• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Two classes of Americans; State National's and US Citizen's

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,613
Likes
4,534
#1
US Citizen is a class that was created after the civil war for the freed Negro slaves. That is the cover story, as they had plans to make us all slaves, by getting us to volunteer to be US Citizen’s.

Voluntary slavery is not illegal and volunteer we do. Every govt form asks are you a US Citizen and we have been taught that we are. US Citizens can not own anything, we even sign away the ownership of our cars to our respective State DMV.

That State is a federal State, created during reconstruction. Which means not Minnesota, but State of Minnesota.

It is complicated and was meant to be that way, the better to deceive us. Lots of similar names meaning something that we don’t suspect. And the Liars (lawyers) say oh ignore that they all mean the same thing. (lie)


Family Guardian.

https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FourteenthAmendNotProb.pdf
Pg 31

1586438948455.png




We started off this document with maxims of law proving that "a deceiver deals in generals". Anyone who refuses to identify the precise context, statutory or constitutional, for EVERY "term of art" they are using in the legal field ABSOLUTELY IS A DECEIVER.

For further details on the TWO separate and distinct contexts for geographical terms, being CONSTITUTIONAL, and STATUTORY, see:


Why You are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory "Citizen", Form #05.006, Sections 4 and 5


3. STATUTORY v. CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENS

“When words lose their meaning [or their CONTEXT WHICH ESTABLISHES THEIR MEANING], people lose their freedom.”

[Confucius (551 BCE - 479 BCE) Chinese thinker and social philosopher]

Statutory citizenship is a legal status that designates a person’s domicile while constitutional citizenship is a political status that designates a person’s nationality. Understanding the distinction between nationality and domicile is absolutely critical.
  1. Nationality:
    1.1. Is not necessarily consensual or discretionary. For instance, acquiring nationality by birth in a specific place was not a matter of choice whereas acquiring it by naturalization is.
    1.2. Is a political status.
    1.3. Is defined by the Constitution, which is a political document.
    1.4. Is synonymous with being a “national” within statutory law.
    1.5. Is associated with a specific COUNTRY.
    1.6. Is called a “political citizen” or a “citizen of the United States in a political sense” by the courts to distinguish it from a STATUTORY citizen. See Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (1940).
  2. Domicile:
    2.1. Always requires your consent and therefore is discretionary. See:
    Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
    FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
    DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf 2.2. Is a civil status.
    2.3. Is not even addressed in the constitution.
    2.4. Is defined by civil statutory law RATHER than the constitution.
    2.5. Is in NO WAY connected with one’s nationality.
    2.6. Is usually connected with the word “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, or “inhabitant” in statutory law.
    2.7. Is associated with a specific COUNTY and a STATE rather than a COUNTRY.
    2.8. Implies one is a “SUBJECT” of a SPECIFIC MUNICIPAL but not NATIONAL government.
Nationality and domicile, TOGETHER determine the political/CONSTITUTIONAL AND civil/STATUTORY status of a human being respectively. These important distinctions are recognized in Black’s Law Dictionary:

“nationality – That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance;

while domicile determines his civil [statutory] status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization.“

[Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990), p. 1025]


President Barrack Obama affirmed our assertions that there are TWO components to your citizenship status at the end of his State of the Union address given on 2/12/2013:

SEDM Exhibit #01.013: President Obama Recognizes separate POLITICAL and LEGAL components of citizenship.

Youtube
Local Copy

The U.S. Supreme Court also confirmed the above when they held the following.

Note the key phrase “political jurisdiction” (Form #05.004), which is NOT the same as legislative/statutory jurisdiction.

One can have a political status of “citizen” under the constitution while NOT being a “citizen” under federal statutory law because not domiciled on federal territory.

To have the status of “citizen” under federal statutory law, one must have a domicile on federal territory:


“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]

“This right to protect persons having a domicile, though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm foundation of justice, and the claim to be protected is earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at liberty to disregard. Such domiciled citizen pays the same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens pay for theirs. He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same penalties. He owes the same obedience to the civil laws. His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government. In nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties and burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”

[Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]

Notice in the last quote above that they referred to a foreign national born in another country as a “citizen”. THIS is the REAL “citizen” (a domiciled foreign national) that judges and even tax withholding documents are really talking about, rather than the “national” described in the constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL “Citizens” or “citizens of the United States***” in the Fourteenth Amendment rely on the CONSTITUTIONAL context for the geographical term “United States”, which means states of the Union and EXCLUDES federal territory.

“. . .the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases [1] provides authoritative guidance on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Insular Cases were a series of Supreme Court decisions that addressed challenges to duties on goods transported from Puerto Rico to the continental United States. Puerto Rico, like the Philippines, had been recently ceded to the United States. The Court considered the territorial scope of the term "the United States" in the Constitution and held that this term as used in the uniformity clause of the Constitution was territorially limited to the states of the Union. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 ("[A]ll Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." (emphasis added)); see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251, 21 S.Ct. 770, 773, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901) ("t can nowhere be inferred that the territories were considered a part of the United States. The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of States, to be governed solely by representatives of the States; ... In short, the Constitution deals with States, their people, and their representatives."); Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. Puerto Rico was merely a territory "appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution." Downes, 182 U.S. at 287, 21 S.Ct. at 787.

The Court's conclusion in Downes was derived in part by analyzing the territorial scope of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude "within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 (emphasis added). The Fourteenth Amendment states that 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." U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). The disjunctive "or" in the Thirteenth Amendment demonstrates that "there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no[t] part of the Union" to which the Thirteenth Amendment would apply. Downes, 182 U.S. at 251, 21 S.Ct. at 773. Citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, however, "is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to [the United States '] jurisdiction,' " but is limited to persons born or naturalized in the states of the Union. Downes, 182 U.S. at 251, 21 S.Ct. at 773 (emphasis added); see also id. at 263, 21 S.Ct. at 777 ("n dealing with foreign sovereignties, the term 'United States' has a broader meaning than when used in the Constitution, and includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government, wherever located."). [2]

[Valmonte v. I.N.S., 136 F.3d. 914 (C.A.2, 1998)]



One CANNOT simultaneously be BOTH a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen AND a STATUTORY citizen at the same time, because the term “United States” has a different, mutually exclusive meaning in each specific context.


“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States[*], were not citizens. Whether this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided.”

[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]



_
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,613
Likes
4,534
#2
From here

JohnHenryHill · May 24, 2018 - 4:37 PM · Reply

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, most Americans have been taught FALSE American history. They have NO idea that the UNITED STATES (in capital letters) is a British-owned PRIVATE Corporation and they have UNKNOWINGLY CONSENTED to be an employee/agent of that corporation – by accepting BENEFITS of any kind OR by PRESUMPTION on the part of the U.S. government, especially the courts! Remember: “Silence is consent.” In court, if you do NOT OBJECT formally (best via a written and notarized “Affidavit of Truth” submitted to the court beforehand) on the record to its jurisdiction, then you have “consented”. Simply by appearing in the court room is PRESUMED to be consent. Thus, they need to obey that corporations policies, just as a Walmart or McDonalds employees must obey those companies policies.
HOWEVER, even if a person has educated himself thoroughly regarding the law versus U.S. corporate policy, it takes a lot of COURAGE to challenge the government, especially the courts!!! Even if a person does everything correctly to prove he/she is a private man or woman, the courts just UNLAWFULLY punish that person – usually via “contempt of court” (with either a fine or jail time). And the judge has the court’s police to DRAG you away!!! Even your ATTORNEY, if you are stupid enough to hire one, will NOT assist you. As an “officer of the court” his first duty is to the court, NOT to you; and justice be damned. (I am sure you know that the BAR to which attorneys must belong means “British Accredited Registry”, a sub-corporation of the British UNITED STATES corporation.
Keep reading, studying and, if you have the time, pass on your information to others !!! You may shock them, but maybe they will begin to work to help restore the REPUBLIC created by the REAL original Constitution.
Best wishes to you!
JHH



JohnHenryHill · January 3, 2018 - 10:50 PM · Reply

You are right and wrong. New York state IS NOT THE SAME as the STATE OF NEW YORK. New York state is a sovereign country. The STATE OF NEW YORK is a sub-corporation of the corporate U.S. government.

There are the 50 states of the Union, each a sovereign country. The United States government is solely the administrator of the legal TRUST created by the Constitution. The U.S. government, like any TRUSTEE, is bound by the limited rules that created it (the Constitution) and is subserviant to the TRUSTOR (the 50 Union states.

The Constitution outlines the organization of the TRUSTEE and explicitly lists the ONLY functions it can perform. Any other acts (Statues) it passes apply ONLY to DC, U.S. territories and possessions. They do NOT apply to the 50 Union states OR to the people within those 50 Union states – UNLESS a state or a man/woman CONTRACTS with the U.S. government (and thus falls under its jurisdiction for that ONE statute).

The “incorporation” of the 50 Union states (and their municipalities) was a legal, but unconstitutional act by the U.S government CORPORATION created around 1871. In effect, it created 50 additional “states” as 50 corporations. Since the 50 corporations (e.g., STATE OF WASHINGTON) is a subsidiary corporation of the corporate U.S., it falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

HOWEVER, as long as a man/woman DENIES that he/she is a “U.S. citizen” and affirmatively states (best in a notarized affidavit) that he/she lives in the Union state x and is NON-RESIDENT ALIEN with respect to the other 49 Union states and with respect to the U.S. government, the man/woman remains a sovereign man/woman. The ONLY way he/she can fall under the JURISDICTION of the corporate U.S. is via a CONTRACT with mutual agreement.

Of course, the U.S. government is corrupt (as are all) and makes the PRESUMPTION that you have already agreed to be under the JURISDICTION of the U.S. government. Maxim of Law: “A presumption NOT rebutted becomes a fact of law in a case.” Thus, in EVERY interaction with government (local, state, U.S), one must explicitly state in writing in a sworn affidavit your status as a sovereign, independent man – handed to a Court Clerk – but NEVER, EVER go into a court room !!! That places the burden on the government to prove otherwise – providing you have a non-corrupt judge (which in VERY UNLIKELY).


UNITED STATES is a Crown Corporation sub corporation. Most Americans are unaware of it, and some who are think Crown refers to the occupant of Buckingham Palace – it doesn’t. It’s a corp located in City of London (the Square Mile) which is one of the 3 heads of the modern Cereberus.


JohnHenryHill · January 31, 2018 - 2:16 PM · Reply
Not quite true. There are essentially TWO states for each state: there in “New York” and there is the “STATE OF NEW YORK”. “New York” is one of the various states still under the Constitution. The “STATE OF NEW YORK” is a CORPORATION created by the owners of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION; so it is NOT really a state, but rather a commercial enterprise. All 50 of these CORPORATE STATES are subsidiaries of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION, which is which (where?) Congress can pass unconstitutional statutes — these statutes do NOT apply to the 50 various states or the people therein. These statutes apply ONLY to the CORPORATE STATES.