A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions

[Hatha Sunahara]

I have read numerous opinions about the applicability of the Federal Income Tax to people who live in the 50 separate states of the United States. One of those opinions says that the Federal Income Tax only applies to the District of Columbia and Territories of the 'United States--like Guam and Puerto Rico, and that people living in the 50 separate states are not liable for Federal income tax. So therefore, the IRS tricks us all into voluntarily filing a form 1040 which, when signed, is an agreement that you fall under the jurisdiction of the IRS by virtue that you agree that you live in 'the District' of Columbia.

Here is Paul Andrew Mitchell explaining Federal jurisdiction. This guy wrote a book called The Federal Zone, which is available at his web site. Interesting stuff. Do you think you are liable for Federal Income Taxes? I pay mine. But do I really have to? Do you?


Hatha

http://www.supremelaw.org/library/cogent.html

"A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions"

by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General

Imagine you are sitting in a packed movie theater waiting for Titanic to begin, with one aisle running down the middle, separating the seats into two wings. The theater owner thinks you are all in his theater, but you know otherwise. Those who hold popcorn in their right hands, sit in the right wing; those who hold popcorn in their left hands, sit in the left wing. No? Well, just imagine it’s that way, okay? Titanic the movie is just a fiction, albeit a magnificent one.

Now, each person in the right wing looks across the aisle and sees nothing but foreign lefties. They are domestic types, these righties, and they stick together. Oddly, the lefties are no different in this regard. They look across the aisle and see nothing but foreign righties, because lefties stick together too. It’s all a question of where you’re sitting (or standing), during intermission. Please don’t stand during the movie, okay?

Now, in courts, the issue of standing has a very special meaning. Where you might be standing has immense bearing on the laws which apply, and don’t apply, to you. We chose the theater analogy above, because it helps to illustrate a very important concept in federal law, and that is the distinction between foreign and domestic jurisdictions.

The key which unlocks a great deal of confusion, and deception, is to know that the laws of every other State are foreign with respect to the one State you now inhabit. Thus, if you live in California, the laws of Maine, Florida, and Oregon are foreign to your home State’s own laws. You are like those people who prefer the right wing in theaters: everyone who sits in the left wing is somewhat foreign to everyone who sits in the right wing. The aisle running down the middle is the border, or boundary line dividing both wings into truly distinct groups.

Once you understand this relative distinction, you only need to take one more leap, and you will become a budding expert in federal law. Here it is: the laws of the District of Columbia are also foreign with respect to the local, domestic laws of California, Maine, Florida, Oregon, and every other State in the Union. Likewise, the laws of every State in the Union are foreign with respect to the local, domestic jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

But, you argue, Congress makes laws for the entire country, and the States of the Union are certainly part of our country, aren’t they? Yes, that is true. However, Congress passes laws in one of two modes, or roles. In one role, Congress can make laws for the entire country, which encompasses all 50 States. This is just one hat that Congress wears.

In another role, Congress can make laws only for the District of Columbia, because Congress is the "state" legislature for that area of land. When Congress makes laws which apply only inside the District of Columbia, these laws are called "municipal" laws, and these domestic, "municipal" laws are just as foreign to the 50 States, as the laws of those 50 States are foreign with respect to D.C., and to each other. This is another hat which Congress wears.

Now that you understand this important distinction between foreign and domestic, as those terms are used in American law, you are now ready to tackle a more difficult problem. Here goes: if a corporation is domestic by law, does that mean it was chartered by Congress? Answer: not necessarily. The correct answer depends on where you and it are standing.

If you are standing in California, and if the corporation was chartered by the State of California, then the corporation is, indeed, domestic, because it is on the same side of the aisle as you. But, if you cross the aisle and join the lefties, then that corporation becomes foreign with respect to your new situation. If you are standing in Nevada, that corporation is foreign to you.

Similarly, if a corporation was originally chartered in the District of Columbia, and you are standing in California or Nevada, then that corporation is likewise foreign with respect to where you are now standing. Foreign and domestic are relative concepts, in law.

The key which unlocks this whole matter of corporations is to appreciate that Congress can only charter a corporation in its capacity as the legislature for the District of Columbia and for other areas which are not States of the Union. Collectively, these other areas are now called the "federal zone," and the States of the Union are collectively called the "state zone."
Here’s a real easy way to remember this: the stars on the American flag are each States of the Union (the state zone). The blue field behind the stars is the federal zone. The stripes symbolize the original thirteen colonies. Gold fringes are really superfluous.

Because of the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, Congress is prevented from creating a truly national corporation. The Tenth Amendment reserves to each of the 50 States a right to charter their own local, domestic corporations. These State corporations are, in turn, foreign with respect to all federal corporations chartered by Congress, without exception.

Now, think back to our theater analogy. The theater owner thinks that all of you are in his theater (read "under his jurisdiction"). In one sense, that is true. He owns the theater, and he can demand that customers leave if they are damaging the seats, for example.

But, in another sense, when movies are showing, he really needs to stay in the projection booth, because that’s what his customers have paid him to do. In a sense, his "jurisdiction" is then limited to the projection booth when movies are showing, and movie goers occupy the larger area where the seats are situated. That larger area is their "jurisdiction," not his.

To be technical about it, the projection booth is foreign with respect to each wing of seats; the left wing is also foreign with respect to the right wing AND to the projection booth; the right wing is foreign with respect to the projection booth AND to the left wing. Each pair-wise relation defines a separate foreign/domestic relationship, depending on where one is seated, or "standing" in law. The land where you are now standing is always domestic, extending up to, but not beyond, your State’s border. Hence, everything outside is foreign in this context.

There is one more facet to this analogy which we need to explore. The theater owner does have certain vested rights of ownership. He can evict offensive customers, and those who might trespass into the theater during off-hours. But, he cannot violate their fundamental Rights.

Congress has been vested with certain "national" responsibilities, and these comprise a very limited set of authorities which Congress can exercise inside the state zone. Outside the state zone and inside the federal zone, Congress can create lots of local, municipal laws that are enforceable only inside the federal zone. But, Congress cannot wear both hats at once.

The most surprising, and even stunning discovery we made in 1992, was to prove that the Internal Revenue Code is a local, municipal Code for the federal zone, and only for the federal zone, as far as federal income taxes are concerned. A federal court in Texas has even agreed.

If you really want to read the rest of this story, you will have to buy your own copy of "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue," eighth edition, soon to be published in hard copy. Please avoid any electronic copies that were posted on the Internet. Every one of those copies was stolen, modified, and then placed on the Internet without this author’s prior permission. If you want to see the movie, please buy a ticket. Oh, one last thing: "internal" means "municipal". Municipal Revenue Code? YES! Film at 11. Please take a seat.

[palani]

If you claim status as a U.S. citizen under the constitution known as the 14th amendment then it does not matter where in the world you live ... you are required to follow the laws established for those citizen-subjects.

[Carl]

It starts with the W-4.

[Carl]

If you claim status as a U.S. citizen under the constitution known as the 14th amendment then it does not matter where in the world you live ... you are required to follow the laws established for those citizen-subjects. As there is no mention within the 14th that even remotely suggests that it is creating a new class of citizenship, please post any evidence you may have that demonstrates the 14th did such a thing.

[palani]

please post any evidence you may have that demonstrates the 14th did such a thing. Maybe if you had the ability to reason you would be better off than merely reading.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. This amendment creates a new class of citizenship that is domestic to the federal government.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9DaHqW0D1y4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=annotated+constitution&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wj7NT4UtiPKCB7KtiOoO&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=annotated%20constitution&f=false
http://i47.tinypic.com/209mzpw.jpg

The bill of rights are a guarantee from the federal government to the governments of the several States. None of the bill of rights apply to the new citizen class. While the federal government might have applied the same constitutional rights they chose instead to derive civil rights for them instead. After all, why bother to have slaves if you can't control them?

Why do you suppose the promise of due process is repeated in the 14th amendment when it was already promised in the organic constitution? Doesn't that appear to be a bit redundant to you?

[Carl]

Maybe if you had the ability to reason you would be better off than merely reading.

This amendment creates a new class of citizenship that is domestic to the federal government.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9DaHqW0D1y4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=annotated+constitution&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wj7NT4UtiPKCB7KtiOoO&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=annotated%20constitution&f=false
http://i47.tinypic.com/209mzpw.jpg

The bill of rights are a guarantee from the federal government to the governments of the several States. None of the bill of rights apply to the new citizen class. While the federal government might have applied the same constitutional rights they chose instead to derive civil rights for them instead. After all, why bother to have slaves if you can't control them?

Why do you suppose the promise of due process is repeated in the 14th amendment when it was already promised in the organic constitution? Doesn't that appear to be a bit redundant to you?

One man's non legislative opinion of what he assumes the 14th did is not evidence that it did any such thing.

[palani]

One man's non legislative opinion of what he assumes the 14th did is not evidence that it did any such thing.
You make a good point for Cicero's observation:
Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature.
Letters to Atticus[?], Marcus Tullius Cicero

Why not look up the case cites and convince yourself?

[Carl]

You make a good point for Cicero's observation:
Wise men are instructed by reason;
Men of less understanding, by experience;
The most ignorant, by necessity;
The beasts by nature.
Letters to Atticus[?], Marcus Tullius Cicero

Why not look up the case cites and convince yourself?

If you understood what Cicero's observation meant, you wouldn't be so quick to quote him as your defense, especially when you base your claim upon unfounded opinion.

Why not look up the case cites and note the common denominator, it ain't the 14th, it's the courts legislating from the bench. Now if you don't believe me, go back and read the 14th again and point out where in it, it creates a new class of citizen.

The courts pull that same crap with the commerce clause.

[palani]

Maybe several more opinions will help:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pyxFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA562&dq=annotated+14th+amendment&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mk_NT_jINaTO2AXb56WeAg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://i49.tinypic.com/2c0ppz.jpg

Can you read between the lines to see that the 14th amendment creates another constitution albeit a more truncated one for those who accept it's benefits.

15 Stat 249 is intended for those who do not appreciate the trust constructed by the 14th.

[Carl]

Maybe several more opinions will help:
Can you read between the lines to see that the 14th amendment creates another constitution albeit a more truncated one for those who accept it's benefits.

15 Stat 249 is intended for those who do not appreciate the trust constructed by the 14th. Don't have to "read between the lines", I've read the ruling.

Holden v. Hardy, 169 US 366 - Supreme Court 1898
(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9364557144853995256&q=Holden+v.+Hardy,+169+U.S.+366+(1898)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1)

No indication of a "separate class of citizen" being created. That claim appears to be a figment of your overactive imagination.

[Hatha Sunahara]

If you claim status as a U.S. citizen under the constitution known as the 14th amendment then it does not matter where in the world you live ... you are required to follow the laws established for those citizen-subjects.

There is some controversy about whether there is a law that requires citizens to pay income taxes. This was the central theme of the late Aaron Russo's film America Freedom to Fascism. The IRS cannot show you the law. Nor can anyone else. There seems to be not only a jurisdictional problem but a problem of whether any law actually exists that can be enforced.

However, if you 'volunteer' to pay taxes, you are doing so legally, and the government has no problem with you. If you do not volunteer, they are on very shaky ground prosecuting you. That is why they are willing to negotiate how much taxes you 'should' pay. When they mailed you a form 1040 many years ago, they also mailed you the instructions for how to fill it out. In those instructions--right up front--on page 1 or 2, you always had the Commissar of the IRS bragging that the income tax is VOLUNTARY. Hahaha. If you didn't volunteer, and they came after you, wouldn't that claim by the IRS absolve you of an 'obligation' to pay an income tax?

Ahhh, but I forget, This is English we speak. If it goes to court, the lingua franca is legalese, where VOLUNTARY means MANDATORY. That is what is wrong with our sorry state of affairs, or is that affairs of state? You can't rely on the language as a legal guide. So, they can lie to you with impunity.

Hatha

[palani]

No indication of a "separate class of citizen" being created. That claim appears to be a figment of your overactive imagination.

Would this suggest that the information I provide is not for you to understand? You are permitted to go through life with blinders. Why don't you just go ahead and do that and stop torturing yourself?

[Carl]

Would this suggest that the information I provide is not for you to understand?

No, it would suggest that you're talking out your ass based upon assumptions that you gathered by "reading between the lines".

[palani]

You can't rely on the language as a legal guide. So, they can lie to you with impunity.


Hatha
Revenue courts are admiralty. From what I can gather they rely upon you to incriminate yourself. For example, they will send you a notice that you owe $50,000. You respond "I don't owe that much" so have just admitted you owe SOMETHING.

I would rely on the Statute of Fraud and refrain from signing anything. Also they send these notices to a federal area (zip code) and to an ALL CAPS fiction. Their return address is an offer to bill you $300 if private use is involved (it is). Finally, when my government corresponds to me they don't pay postage .. the envelopes are franked. Paying postage for the notice means that the use is PRIVATE and you will owe $300 just by opening the letter.

I don't have any transactions using federal reserve notes so have little if any at all to report. Others making big incomes might not be so lucky.

[palani]

No, it would suggest that you're talking out your ass based upon assumptions that you gathered by "reading between the lines". God doesn't want you to see who am I to counter his decision?

But if you chose to change your ways, here is a tip

Change of diet will not help a man who will not change his thoughts.
When a man makes his thoughts pure, he no longer desires impure
food.

[Carl]

Since you are incapable of reading the lines printed, let me relay to you what the supreme court said the 14th did:

It made the application of the 5th Amendment Federally enforceable.

[palani]

It made the application of the 5th Amendment Federally enforceable.
Of course it did ... to federal citizens. State citizens are still at the mercy of their representatives. I wouldn't have an agent represent me that rolled around like a loose cannon.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Revenue courts are admiralty. From what I can gather they rely upon you to incriminate yourself. For example, they will send you a notice that you owe $50,000. You respond "I don't owe that much" so have just admitted you owe SOMETHING.

I would rely on the Statute of Fraud and refrain from signing anything. Also they send these notices to a federal area (zip code) and to an ALL CAPS fiction. Their return address is an offer to bill you $300 if private use is involved (it is). Finally, when my government corresponds to me they don't pay postage .. the envelopes are franked. Paying postage for the notice means that the use is PRIVATE and you will owe $300 just by opening the letter.

I don't have any transactions using federal reserve notes so have little if any at all to report. Others making big incomes might not be so lucky.

Perhaps it's best to just not file a return, and see what happens? Or, if you file a return, don't sign it and see what happens? That signature has gotta be more important to them than they let on. No contract, no jurisdiction for an Admiralty court.

Hatha

[Carl]

Of course it did ... to federal citizens. State citizens are still at the mercy of their representatives. I wouldn't have an agent represent me that rolled around like a loose cannon.

OK, let me rephrase for the mentally retarded croud: It made the application of the 5th Amendment Federally enforceable for ALL CITIZENS.

Your U.S. citizenship is organic to you being a state citizen, absent revolution or revolt, the two are inseparable.

[Carl]

Perhaps it's best to just not file a return, and see what happens? Or, if you file a return, don't sign it and see what happens? That signature has gotta be more important to them than they let on. No contract, no jurisdiction for an Admiralty court.

Hatha That works for me...

[palani]

OK, let me rephrase for the mentally retarded croud: It made the application of the 5th Amendment Federally enforceable for ALL CITIZENS. I see you do not have a clue as to why "due process" mentioned in the 5th needed to be repeated in the 14th. WHICH DUE PROCESS DO YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE RECEIVING, the 5th, the 14th or both?


Your U.S. citizenship is organic to you being a state citizen, absent revolution or revolt, the two are inseparable.
15 Stat 249 is intended to sever 14th amendment ties. But I don't expect you to understand this either. I doubt if you can understand how one of the several States can be considered a foreign government to the U.S.

[palani]

Perhaps it's best to just not file a return, and see what happens? Or, if you file a return, don't sign it and see what happens? That signature has gotta be more important to them than they let on. No contract, no jurisdiction for an Admiralty court.

Hatha The Army can teach a grunt to charge a machine gun nest in 90 days. By comparison grown men weep at the thought of challenging the IRS.

Your signature on a 1040 is under the penalty of perjury. That is where you agree to be punished if you missed a decimal point.

[Hatha Sunahara]

The grunt is only in the Army because he 'stepped forward' when he was asked to. That is, he unknowingly accepted everything the Army had to offer him.

Think of what the world would be like if they taught us in school how to avoid unwanted contracts. But instead, they teach us to conform and obey. The exact opposite of what one would expect from an education.

Here is a humorous example of a 'citizen' having intercourse with the IRS:

Dear Mr. Director: I do not understand! One of your employees, apparently working under your specific
direction, has just sent me a bill for some alleged tax, along with penalties and interest. I have attached a
copy for you to read for yourself. I am returning this presentment, without dishonor, because I have learned
that I have no tax liability. This presentment by you through your agent, Mr. So-and-So, indicates an attempt
by you both acting in concert to commit constructive fraud (U.C.C. 3-305 (2) (b) & (c) by trying to Induce me
to accept it for the benefit of the Internal Revenue Service, Inc. and/or its principal(s). Your agent, apparently
acting under your guidelines, has provided me with no performance or consideration which would cause me to
become indebted on any instrument not bearing my signature per U.C.C. 3-401. Will you direct your agent,
Mr. So-and-So, to send me a copy of the instrument(s) containing my signature that forces me to perform to
your demand under agreement, as set forth in U.C.C. 1-201 (3), for my examination? Will you direct your
agent, Mr, So-and-So, to send me a copy of the source of income and the description which will designate
what "geographical" part of the statutorily defined "United States" it came from, so that your claim can be
substantiated? Will you direct your agent, Mr. So-and-So, under the requirements of U.C.C.3-805, to send
me a copy or any negotiable instrument(s) which you claim I have signed, making the Internal Revenue
Service, Inc. a holder-in-due-course, with the right of presentment and demand? Mr. Director, is your Principal
pursuant to my case under U.C.C. 3-403:42, the Federal Reserve System, The International Monetary Fund,
The Agency For International Development, or the Treasury of the United States? In the event that you do not
have the above requested contractual documents, will you direct your agent, Mr. So-and-So, to advise me in
writing that further investigation has established that I am not a U.S. Taxpayer under the IRS Code and that no
further correspondence to me will be issued?
Mr. Director, you and your agent, Mr. So-and-So, are hereby informed that I am not a resident of
Washington, D.C., or any of its possessions, territories and enclaves scattered across the American
Republic. I do not have a trade or business within any of those areas. Therefore, it is my legal determination
that your presentment is under a fraudulent unconscionable contract as outlined in U.C.C. 2-302. In addition,
your presentment is discharged per U.C.C. 3-601 (2) & (3). You have ten days, from the date of the receipt of
this certified letter, to comply with my request for information. My request should be easy, as it should be
right in my personal file on Mr. So-and-So's desk. If you fall to comply, a fault will exist as set forth in U.C.C.
1-120 (16). The cause will be yours and would make null and void all of your actions from the beginning as set
forth in U.C.C. 1-103. In addition, according to U.C.C. 3-505 (2), your failure to comply promptly with this
information will invalidate the presentment you have made to me in your letter dated today. Very Truly yours,
Patrick Henry.

I'm sorry, I lack the link to where I got this.


Hatha

[Blink]

There is some controversy about whether there is a law that requires citizens to pay income taxes. This was the central theme of the late Aaron Russo's film America Freedom to Fascism. The IRS cannot show you the law. Nor can anyone else. There seems to be not only a jurisdictional problem but a problem of whether any law actually exists that can be enforced.

However, if you 'volunteer' to pay taxes, you are doing so legally, and the government has no problem with you. If you do not volunteer, they are on very shaky ground prosecuting you. That is why they are willing to negotiate how much taxes you 'should' pay. When they mailed you a form 1040 many years ago, they also mailed you the instructions for how to fill it out. In those instructions--right up front--on page 1 or 2, you always had the Commissar of the IRS bragging that the income tax is VOLUNTARY. Hahaha. If you didn't volunteer, and they came after you, wouldn't that claim by the IRS absolve you of an 'obligation' to pay an income tax?

Ahhh, but I forget, This is English we speak. If it goes to court, the lingua franca is legalese, where VOLUNTARY means MANDATORY. That is what is wrong with our sorry state of affairs, or is that affairs of state? You can't rely on the language as a legal guide. So, they can lie to you with impunity.

Hatha

I agree. This duplicity of language (legalese) is a major contributer in controlling us...........

[palani]

While witty and humorous the letter is probably not what you want to do. If you have not received notice then why bother responding? Just return the correspondence unopened. In my case I made sure all parties who might wish to correspond with me knew my correct address. When a letter arrives not correctly addressed back it goes.

Once you have received valid notice then your due process begins. This means you get to ask questions ... ASKING ... AS-KING ... if you see the connection. As soon as you make one statement (as "I don't live in the District of Columbia") then your due process is complete and it is off to hearing for you. In addition to the right to ask questions you also have a right to receive answers to those questions. Try to phrase the questions so that they may be answered by a (yes) or a (no). Any other answer than yes/no is then non-responsive.

[Carl]

I see you do not have a clue as to why "due process" mentioned in the 5th needed to be repeated in the 14th. WHICH DUE PROCESS DO YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE RECEIVING, the 5th, the 14th or both? palani, please learn to read.

Before the 14th, the 5th Amendment was only applicable to the Federal Government and in Federal Courts.

State Courts and Governments could do pretty much what they pleased, to include indulging in slavery and discrimination by law.


***CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

[palani]

Before the 14th, the 5th Amendment was only applicable to the Federal Government and in Federal Courts. The 5th amendment was unchanged by the addition of the 14th. Where did you get the idea that the function of the 5th amendment had changed?


State Courts and Governments could do pretty much what they pleased, to include indulging in slavery and discrimination by law. The 14th amendment applies to a new federal class of citizen. The old class (pre-1868 ) still gets what the 5th amendment provides. I don't believe the 5th amendment even applies to 14th amendment citizens.

I can see how you might be confused.

[Carl]

The 5th amendment was unchanged by the addition of the 14th. Where did you get the idea that the function of the 5th amendment had changed? What are you, 12? Not "changed", EXTENDED.


The 14th amendment applies to a new federal class of citizen. And again, an ASSUMPTION on your part with absolutely no evidence to support it.


The old class (pre-1868 ) still gets what the 5th amendment provides. What pre-1868 Federal Employees received by way of the 5th Amendment is irrelevant, immaterial and beside the point.


I don't believe the 5th amendment even applies to 14th amendment citizens.

Well, considering that there is no such thing as a "14th amendment citizen" and that the 14th Amendment made the 5th, as well as other protective amendments, applicable to All Citizens, your attempt to make distinctions that do not exist in fact or in any law, makes you look a little ridiculous.



I can see how you might be confused.

You poor boy, I'm not the one confused.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Does everyone belong to this new class of 'citizen'? Or are you presumed to be a citizen because you have not declared otherwise? How does anyone enter into a contract in which one is a 'citizen'? Is it by accepting privileges and benefits and waiving rights? Is it the practice of voluntary slavery? Does paying taxes make you a citizen? What if you don't want any privileges or benefits? What do you have to do to 'opt out'? Or do slaves not get to 'opt out'? Because that is the nature of slavery, aka citizenship?

What if you just want the government to not deny you your rights, and leave you alone? Maybe Gaillo's signature is a maxim of law.


Hatha

[palani]

Not "changed", EXTENDED. Where do you get the idea that the 5th was EXTENDED? Nowhere does it state such.

And again, an ASSUMPTION on your part with absolutely no evidence to support it. States it right there in the 14th.

What pre-1868 Federal Employees received by way of the 5th Amendment is irrelevant, immaterial and beside the point. The ORGANIC CONSTITUTION is the entire point. If the 5th (for example) is irrelevant that means it was replaced. What was it replaced with? My answer ... the 14th replaced everything. Glad to see you agree.

Well, considering that there is no such thing as a "14th amendment citizen" and that the 14th Amendment made the 5th, as well as other protective amendments, applicable to All Citizens, your attempt to make distinctions that do not exist in fact or in any law, makes you look a little ridiculous. Didn't you just state the action of the 5th amendment was irrelevant?

You poor boy, I'm not the one confused. Not from where I am sitting.

[Carl]

Where do you get the idea that the 5th was EXTENDED? Nowhere does it state such.
States it right there in the 14th.
The ORGANIC CONSTITUTION is the entire point. If the 5th (for example) is irrelevant that means it was replaced. What was it replaced with? My answer ... the 14th replaced everything. Glad to see you agree.
Didn't you just state the action of the 5th amendment was irrelevant?
Not from where I am sitting.

OK, you've gone into full blown idiot mode making shit up for me, this conversation is over.

Have fun with your delusions.

[palani]

Does everyone belong to this new class of 'citizen'? I doubt if it includes Mexicans or Panamanians. In addition there are 50 other nationalities that are outside the 14th amendment classification.

Or are you presumed to be a citizen because you have not declared otherwise? If you were born in one of the several States but have made ANY declaration of U.S. citizenship then you fall under the 14th amendment.

How does anyone enter into a contract in which one is a 'citizen'? You believe you were born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

Is it by accepting privileges and benefits and waiving rights? Usually they will have you sign a statement ... after you provide a birth record.

Is it the practice of voluntary slavery? Americans are a very unselfish and giving people. This works against them in the long run.

Does paying taxes make you a citizen? In the early 1800's Pennsylvania had a statute that said that a citizen was one who paid Pennsylvania taxes.

What if you don't want any privileges or benefits? Don't accept them. None are free. They all come with a price.

What do you have to do to 'opt out'? 15 Stat 249

Or do slaves not get to 'opt out'? Because that is the nature of slavery, aka citizenship? Just because you once made a mistake no need to compound it. Anything you did can be undone nunc pro tunc.

What if you just want the government to not deny you your rights, and leave you alone? If you know how to handle situations you can turn down contracts with honor.

[palani]

OK, you've gone into full blown idiot mode making shit up for me, this conversation is over.

It was over before you pretended to start. Nothing here applies to you.

[Carl]

It was over before you pretended to start. Nothing here applies to you. I knew that, you're a tool and a spammer who can't read but loves reading your goofy beliefs into things.

There is no such thing as 14th Amendment citizen separate from a state citizen who is also an organic U.S. citizen.

It's a distinction of the delusional angling for a way out while remaining well in.

[Nomoss]

I knew that, you're a tool and a spammer who can't read but loves reading your goofy beliefs into things.

There is no such thing as 14th Amendment citizen separate from a state citizen who is also an organic U.S. citizen.

It's a distinction of the delusional angling for a way out while remaining well in.
Carl you are like two right shoes.
One is just not right and that is YOU!
To stop being a 14th you need to have a Affidavit of Status.
If not you ARE a 14th.

[palani]

There is no such thing as 14th Amendment citizen separate from a state citizen who is also an organic U.S. citizen.

Too often we get so wrapped up in history that information being reviewed appears to be what is happening today. Your statement is true in that the several States of the union were eliminated by the action of Harry S. Truman on June 25th, 1948. All that remains are 14th amendment citizens and us French inhabitants (in my particular region). In the region covered by the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo all that are left are 14th amendment citizens and Mexicans.

The several States have been relegated to mere administrative subdivisions of the federal government. An analogy would be attending a bullfight with a nutted bull.

[Carl]

Carl you are like two right shoes.
One is just not right and that is YOU!
To stop being a 14th you need to have a Affidavit of Status.
If not you ARE a 14th.
Thanks for that observation, I strive to endeavor to preserver in the face of inanity.

How does one go about "stop being" what does not exist?

OK, let me try again.

You are both, a citizen of the state and a citizen of the U.S. at the same time.

There is no lawful way to seperate the two.

For as long as you remain a citizen of a state, you will be a U.S. citizen because your U.S. citizenship is organic to your state's membership in the Union.

The 14th applies to all U.S. citizens, which necessarily means it applies to all citizens of every state in the union.

This means that, by natural consequence of your organic status as a U.S. citizen arising out of your state's membership in the union of states and your citizenship within a state, the 14th applies to you.

And this means that there is no legalistic escape from the 14th short of renouncing your U.S. citizenship, which consequently negates your state citizenship.

As an aside; the 14th has absolutely nothing to do with your status as a corporate person, that's a product of the 1933 U.S. bankruptcy.

[palani]

You are both, a citizen of the state and a citizen of the U.S. at the same time. That is what the 14th amendment says (except it makes no mention of me). The opt out is 15 Stat 249.


There is no lawful way to seperate the two. Yes there is. 15 Stat 249.


For as long as you remain a citizen of a state, you will be a U.S. citizen because your U.S. citizenship is organic to your state's membership in the Union. Where is it written that you MUST be a citizen of a state? Provisions are made for inhabitants.


The 14th applies to all U.S. citizens, which necessarily means it applies to all citizens of every state in the union. The U.S. was brought into existence by the U.S. constitution in order to deal with TERRITORIES. Once territories become states they stop being controlled by congress. Naturalization is handled by the U.S. so states may only choose their citizens from a pool of U.S. citizens. Once a man becomes a state citizen U.S. citizenship, having fulfilled its function, may disappear.


This means that, by natural consequence of your organic status as a U.S. citizen arising out of your state's membership in the union of states and your citizenship within a state, the 14th applies to you. 15 stat 249 provides a REMEDY. Government must present you with a choice. That is fundamental.


And this means that there is no legalistic escape from the 14th short of renouncing your U.S. citizenship, which consequently negates your state citizenship. If you happen to have been born OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the U.S. [aka the District of Columbia] the 14th amendment hardly applies unless you happen to have papers that state you are naturalized.

Carl, you WANT the security of 14th amendment citizenship. I would rather be free. I have no problem with you choosing slavery over freedom. Enjoy yourself.


As an aside; the 14th has absolutely nothing to do with your status as a corporate person, that's a product of the 1933 U.S. bankruptcy. A person is a word, an action or representation. Corporations are only capable of representation (not having vocal chords, arms or legs).

[Carl]

palani, you're a trip,

I've destroyed your argument, face up to it, admit it and try to get on with your life without that delusional crutch.


15 stat 249 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/40-2/s174) - A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR REPRESENTATION OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME EXHIBITION TO BE HELD AT HARVE FRANCE

[palani]

15 stat 249 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/40-2/s174) - A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR REPRESENTATION OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME EXHIBITION TO BE HELD AT HARVE FRANCE

Always ready to expand your education, Carl.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=4

Put 223 in the "turn to page" window and see what comes up. Look for something labeled CCXLIX.

[palani]

There is quite a bit of interesting detail concerned with 15 Stat 249. First, it was passed the day before the 14th amendment. Quite a coincidence since the topic of expatriation had been suppressed since the formation of the union (see Kent's Commentaries on the topic).

Second, a situation was set up wherein an Army captain was sent or was enroute to Ireland with the view to foment rebellion among the Irish. He was said to be a Finian. Somehow (ha, ha) the English got word of his mission and intercepted his ship mid-ocean (a miracle in the day of sailing ships). They threw him in prison for a while and the incident caused numerous petitions to be sent to Congress directing them to aid his release. You could go to the congressional record of the time in both houses to read of these petitions. The answer of Congress was to declare Americans need protection in foreign states and directing the president to do anything short of war to protect them.

Of course the Americans needing protection were black and the foreign states being bad were the former southern Confederacy states. You really have to appreciate the effort that went into crafting this charade so that 15 Stat 249 could be passed and few people would be wiser as to its true intended purpose.

I sympathize that you have been confused your entire life but then these are professionals that you elect to be your representatives. They do an outstanding job, don't you think?

[Carl]

Always ready to expand your education, Carl.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=4

Put 223 in the "turn to page" window and see what comes up. Look for something labeled CCXLIX.

The Expatriation act of 1868, so what's your point?

I've already said you can renounce your citizenship.

You're such a halfass. Why don't you look up the legal process of renouncing and the consequences of doing so.

Here, I'll save you the trouble of finding a link:

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship
(http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html)
And again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.


**You really should try to stop letting conspiracy theories and jail house legalisms dictate reality for you.

[palani]

The Expatriation act of 1868, so what's your point? God doesn't want you to see then who am I to fill you in?


I've already said you can renounce your citizenship. By doing so you acknowledge that you actually HAVE citizenship. I have none. I am my own state and operate my own government and will continue to do so until a reason exists to do otherwise.


You're such a halfass. You are ignorant. Calling names isn't going to make you any points.


Why don't you look up the legal process of renouncing and the consequences of doing so. If Panama suddenly decided to enact a law making me Panamanian would I have to rebut that too? In law the one asserting is the one who has the duty to prove.


Here, I'll save you the trouble of finding a link:

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship
(http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html)
And again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.
U.S. citizenship is ONLY about the 14th amendment. I have no need to renounce or expatriate from something I do not have. The topic comes under the heading of attempting to prove (or disprove) a negative. I care not what rules Congress has set up for a class that I am not a member of. Can you show me any naturalization papers I might have signed?

I can see why you elect politicians after your own nature to represent you. They are all bozo's too.

[Carl]

God doesn't want you to see then who am I to fill you in?
By doing so you acknowledge that you actually HAVE citizenship. I have none. I am my own state and operate my own government and will continue to do so until a reason exists to do otherwise.
You are ignorant. Calling names isn't going to make you any points.
If Panama suddenly decided to enact a law making me Panamanian would I have to rebut that too? In law the one asserting is the one who has the duty to prove.
U.S. citizenship is ONLY about the 14th amendment. I have no need to renounce or expatriate from something I do not have. The topic comes under the heading of attempting to prove (or disprove) a negative. I care not what rules Congress has set up for a class that I am not a member of. Can you show me any naturalization papers I might have signed?
I can see why you elect politicians after your own nature to represent you. They are all bozo's too.

Damn, you write some of the silliest things.

We've already established that there is no such thing as a "14th Amendment Citizen" so repeating that falsity does nothing to enhance your position.

Let me tell you exactly what you're attempting to do: You want to finagle a way to live outside the law, legally.

And that is the sum of all your arguments.

[palani]

We've already established that there is no such thing as a "14th Amendment Citizen" I take it the "we" is evidence that you have a mouse in your pocket?


Let me tell you exactly what you're attempting to do: You want to finagle a way to live outside the law, legally. Legal and lawful are two separate topics. Law permits anything not forbidden. Legal permits anything licensed. Is that clear now? If anything I choose to live within the law. That does not insure my words or actions are entirely legal.


And that is the sum of all your arguments. I have made no arguments. I am not licensed to do so.


Argue:
To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend.

attempt (n.)
1530s, from attempt (v.). Meaning "effort to accomplish something by violence"

Are YOU licensed to accomplish something by violence?

[Carl]

I take it the "we" is evidence that you have a mouse in your pocket?
Legal and lawful are two separate topics. Law permits anything not forbidden. Legal permits anything licensed. Is that clear now? If anything I choose to live within the law. That does not insure my words or actions are entirely legal.
I have made no arguments. I am not licensed to do so.
Are YOU licensed to accomplish something by violence?

Hey palani, I found a descriptive moniker that fits you perfectly; "Impotent Progenitor"


(definition: noun Informal a person who talks much and pretentiously but says little of importance...)

[palani]

Hey palani, I found a descriptive moniker that fits you perfectly; "Impotent Progenitor"


(definition: noun Informal a person who talks much and pretentiously but says little of importance...)

Is your computer talking to you now for I have not spoken.