1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

14th Amendment ‘CITIZEN’ means SUBJECT

Discussion in 'U.S. Constitution & Law' started by Goldhedge, Jul 19, 2017.



  1. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,109
    Likes Received:
    29,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    14th Amendment ‘CITIZEN’ means SUBJECT....

    JOSE PACHECO
    JANUARY 7, 2016

    The first thing that you are missing is that the Courts that we currently get dragged into are Not Courts of Justice, but rather, are Article ONE Administrative Courts. They are mainly Private Law Federal Courts working under Martial Law per the General Orders 100 with certain Adjustments from Treaties made and the biggest and worst of those Treaties is the U.N. Charter, and most definitely the Naturalization Clause of the 14th Amendment, and THAT is exactly what places them under Article One, and makes them into ADMINISTRATIVE Courts. It is very important that you get these finer points FIRST.

    As a U.S. citizen, you have been tricked via the lie...""Everyone does it"" or the other lie, ""Everyone has to"" or the even bigger lie, ""It's your Right to"", and so you went and registered your BODY with the State Government as a FEDERAL Citizen. I reference the 14th Amendment Naturalization Clause to clarify your Legal Status as a Naturalized Federal Government U.S. Citizen, but the only thing the Fed Gov has power over are listed in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

    Combine those two and the lowest possible denominator is that You have been walked/tricked, into claiming to be a Corporation, by Friends, Family, Teachers, local Police, Mayors, Senators etc.

    Why else does it seem like they are jumping from one Jurisdiction to another then back and then to a third, or it looks like Admiralty Law(Law of the High Seas), and then it looks like Common Law?

    Have you asked yourself that question? Well it is because you are not IN an Article 3 Court of Justice because You removed yourself from being what they know is an Article 4 Section 2 State citizen, where Common Law is the only Law.

    How?

    Upon Registration to Vote and/or for the Draft you had to make a claim of Nationality, there are only two choices,

    1. U.S. Citizen

    2. Other

    Do you recall which one you chose?

    "Other" is the one that may not Vote in any elections and is not Represented at all in the Federal Government. Other is the one that does have access to the Article 3 Constitutional Courts of Justice.

    There are very very few Americans left in the category of "Other". They are mainly the Amish, and those who are rich enough to afford to correctly Change their Status via 15 Stats at Large 249. And those that have either luckily figured it out and done it for themselves, those that have joined an already established Group that has all this knowledge, and those like me, who have followed all the clues and compiled the data one little piece at a time, most of these you already know of as State Nationals, or Natives of a State or State citizens, or even Domestic Aliens. and some few other fringe things.

    But the Main one that is NOT part of that, is the "Sovereign Citizens" because they, the "Sovereign Citizens", love to take one piece of solid data and then play mix n match with shit from the UCC and they write up their own paperwork, then they'll Notarize it for themselves, and present it as real evidence in these courts. And then when their paperwork doesn’t fly, they claim to be VICTIMS of a corrupt System. Ina sense they are the Victims, but not Victims of the system, just Victims of those who came before them mislead them into thinking they actually knew Law, and how it was supposed to be applied. Those who had no clue about the Difference between a Federal Citizen and a State citizen. So, in not knowing this, they simply started to invent all sorts of BS, and mislead themselves and others into this mess where some are even going to Prison for being “Paperwork Terrorists”, aka UCC 1 Filings without knowing anything about the UCC. And that is how to turn the “Freedom Movement” into a Freedom Constipation.
     
  2. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,109
    Likes Received:
    29,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    IMG_1159.JPG
     
  3. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    Case law prior to 14th Amendment passage:

    "... for it is certain, that in the sense in which the word "Citizen" is used in the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each State," and "Citizen of the United States," are convertible terms; they mean the same thing; for the "Citizens of each State are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," and "Citizens of the United States" are, of course, Citizens of all the United States."
    [44 Maine 518 (1859) Hathaway, J. dissenting]



    Case law AFTER passage of the 14th Amendment:

    "It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual."
    [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36] (1873) emphasis added]


    "The
    first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state."

    Cory et al. V. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 1874 head note 8 - emphasis added.


    "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...."

    U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 1875. Emphasis added.


    "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States."

    Thomas v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738);
    McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;
    In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.
    McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323, 1883.




    "The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
    Supreme Court: Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226:



    "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
    U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)


    ================================================================================


    I applied for no such dual citizenship of the insurgent United States de facto government, (created about the time of the so-called "civil" war, which was actually an International war against the sovereign nation/states of the union) apart from or in addition to, my natural born de jure nationality received at birth. I reject such de facto citizenship of the United States, and retain my de jure nationality of the sovereign nation/state in which I am domiciled at any given time, based on my original de jure state nation/state nationality.
    Law of Nations; Title 8 USC 1101 (a)(21)





    To deprive the People of their sovereignty it is first necessary to get the People to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. That is done by getting them to claim they are citizens of that entity (see Const. for the U.S.A., XIV Amendment, for the definition of a citizen of the United States.)
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  4. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,109
    Likes Received:
    29,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    This is for the UK, but the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...FWIW DYODD


    ATTENTION READ CAREFULLY FOR THIS IS WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST.

    It is absolutely imperative everyone understand the statement below if you do not understand the statement below make absolutely certain your put the time in to understanding it otherwise you cannot decode the word

    A “legal person” is a fictional creation of the State, and therefore it is controlled by the State as a franchise. The “legal person” is the government’s property, employee, debtor and servant, bound to comply with the government’s statutes (acts, bills, legislative instruments), which are the “terms and conditions” of its “status”.

    Fictional creatures of the State have “status”, whereas living men and women with flesh and blood arms and legs have “standing”. The “artificial person” has no “standing”.

    When you REGISTER to VOTE you VOLUNTEER to be REPRESENTED by members of parliament. There is an Act called the REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1867 whereby it states that a man is entitled to be registered as a voter amongst other important things.

    However in doing so that man then becomes a PERSON and a CITIZEN of the UNITED KINGDOM and is seen as an agent of the Crown/government.

    The UNITED KINGDOM is a corporation that operates out of Britain. Britain is the land mass and UNITED KINGDOM is a corporate body. Voting makes you a CITIZEN and EMPLOYEE of the corporate body called UNITED KINGDOM and all the policies known as ACTS and STATUTES applies to UK CITIZENS.

    Given that the UK is a corporation with a PERMANENT work force known as the Civil Service what on earth makes you think that any party has much of a say in which direction the COMPANY wishes to go? The parties are an illusion of choice. If there were real serious differences between leaders and they had a real say in which direction the UK COMPANY was headed each new party that got elected would spend some time undoing the policies of the previous lot...but they NEVER DO...The COMPANY keeps rolling on.

    Also lets say Arthur for arguments sake you vote Labour and the Tories get in. The Tories now have your full authority and consent via the REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT and your act of VOTING to do as they please.

    No bomb ever landed in Syria with my consent or in my name.
    The above is what VOTING does. Now i will tell you what VOTING is (this may be extremely relevant to those individuals that might consider themselves Christians)

    A VOTE is a VOW and a VOW is a PLEDGE to a DIETY. A PLEDGE is a CONTRACT and a DIETY is a God.

    Voting then is a contract with another god. And this is against the commandments and teachings in the bible Exodus 20:3 and Leviticus 27:2

    When you VOTE you ATTORN and to ATTORN is to transfer allegiance or homage to another lord WHICH IS WHY ITS AGAINST THE COMMANDMENTS.

    So if you VOTE you ATTORNED and turned your back on God and pledged allegiance to another god. It's why they have an ATTORNEY GENERAL.

    VOTING also makes you a PERSON and the bible has something to say about that too Arthur

    "Personage and Barratry "

    This is what the lawyers, bankers, and politicians have used to enslave you. It is a crime known as “personage”. By arbitrarily creating an Estate trust named after you and claiming to own this thing they created, they have falsely claimed to own you and your assets and to literally buy and sell “you” on stock exchanges, ship “you” out of ports, and tax “you” for doing things you’ve never done.

    After all, there is no law against enslaving an ESTATE trust, is there? Or arresting a slave? Or charging a tax on importing revenue.

    Hand in hand with personage comes “barratry” — the crime of knowingly bringing false claims into court. So what happens every day, when charges are brought against the ESTATES of “dead men” who are standing right in front of the judge and jury?

    Barratry — a crime that is appropriately named after the “Bar Association”.

    Look at the front page of any law suit that has been filed in the past seventy years and there you will have proof in your hand of both personage and barratry being committed against the individual people falsely named as “DEFENDANTS”. They are being deliberately confused with foreign estate trusts merely named after them and they are suffering the crimes of both personage and barratry. When you appear in person you appear as part of the trust! when you state your name for the record YOU ARE CALMING TO BE THE TRUST! the other person oxford english definition is A MASK PRIMARILY WORN BY ACTORS ON THE STAGE!

    You need to dissociate yourself with the dead legal entity wait till you get arrested sign nothing, don't enter a plea, say no case to answer, write this down on a piece of paper and serve it on the clerk in the form of a notice.

    I, a flesh and blood man not a person don't consent to you sitting in judgement over me without a jury of 12 of my peers in a constitutionally convened court of law, this being an illegal administrative court that has no standing in law considering the constitution of England, section 2 clause 12 of the English Bill of Rights 1688/9 clearly states no fine of forfeiture without the judgement of 12 of my peers in a constitutionally convened court of law, this is a constitutional right I will defend to the highest court in the land and claim your bond for breaking your oath to the law and constitution of England, any judgement or sentence you pass will be null and void due to lack of "due process" and ignorance of the law is no defence.

    autographed anything but the legal name IE david of surrey
    and I can testify to these facts and three say this to the judge Sir/Mam I require to establish for and on the record I am a living being, the flesh lives the blood flows I humbly ask for remedy! if he or she leaves the room on their return say Sir/Mam to reiterate I require to establish for and on the record I am a living being, the flesh lives the blood flows, I humbly ask for cure and maintenance, if the judge again leaves the room you say Sir/Mam to reiterate I require to establish for and on the record I am a living being, the flesh lives the blood flows I am sovereign nothing stands between me and the divine but don't identify with the legal name at some point during this time you will be asked what you want it is at that point you make your claim.

    They cannot proceed against the living and they cannot administer the trust of the living it is a cardinal sin if they do. From Kim Lawley
     
  5. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,109
    Likes Received:
    29,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
  6. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    third cove on the right



    The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens. The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it creates. One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master. The government possesses what is called "sovereign immunity" in relation to those it creates.
    Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943)


    .....................................

    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”

    U.S. Code
    Title 1Chapter 1 › § 1


    Let's make this easy to read:

    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals, , unless the context indicates otherwise—

    ........................................................

    The quote below has been used several times by the supreme court.


    "In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."

    US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 US 653, 667 (1979):


    "Since in common usage the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
    US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 S.Ct 742 (1941):



    "In common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so."
    US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 67 SCt677 (1947):



    "Since in common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
    US Supreme Court in US v. Fox, 94 US 315:


    "In common usage the word `person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign."
    U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530:



    ................................................

    AND, this one is my favorite of them all


    A COUNTY is a person in a legal sense, but a sovereign is not;
    Lancaster Co. v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 52 N.W. 711;
    Fox, 52 N.Y. 535, 11 Am.Rep. 751;
    U.S. v. Fox 94 U.S. 315, 24 L.Ed. 192 ....
    Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300




    ==============================================



    Ejusdem Generis (eh-youse-dem generous)

    v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes.

    Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed.

    Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.

     
    Juristic Person and Goldhedge like this.

Share This Page