"The People" does not include U.S Citizens." (Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S 243)
"By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage - arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states. Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855)
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
In other words, you do not have to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a state citizen. This was held to be true by the Maryland Supreme Court in 1966 wherein the state:
"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.” Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)
"...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” "One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)
In fact, in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54 (c) shows us that Congress knows and understands that federal laws do not apply within anyone of the several states of the union, but do apply in the Federal State (federal enclave) created by the Buck Act.
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
(c) Application of Terms. As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings.
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession. "State" includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession"
1787 - Constitution: Article One, Section 8: Grants to congress this authority:
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful Buildings..."
The District to which this section refers to was later to become Washington, District of Columbia (Washington D.C). It is important to note that this District is not inclusive to the Republic. That is, it is not inside the Republic, it is outside (an Exclusive Jurisdiction). It is by virtue of this that laws for this jurisdiction do not generally meet, nor have any obligation to meet, constitutional restrictions or limitations. In other words, Congress may make any law it wishes for this jurisdiction without regard for constitutionality. And they have done so.
In effect, this gives Congress a dual character. In one capacity, they can make law for the Republic of the united States of America, as long as it meets constitutional requirements. In the other capacity, they can make laws for the District of Columbia.
1868 - The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Generally most people view this as the amendment which freed the slaves, who, up to this time, were denied standing in court due to lack of citizenship status. The status of United States citizenship, which is mentioned for the first time here in law, and provided by this Amendment, gains its existence in the laws of the District, and it is in this jurisdiction that this citizenship rests, not in the Republic. The citizen of the Republic is the State Citizen, since the several States retained their independent nation status even with the signing of the Constitution. That is why the constitution clearly states the relationship of the several states as a UNION. Therefore a United States citizen would be subject to the laws of the District as well as the Republic.
In 1871 Congress exercised its exclusive legislative authority over the District and created a government for this jurisdiction. It is a corporation, municipal in nature, but still a corporation.
The actual language reads as follows:
This CORPORATION has become known to you as the United States, as opposed to these united States of America (the Republic). This means that when you claim to be a U.S Citizen you are claiming to be a citizen of the corporation, aka an "employee". All of the frauds committed against the sovereign people stem from this ideal. The CEO of this corporation is known as the President of the United States.
"That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes.." - 16 United States Statutes at Large 419; FORTY FIRST CONGRES SESSION III, CHAPTER 62, 1871
The Buck Act
The Buck Act Title 4 U.S.C.S. § 110 (d) and (e) created this federal State within the boundaries of any state. If Congress wanted to apply the Acts to all the sovereign states, they would only have to include the statement "the 50 sovereign states of the union of several states." But, this they did not do, as to do so would be in clear violation of the intended restrictions of the Constitution for the United States of America.
"...American Citizenship in a republican form of government has been effectively altered over many generations to US Citizenship in a democratic form of government centralized in Washington DC instead of a guaranteed "republican form of government" in the states where it was originally intended.
"American Citizenship is based in the states and their respective constitutions, not the federal. There is no federal US citizenship except for those born in the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States. But U.S citizenship is NOT American Citizenship with inalienable, sovereign rights. U.S citizenship has only civil rights as granted by the US Congress, not "constitutional rights.” ..." --Johnny Liberty, 7/4/2004, Rumor Mill News
"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”. Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
If you claim U.S Citizenship, essentially you are claiming to have your domicile in the District of Columbia (Washington D.C). You are now subject to all the statutes of D.C as a federal citizen. Statutes are not LAW, but legislative rules of a society. You don't have to physically live in a place, in order to claim it has your domicile.
Some say it is very important that we, as individual private natural persons, NEVER REFER TO OURSELVES AS "CITIZENS". The government, to indicate a person who owes allegiance to the federal government and is therefore subject to its jurisdiction uses the term "citizen." As you will find out, many words are used and construed by the federal government to denote federal citizenship. To admit to citizenship, one SUBJECTS ONE'S SELF to federal jurisdiction.
Although the Fourteenth Amendment is often referred to as the Amendment "that freed the slaves", it instead ENSLAVED the free. Because the Constitution did not allow for citizenship comprised of people OUTSIDE of the white race, it would appear that the purpose of this amendment was to give the Negro race the same rights and privileges as the native-born nations. In reality the purpose of this amendment was to destroy the free native-born people by creating corporations; and by giving these corporate, artificials entities the right to own property. This artificial corporation is the PERSON. The all CAPITAL LETTER name attached to you with a Birth Certificate, and Social Security Card.
The status of the American people (whether or not they are SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the federal United States) is critically important to both the State and Federal court system today. These courts want to construe each and every one of us as a federal (14th Amendment Citizen) in order to obtain Jurisdiction. The main fuction of these government courts is to keep people on "their" (the government's) straight and narrow path and collect revenue in order to pay the national debt. They feel that the only way that this debt can be "paid" is through the taxing of the federal citizenry.
In 1913 the United States added numerous private laws to its books that facilitated the increase of subjects (the newly so-called freed slaves from the Civil War) as property of the United States. Until the 14th Amendment in 1868, there were no persons born or naturalized in the United States. They had all been born or naturalized in ONE OF THE SEVERAL STATES. United States CITIZENSHIP was a result of state citizenship. After the civil war, however, a new class was recognized, and was the beginning of the democracy first positioned in the District of Columbia. The American people, in the republic to be found in the several States, could choose to BENEFIT as one of these new United States citizens BY CHOICE. The new class of citizens was given the privilege to vote in the democracy in 1870 by the 15th Amendment.
These new citizens subjects were required to apply for marriage, registered to vote, register all births, and deaths, etc. All it required was an application. Benefits came with this new citizenship, but with the benefits, came duties and responsibilies and liabilities, that were totally regulated by the legislature for the District of Columbia. Edward Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American people.
There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term "Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE "C” in "Citizen”. The pertinent court cases have defined the term "United States” in these Clauses to mean "States United”, and the full term means "Citizen of ONE OF the States United”.
Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.
The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term "citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case "c” in "citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a "tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion. Instead of using the unique term "federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we know, that proposal was never ratified. (Also note the term PERSONS).
Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes
. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke
, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause
, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D. Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States”
(as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983
; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).
Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens
under American Law. These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue
” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.
Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?
Answer: Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law
, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the "state” government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as "the federal zone.” (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.
Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our "Right of Election” or "freedom of choice,” namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.
Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.
But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).
Certificate Of Of Non-Citizen Nationality
Citizenship, Income Taxes and Constitutional Limitations On Government
Citizenship Status vs. Tax Status
Getting A Passport As A "Non-Citizen" National PDF
Government Slaves: Living Money
Loss of Nationality by Native Born or Naturalized Citizen