First and absolute foremost, the attacks and evasion on the Southern States were done without Due Process of Law, so this whole problem is a judicial question since due process is a strict virtue of the Courts. Did the government provide Due Process when taking life liberty and property from the States and it's peoples in 1861 and thereafter? Can any one ever produce the first summons, judicial hearing of any kind or a single Court order when the so called "guilty" States were being judged and sentenced by Congress? All that took place concerning the taking of life liberty and property took place with out the presence or adjudication of the Courts. It will be remembered that Jeremiah Black, the Attorney General prior to the time that options were being searched out, plainly stated that it would be illegal to invade the States unless they went through the Courts. He further elaborated that if the States were to be treated like enemies then they could retaliate in what ever form they felt necessary, and that ". . . if Congress shall break up the present Union, by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their federal obligations?. . . then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the general government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions." (See Official Opinions of Attorneys General of the United States vol. 9 page 516 through 526.) What Jeremiah Black said would be the official opinion of the United States Government according to section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act. What branch of government took heed or even gave it any rank at all. While this is strictly a due process question yet the Court has hid behind a fraudulent wall called "It's a political Question" Where in the history of Due Process can it ever be called a political question when due process is strictly a judicial function?
Any new meaning of Due Process later than the founded definition at the time it was placed in the United States Constitution in 1790 will have to go through Article V to be constitutionally accepted. So Post war changes have no standings such as the arrogance of Hurtado v Calf. 110 U.S. 516 (1884) stating that a grand jury would not be necessary "so long as the rest of the trial is fair" . However, even when the Courts has alluded the question concerning the 14th Amendment by using this wall, and saying it can not rule on the issue, I find it contradictory that the Court has made rulings concerning the validity of an amendment five times.(See Hollingsworth v. Virgina, 3 Dall, 378 1798, ; Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 231 1920; Rhode Island v Palmer, 253 U.S.; Dillion v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, and United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 1931) Such actions taken by the Court negates any trust in them when they turn around and select a time and an amendment that it wants to claim it has no authority to rule on.
Article V of the Constitution proves that the State powers are supreme over the Federal powers. Just pull it out and use it. Don't like the way the Court defines Article VI paragraph 2? States just put Article V into practice and clarify State authority, Don't Want The Federal government having 10 square miles? States, put Article V to practice and give them two square feet. Does the States feel like "Slaves in a galley"? Then take the constitutional power and put the oars back in the Federal hands. If States Rights are destroyed then so is the government (See Kidd v Pearson, 247 US 75-276)
Since the 14th Amendment did not ratify, then first and foremost there is no such thing as a United Sates Citizen as defined in post Civil war doctrines( See Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300, 302 1855).
This leaves us with only one kind of Citizenship and that is State citizenship. This being the case, I demand to be
(2)
recognized as a State Citizen and demand the protection of the State for all of my God given Rights. You should take note that I said nothing about constitutional rights because there is no such thing. The Constitution of South Carolina as adopted in 1789 and its amendments are for my protection and is the only law of the land (See State v Simmons, 2 pears SC, 761,767 ,1844) . Any other statutes, codes or acts placed upon the books being labeled "laws" that are in contradiction to the true law of the land has no authority, and is thus null and void (See Calder vs. Bull 3 Dall US 386 (1798) , Wales v. Stetson 2 Mass. 145; Foster v. Essex bank 16 Mass 245 (1819) and the famous obiter dictum made by John Marshal in what is "call" a case though it was not, the famous Marbury v Madison.) By the way that case should be called Marshall v. Madison since it attempts to disclaim what Madison had proclaimed just three years prior in the 1799 Virgina Convention concerning the authority of the State Courts being the highest Courts in the land. Wonder what happened to that opinion that was made by the actual drafter of the constitution himself and why it is not the prevailing concept today?
In Barron v Baltimore 7 Pet. US 243 (1833), It has been ruled and understood that our (State Citizens) rights are to be protected by the States. Some of the cases quoted above also reflect the differences of protection for the different citizenship. What I find is that the State of South Carolina is grossly failing to protect her citizens by first allowing them to be defrauded in the government supported School system where nothing is taught concerning the difference of citizenship. Why is it that all citizens are being called U. S. citizens? Why are State Citizens (not U. S. citizens, "who are citizens in the state in which they reside") being conned into believing that they are U. S. citizens? Why are State Citizens deliberately being misled? Why has the name "State Citizens" been removed from our vocabulary? and therefore left to disappear from history and our posterity? Why is the State of South Carolina not protecting its "lawful" citizens?
The State of South Carolina also knowingly allows the false teachings that the 14th Amendment ratified, and even goes further by placing in open public its policies under said amendment sending the message that "we are slaves in a galley" to such amendment. Why hasn't the State protected me from the encroaching, usurping, and tyrannical form of government when this new and unauthorized power trespasses upon my rights? Why is the Governor and State Legislature involved in this plot to render the State and Federal Constitutions null and void and willingly creates legislation and forms that reduce the State Citizens to the status of a subject?
Will this State protect me from the encroaching, usurping, and tyrannical form of government when this new and unauthorized power trespasses upon my rights?
Will the State of South Carolina welcome State citizens and provide the necessary protections required by the South Carolina Constitution?
Will the State of South Carolina provide a recognition of such status and provide the different protections to them as is required for such a citizen?
Will the State of South Carolina acknowledge the special class and forbid the defacto officers from trespassing on our rights and forcing citizens to have drivers licenses when such citizen is not on the road
for hire, but only traveling for private purposes?
Will the State stop using only the term United States citizen on all voting , licenses, and etc applications and add to them State Citizen? After all, what good is a State that has no personal and
committed Citizens?
Will the State provide historical truths to the text books concerning the 14th Amendment and how it was never ratified?
As you can see, it is question after question, after question. I can not even come close to asking them all because each question packs other question that are also packing. In essence, will the State of South Carolina stand up for truth?
By this time it is perfectly clear that my demands here is for you to operate the Dejure office you are now holding even though you are holding it defacto. It must be remembered that it is the "office" that owes me the protections and remedies I am demanding here and not the person(s) possessing it. Even though you are on the record as being a U. S. citizen and I find no record that would claim otherwise then it is further clear that this
Governor Mark Sanford
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12267
Columbia, SC 29211
Ref: State Citizenship vs United States Citizenship.
Dear Mr Sanford.,
I wish there was only one or two questions that could be asked of your office that could be answered in a simple reply, but because of the long string of fraud, distortion, and duplicity that has been layered , embedded and engraved upon our minds concerning history, legal history, and the "law of the land" then the questions are in the legions, but I shall keep them down to a few. I have to admit that I really don't know where to begin. After all I was educated in the public/government school system, but I will make the best of this if my ill educated background will not interfere. If my private studies can serve me here then I shall attempt to brief you to some historical facts that leads up to these many questions that has me baffled. The subjects these questions will surround is Citizenship, Due Process( before, during and after the Civil War,) Military (the Union Army) participation in the Article V Amending process of the United States Constitution, The Congressional (Union Congress of Northerners) usurpation of the Article V amending process and the outright over throw of all former principles well settled in our jurisprudence of the time.
Senator Doolittle from Wisconsin quoting all the daily statements from the Senate said to wit: "What is said every day; the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet, and establish military power over them until they do adopt it" (See The Congressional Globe Feb 20th 1867 page 1644) This was not just talk for history bears out that they did what they said they would do. The Reconstruction Acts should be evidence enough. These subjects should be addressed in total honesty. Does your present office possess such honesty? True freedom, and liberty rest upon these virtues.
State Citizenship has been the proper (and may I add , "only") status that our forefathers possessed before the military enforcement of the 14th Amendment upon our Country. In this so called 14th amendment there was created a new citizenship called "United States Citizens" (See US v Susan B. Anthony, Van Valkenburg vs. Brown, The Slaughterhouse Cases, Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections 221 A 2nd 431 1966, Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 1908, just to name a few). Even though the proposed amendment can never be shown to comply with the Article V procedures and mandates or by any other true evaluation can this proposed amendment ever be constitutionally considered ratified, but it is being forced upon us in such grievous levels that it would take improper, immoral and out right distasteful language to describe. Like the Utah State Supreme Court in 1968 stated in the case called Dyett v Turner "We feel like slaves in a galley" Now, is that any way for a Court to feel? Is that any way for a Nation to operate? Specially when the Amendment never ratified through Article V which has very limited methods and procedures and may I add, "simple" instructions as to when an amendment can be lawfully added to the Constitution? but be assured that you, nor any jurist of any level will find the use of military power to be used anywhere in Article V. It will also be remembered that Article V required the willful votes of the State Legislatures. and forbids the deprivation of State suffrage unless such States consent. Guns
(1)
pointed at their heads can not be considered consent. Not to mention the surrogate government sent in with military support to take out of office the properly elected office holders. There can be no proper replacement of an office holder unless the one moved out is "properly" taken out (see Hoke v. Henderson , Brown et el. v board of Levee Commissioner, and White v White 5 Barb NY 474 1849). I could go on with literally hundreds of historical facts to further conclude the obvious, but redundancy would more than likely be looked down upon.
I would also like to take this time to cover a well known "hideaway" the Courts have used so as not to answer the questions of the validity of this amendment. First and absolute foremost, the attacks and evasion on the Southern States were done without Due Process of Law, so this whole problem is a judicial question since due process is a strict virtue of the Courts. Did the government provide Due Process when taking life liberty and property from the States and it's peoples in 1861 and thereafter? Can any one ever produce the first summons, judicial hearing of any kind or a single Court order when the so called "guilty" States were being judged and sentenced by Congress? All that took place concerning the taking of life liberty and property took place with out the presence or adjudication of the Courts. It will be remembered that Jeremiah Black, the Attorney General prior to the time that options were being searched out, plainly stated that it would be illegal to invade the States unless they went through the Courts. He further elaborated that if the States were to be treated like enemies then they could retaliate in what ever form they felt necessary, and that ". . . if Congress shall break up the present Union, by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their federal obligations?. . . then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the general government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions." (See Official Opinions of Attorneys General of the United States vol. 9 page 516 through 526.) What Jeremiah Black said would be the official opinion of the United States Government according to section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act. What branch of government took heed or even gave it any rank at all. While this is strictly a due process question yet the Court has hid behind a fraudulent wall called "It's a political Question" Where in the history of Due Process can it ever be called a political question when due process is strictly a judicial function?
Any new meaning of Due Process later than the founded definition at the time it was placed in the United States Constitution in 1790 will have to go through Article V to be constitutionally accepted. So Post war changes have no standings such as the arrogance of Hurtado v Calf. 110 U.S. 516 (1884) stating that a grand jury would not be necessary "so long as the rest of the trial is fair" . However, even when the Courts has alluded the question concerning the 14th Amendment by using this wall, and saying it can not rule on the issue, I find it contradictory that the Court has made rulings concerning the validity of an amendment five times.(See Hollingsworth v. Virgina, 3 Dall, 378 1798, ; Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 231 1920; Rhode Island v Palmer, 253 U.S.; Dillion v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, and United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 1931) Such actions taken by the Court negates any trust in them when they turn around and select a time and an amendment that it wants to claim it has no authority to rule on.
Article V of the Constitution proves that the State powers are supreme over the Federal powers. Just pull it out and use it. Don't like the way the Court defines Article VI paragraph 2? States just put Article V into practice and clarify State authority, Don't Want The Federal government having 10 square miles? States, put Article V to practice and give them two square feet. Does the States feel like "Slaves in a galley"? Then take the constitutional power and put the oars back in the Federal hands. If States Rights are destroyed then so is the government (See Kidd v Pearson, 247 US 75-276)
Since the 14th Amendment did not ratify, then first and foremost there is no such thing as a United Sates Citizen as defined in post Civil war doctrines( See Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300, 302 1855).
This leaves us with only one kind of Citizenship and that is State citizenship. This being the case, I demand to be
(2)
recognized as a State Citizen and demand the protection of the State for all of my God given Rights. You should take note that I said nothing about constitutional rights because there is no such thing. The Constitution of South Carolina as adopted in 1789 and its amendments are for my protection and is the only law of the land (See State v Simmons, 2 pears SC, 761,767 ,1844) . Any other statutes, codes or acts placed upon the books being labeled "laws" that are in contradiction to the true law of the land has no authority, and is thus null and void (See Calder vs. Bull 3 Dall US 386 (1798) , Wales v. Stetson 2 Mass. 145; Foster v. Essex bank 16 Mass 245 (1819) and the famous obiter dictum made by John Marshal in what is "call" a case though it was not, the famous Marbury v Madison.) By the way that case should be called Marshall v. Madison since it attempts to disclaim what Madison had proclaimed just three years prior in the 1799 Virgina Convention concerning the authority of the State Courts being the highest Courts in the land. Wonder what happened to that opinion that was made by the actual drafter of the constitution himself and why it is not the prevailing concept today?
In Barron v Baltimore 7 Pet. US 243 (1833), It has been ruled and understood that our (State Citizens) rights are to be protected by the States. Some of the cases quoted above also reflect the differences of protection for the different citizenship. What I find is that the State of South Carolina is grossly failing to protect her citizens by first allowing them to be defrauded in the government supported School system where nothing is taught concerning the difference of citizenship. Why is it that all citizens are being called U. S. citizens? Why are State Citizens (not U. S. citizens, "who are citizens in the state in which they reside") being conned into believing that they are U. S. citizens? Why are State Citizens deliberately being misled? Why has the name "State Citizens" been removed from our vocabulary? and therefore left to disappear from history and our posterity? Why is the State of South Carolina not protecting its "lawful" citizens?
The State of South Carolina also knowingly allows the false teachings that the 14th Amendment ratified, and even goes further by placing in open public its policies under said amendment sending the message that "we are slaves in a galley" to such amendment. Why hasn't the State protected me from the encroaching, usurping, and tyrannical form of government when this new and unauthorized power trespasses upon my rights? Why is the Governor and State Legislature involved in this plot to render the State and Federal Constitutions null and void and willingly creates legislation and forms that reduce the State Citizens to the status of a subject?
Will this State protect me from the encroaching, usurping, and tyrannical form of government when this new and unauthorized power trespasses upon my rights?
Will the State of South Carolina welcome State citizens and provide the necessary protections required by the South Carolina Constitution?
Will the State of South Carolina provide a recognition of such status and provide the different protections to them as is required for such a citizen?
Will the State of South Carolina acknowledge the special class and forbid the defacto officers from trespassing on our rights and forcing citizens to have drivers licenses when such citizen is not on the road
for hire, but only traveling for private purposes?
Will the State stop using only the term United States citizen on all voting , licenses, and etc applications and add to them State Citizen? After all, what good is a State that has no personal and
committed Citizens?
Will the State provide historical truths to the text books concerning the 14th Amendment and how it was never ratified?
As you can see, it is question after question, after question. I can not even come close to asking them all because each question packs other question that are also packing. In essence, will the State of South Carolina stand up for truth?
By this time it is perfectly clear that my demands here is for you to operate the Dejure office you are now holding even though you are holding it defacto. It must be remembered that it is the "office" that owes me the protections and remedies I am demanding here and not the person(s) possessing it. Even though you are on the record as being a U. S. citizen and I find no record that would claim otherwise then it is further clear that this