• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
THIS COMMENT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS

Arminius,

Thank you for your contribution. This illustration proves the point that I just made above. It illustrates the very mistake that amateur legal theorists make by confusing TRAFFIC stops with CRIMINAL stops. So, the text above bears repeating.

"There are TWO different types of stops involving law enforcement officers and motor vehicles. One type is a CRIMINAL stop and one type of stop is a TRAFFIC stop. CRIMINAL stops involve CRIMES (like selling drugs or possessing stolen property) WHICH ARE NOT MERE TRAFFIC OFFENSES. TRAFFIC stops involve mere TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS (like speeding or having expired tags) WHICH ARE NOT CRIMES.

CRIMINAL stops are governed by CRIMINAL law, NOT by TRAFFIC LAW. TRAFFIC stops are governed by TRAFFIC LAW, NOT by CRIMINAL LAW. [While they both involve officers and motor vehicles, they are two entirely different things and are governed by two entirely different bodies of law.] The two do not mix.

To make a lawful CRIMINAL stop, the officer must have probable cause to believe the occupants of the motor vehicle are engaged in CRIMINAL activity. To make a lawful TRAFFIC stop, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the driver has violated a TRAFFIC law. (Note the difference.).

But, because BOTH types of stops involve officers and motor vehicles, amateur legal theorists get them confused and mistakenly believe that CRIMINAL law applies to TRAFFIC stops and mistakenly believe that TRAFFIC law applies to CRIMINAL stops."

Thus, AS YOUR ILLUSTRATION ABOVE PROVES, amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that CRIMINAL law applies to TRAFFIC stops.

APPLICATION:

1. In your illustration above, the officer is making a TRAFFIC stop ("Do you know why I am stopping you?" Note that the officer is apparently looking down a the driver's driver's license.).

2. But, in your illustration,the driver MISTAKES this TRAFFIC stop for a CRIMINAL stop ("Well officer, a CRIME requires an injured party [something that is not true]. Seeing that here isn't one, I can only assume you're attempting to manufacture my consent to contract with he state's corporate policy in order to generate revenue as part of a racketeering scam.")

OTHER AMATEUR MISTAKES:

FACT: NO "INJURED PARTY" OR "VICTIM" IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF A "TRAFFIC" OFFENSE.

CLICK HERE. In Re Bailey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5253372207459456521&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Bailey was convicted for no valid registration and driving without a seat belt. In response, Bailey filed suit challenging his conviction and alleged that his conviction was improper because "THERE WAS NO INJURED PARTY OR NO INJURED PARTY PRESENT IN COURT... ." But, because no injured party is required, the court dismissed Bailey's suit. (in the 8th paragraph at about 55% through the text).

CLICK HERE. State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Franklin City Municipal Court, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=549459522472259594&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a driver sued a city court and demanded a dismissal of the traffic case against him. In response, the court wrote, "In his complaint, relator [the driver] requested mandamus because THE CASE 'HA[D] NO INJURED PARTY NOR ANY DAMAGED PROPERTY; HENCE UNDER THE COMMON LAW, THERE IS NO CRIME THAT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY RELATOR [the driver].' [NOTE HERE THAT THE DRIVER ALSO CONFUSES "CRIMINAL" LAW WITH "TRAFFIC" LAW]. He [the driver] provided no authority in support of this argument." But, because no injured part is required, the court granted summary judgment against he driver. (in the paragraphs actually numbered "4" and "12").

CLICK HERE: State v. Eytcheson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9627835908484675097&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Eytcheson appealed his convictions for no valid driver's license and for failing to wear a seatbelt. On appeal, he argued that, "[N]O INJURED PARTY MADE A COMPLAINT OR TESTIFIED. This is due to the fact that THERE WAS NO INJURED PARTY. SINCE NO INJURED PARTY, NO CRIME EXISTED for which I could be found guilty or innocent [NOTE HERE HOW EYTCHESON ALSO CONFUSES "TRAFFIC" LAW WITH "CRIMINAL" LAW]." But, the court implicitly held that no injured party was required and wrote, "The elements of the traffic offenses were established [proven] through the direct testimony of Officer Colon. [Therefore] Eytcheson's [argument]... is overruled." (at the paragraph actually numbered "59" at about 80% through the text).

CLICK HERE. State v. Gorombey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18163258503552934413&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Gorombey appealed his convictions for failure to produce proof of insurance, failure to produce a valid driver's license and for failure to yield the right of was to an emergency vehicle. Gorombey alleged that the trial erred in denying his motion to dismiss "because of the State's failure to prove... A SPECIFIC LOSS OR INJURY caused by his violations of the statutes... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "In the case of speeding, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT A PERSON OR OBJECT WAS ' INJURED' but [only] that the State [proved]... every element of the crime... ."

FACT: NO "INJURED PARTY" OR "VICTIM" IS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF A "CRIME".

CLICK HERE. Ex Parte Benson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15187687315442944994&q=%22no+victim+is+required%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Benson was convicted of DWI. He filed suit and alleged that his rights were violated because there was no victim. In response, the court wrote, "[N]O VICTIM IS REQUIRED FOR THE OFFENSE OF FELONY DWI, MUCH LESS ONE WHO HAS SUFFERED INJURY." (in the 30th paragraph at about 45% through the text).

CLICK HERE. United States v. Simpson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15322049001480763939&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a criminal defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him on the grounds "THERE 'IS NO INJURED PARTY IN THESE CHARGES. IF THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, THERE CAN BE NO CRIMINAL CHARGE.' [But, the held otherwise and wrote, ... THIS] IS INCORRECT. Mr. Simpson was convicted of violating [several statutes]... , NONE OF WHICH REQUIRE [AN]... INJURY TO A THIRD PARTY." (in the 2nd to last paragraph).

CLICK HERE. United States v. Hoodenpyle, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11990559989165611219&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction for, among other things, filing a fraudulent lien against an IRS agent. On appeal he argued, "there is "NO INJURED PARTY" because "the United States of America is a created [CORPORATE] fiction. [T]he Defendant cites NO LAW FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT AN INJURY IS REQUIRED TO BRING A CRIMINAL ACTION. The [fact that]... that the Defendant has violated [the law ALONE]... is sufficient [for a conviction]... .'' (in the 1s and 2nd full paragraphs). NOTE THAT THIS DEFENSE IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT ARMINIUS' DRIVER CHARACTER SAYS IN THE CAPTION ABOVE.

CLICK HERE: United States v. Herring, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17446870927330849406&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Herring was charged with passing counterfeit securities. He moved for dismissal alleging, that "there is NO INJURED PARTY HERE AND THEREFORE NO CRIME CAN EXIST IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INJURED PARTY." But, because no injured party is required, the court denied the motion to dismiss. (in the 4th paragraph at about 20% through the text).

CLICK HERE: Andriatti v. Warren, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12016694743193285253&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Andriatti filed suit in federal court seeking release from state prison for a "victimless crime". On appeal, Andiatti argued that "the State of Georgia does not have personal jurisdiction over her because THERE WAS NO INJURED PARTY." But, because no injured party is required, the court dismissed the suit.

CLICK HERE: State v. Few, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4045733516187147122&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Few was convicted of possessing weapons as a convicted felon. On appeal, he argued, "I don't understand how a living soul could possibly be sent to prison for anything IF THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY OR ANY ONE COMPLAINING WITNESS or international maritime contract that I had signed to lose OR SOMEONE TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THEIR PROPERTY as a result of criminal actions." But, because no injured party or property is required, the court affirmed the conviction. NOTE THAT THIS DEFENSE IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT ARMINIUS' DRIVER CHARACTER SAYS IN THE CAPTION ABOVE.

CLICK HERE. United States v. Burnett, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10827429194429162608&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Burnett was charged with possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. Burnett moved to dismiss the charges "on the grounds that there are (sic) "NO INJURED PARTY NOR A STATEMENT BY AN INJURED PARTY." But, because no injured party is required, the court denied Burnett's motion to dismiss. (in the 3rd TO LAST paragraph).

CLICK HERE. Bartee v. Porto, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6545574243707954784&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a convicted criminal sued the judge and others who were involved in his criminal conviction on the grounds that they "allowed the trial to proceed and selected jurors despite the fact that THERE WAS NO 'INJURED PARTY' MAKING A CLAIM AGAINST HIM." But, because no injured party is required, and because judges are immune from suit, the court dismissed Bartee's suit. (in the 2nd paragraph at about 40% through the text).

CLICK HERE: State v. Miller, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16269401250766978085&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Miller appealed his conviction for the illegal manufacture drugs. On appeal, he argued that
"charging him with illegal manufacture of drugs was improper since that "is not a criminal violation as defined by the U.S. Constitution or any law in accordance thereof BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INJURED PARTY... ." But, because an injured party is not required, the court affirmed the conviction. (in paragraph actually numbered "7" at about 30% through the text).

CLICK HERE. Hamilton v . Owens, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4610058629695073120&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a convicted state criminal ("Petitioner") filed suit against a state government official in federal court seeking his release from state prison. The court wrote, "Petitioner argues that... 'THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY'... . Petitioner... contends that 'A... STATE CANNOT BE AN INJURED PARTY.'" But, because an injured party is not required, the court dismissed the suit. (in the 8th paragraph at about 45% through the text).

CLICK HERE. State v. Markarian, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10281818287738705375&q=%22requirement+of+a+victim%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction for obtaining property under false pretenses and forgery . On appeal he argued that there was no injured party (no victim). But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "[W]e hold that A VICTIM IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of either obtaining property by false pretenses or forgery, and affirm the [conviction]... . [F]or the statutory crimes of obtaining property by false pretenses and forgery, A VICTIM IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT as neither the word victim nor its synonym appears in either statute... . Therefore, WE FIND [NOTHING]... THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VICTIM as an essential element of obtaining property by false pretenses. (beginning at the 5th paragraph at about 25% through the case).

CLICK HERE. Moallen v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3321601625613974580&q=%22requirement+of+a+victim%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction for using a fictitious credit card on the grounds that there was no injured party (no victim). But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]HERE NEED NOT... BE A VICTIM FOR THERE TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THERE BEING NO... REQUIREMENT OF A VICTIM, failure to allege the same [a victim] does not render the indictment fundamentally defective."

CLICK HERE: United States v. Simmons, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1142947892906246045&q=%22no+injured+party%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Simmons moved to change his guilty plea in connection with a charge of possession of heroin and cocaine with intent to distribute. Simmons raised a number of arguments, including the argument that there was no injured party. The court had just decided a case that addressed Simmons' argument. In discussing that other case, the court wrote," Pryor also alleged that the government lacked standing because there was NO INJURED PARTY; again the Sixth Circuit noted that "[t]here is standing . . . because `the INJURY TO [THE UNITED STATES] SOVEREIGNTY ARISING FROM [THE] VIOLATION OF ITS LAWS... SUFFICES TO SUPPORT A CRIMINAL [CONVICTION]... .'"(in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15805455771417227202&q="no+injured+party"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. Note that in this jurisdiction the United States itself CAN BE THE INJURED PARTY.

NOTE THAT ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE ALWAYS EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE TO WHAT THE REAL LAW ACTUALLY IS. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
s4t: what an inverted....OH I just can't though I should.

The most basic definition of a corporation is that when the leader dies or is replaced the thing continues on doing the same thing under the same name.
corporations:
chatholic church
any church of any kind
schools
municipal corporations defined as citys, counites, states, and the USA.

s4t: You haven't read much have you. edjumakate yourself. I can see the public school system has failed you miserably.
Michael59.

Thank you for your views. I will respond to them individually below.

1. YOUR COMMENT: s4t thinks the government is not a corporation....GHEHAWDDD. Now that shows the depths of your understandings there snoop.
MY RESPONSE: I realize that I sound like a broken record, but it is not about what I think or what you think. That is completely irrelevant. All that matters is what the actual written words of the real law itself says about that subject. That real law is below.

FACT: In amateur legal theory, the "law" comes ONLY from the claims of other amateur legal theorists (NOT from the WRITTEN WORDS of the REAL LAW itself). But, in the REAL law, the law comes ONLY from the actual WRITTEN WORDS of the REAL LAW itself (NOT from the claims of amateur legal theorists). Consider the REAL law below.

U.S. v Cooper, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1788441780084038901&q="United+States+v.+Cooper+Corporation"+++&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT THE UNTIED STATES IS NOT A "CORPORATION"). In this case, a private corporation sought to sue the United States under a federal statute that authorized civil lawsuits against any "person". The private corporation argued that the United States was such a "person" because it was a "corporation" (an artificial legal person). But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "While there may be isolated cases which hold that the different states, and even the United States, are "bodies politic and corporate", THEY DO NOT HOLD THAT THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION EXISTING BY THE LAWS OF THE UNTIED STATES [in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it]... . THE UNITED STATES CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE CLASSIFIED AS A CORPORATION EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES [in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it]... ." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case).

ABOUT CORPORATIONS:
The term, "corporation" FOOLS amateur legal theorists. They mistakenly believe that there is only ONE TYPE OF CORPORATION in the whole world and that EVERY CORPORATION in the whole world IS A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation. https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2013/04/27/judge-says-usa-inc-is-just-a-corporate-franchise/ (at the paragraph ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3"). But, this is not so.


2, YOUR COMMENT: The most basic definition of a corporation is that when the leader dies or is replaced the thing continues on doing the same thing under the same name. corporations: chatholic church any church of any kind schools municipal corporations defined as citys, counites, states, and the USA.
MY RESPONSE: One loose, informal definition of a "corporation" is simply "a separate, legal entity which may enter into contracts in its own name and sue and be sued in its own name". Governments happen to have these same basic characteristics. So, in this sense, AND ONLY IN THIS SENSE, all governments are arguably "corporations" (loosely and informally speaking).

BUT, THIS IS NOT WHAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MEAN BY CLAIMING THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS". Instead, they mean that ALL governments are corporations WHICH ARE "IN THE BUSINESS" OF STEALING MONEY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GENERATE "PROFITS" FOR THEIR "PRIVATE OWNERS". https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2013/04/27/judge-says-usa-inc-is-just-a-corporate-franchise/ (at the paragraph ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3"). Such IMAGINARY governmental entities would NOT merely be "corporations". Instead, such IMAGINARY governmental entities would actually be PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations. THAT IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN THE LAW! NO GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES IS A "CORPORATION" IN THIS SENSE OF THE WORD (in the way that amateur legal theorists mean it) and the courts have repeatedly said so.

OTHER TYPES OF CORPORATIONS UNDER THE REAL LAW

Unknown to amateur legal theorists, there are DOZENS and DOZENS of different types of corporations. But, ONLY ONE (1) TYPE of corporation is a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS" (the "bad" kind of corporation). Unknown to Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists, there are COUNTLESS OTHER TYPES of NON-PROFIT corporations WHICH ARE ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE PUBLIC, OPERATED BY THE PUBLIC AND SERVE THE PUBLIC (not "private stockholders") FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.

For example, there are PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporations (like some publicly-owned hospitals, schools and universities and some electrical and water utilities, NONE of which have "stockholders" and NONE of which make "profits"). There are also PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT MUNICIPAL corporations (like cities and towns, NONE of which have "stockholders" and NONE of which make "profits" and ALL of which are controlled entirely by people ELECTED by "We the People" TO CONTROL THEM). There are countless other different types of PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT corporations which serve the public (not "private stockholders"). But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this. Click on the links below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_corporation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_corporation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation

[https://thestartupgarage.com/corporations-trusts-associations-llcs/

https://thestartupgarage.com/corporations-public-benefit-mutual-benefit-religious/


ABOUT "FEDERAL CORPORATIONS"

Our federal government has even structured seventeen of our federal government agencies as PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations" (NO STOCKHOLDERS, NO PROFITS, etc.). In general, all of the federal agencies that are structured this way have two things in common, they all have their own customers (or their own source of revenue) and none of them receive any money from Congress.

Three well-known examples of such federal agencies are the United States Postal Service (The Post Office-U.S. Mail), AMTRAK (a publicly-owned, non-profit railroad) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (a publicly-owned, non-profit ELECTRICAL POWER utility). You will note that ALL THREE of these PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations" have their own customers and none of them receive any money from Congress.

There are THREE MAIN REASONS why the federal government structured these federal agencies as PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations": 1). To force each such federal agency to work within their own budgets BY USING THEIR OWN REVENUES (received from their own customers/sources) instead of receiving money from Congress; 2). To relieve taxpayers of the burden of paying for governmental services that they might not even use (not everyone uses snail mail, rides trains or lives in the "Tennessee Valley"); and 3). To ensure that each such federal agency provide the highest possible quality of service at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer in order to avoid their own failure and collapse (which, due to this organizational structure, would have no adverse effect on the rest of the federal government or on the taxpayer anyway). IT'S ALL ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND FAIRNESS TO THE TAXPAYER. For more on this subject, click here. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf

FACT: All corporations are "ARTIFICIAL" persons (NON-human beings).

FACT: No "NATURAL" person (no human being) can be a corporation.


THE SECRET CORPORATION MYTH:

FACT: Contrary to what amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe, there is no such thing as a "SECRET CORPORATION" of any kind (regardless of what type they are or whom they serve). All corporations (no matter what type they are or whom they serve) ARE PUBLICLY "INCORPORATED" IN A STATE OR PUBLICLY "CREATED" BY STATUTE OR ORDINANCE. All "PRIVATE" corporations ARE PUBLICLY "INCORPORATED" IN A STATE AND ARE PUBLICLY "REGISTERED" IN EVERY STATE WHERE THEY DO BUSINESS. So if they exist, THERE WILL BE A "PUBLIC RECORD" OF THEM, their "articles of incorporation", their creation date, their purpose, their function, their powers, their scope, their addresses, their officers (and often their directors), their trade names, their fictitious names, their trademarks, their service marks, their annual reports, their registered agent for service of civil lawsuits and so forth, ALL OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ONLINE. Further, all "PUBLIC" corporations (no stockholders and no profits) ARE PUBLICLY "CREATED" BY A PUBLIC STATE OR FEDERAL "STATUTE" OR BY A PUBLIC COUNTY OR CITY "ORDINANCE". So, if they exist, THERE WILL BE A "PUBLIC RECORD" OF THEM, their creation date, their purpose, their function, their powers, their scope and so forth, ALL OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ONLINE).

Translation: ALL CORPORATIONS (regardless of what type they are or whom they serve) ARE PUBLICLY "CREATED" BY A DOCUMENT THAT IS ACTUALLY FILED IN THE "PUBLIC RECORD" FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE! There are NO EXCEPTIONS! NONE! Whether an entity is a "corporation" IS "ALWAYS" A MATTER OF "PUBLIC RECORD"! So, there is NO "GUESS WORK" about whether an entity is a corporation or not. If an entity is not PUBLICLY "INCORPORATED" in a state or was not PUBLICLY "CREATED" by a PUBLIC statute or PUBLIC ordinance, THEN IT IS NOT A CORPORATION! It is that simple. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! NONE! This means that there is NOTHING "SECRET" OR "MYSTERIOUS" about the existence of either PUBLIC or PRIVATE corporations. Their documents are IN THE "PUBLIC RECORD" for all the world to see. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

Translation: To find out if an entity is a corporation, the ONE and ONLY place to find the answer IS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD (not in Dun & Bradstreet, not on a list of entities with EIN numbers and not on amateur legal theory websites). All "PRIVATE" corporations can be found online at the STATE "SECRETARY OF THE STATE, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS" or the foreign equivalent if a foreign "PRIVATE" corporation. All "PUBLIC" corporations can be found in STATE and FEDERAL STATUTES and in county or city ORDINANCES or the foreign equivalent if a foreign "PUBLIC" corporation. If an entity cannot be found in those places, IT IS NOT A CORPORATION. It is that simple. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.


TWO SOURCES OF CONFUSION IN AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY:

Amateur legal theorists are PATHOLOGICALLY DESPERATE to discredit and delegitimize the FEDERAL government of “We the People”. So, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". Two such FEDERAL statutes cited by amateur legal theorists in support of this false claim are the "Act Of 1871" and "Title 28 U.S.C. (15)(a)".

THE ACT OF 1871:
The Act Of 1871 reads in pertinent part, "...[We hereby create] a government by the name of [the "CITY" of] THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [not the ”United States Of America”] by which name it is hereby constituted a BODY CORPORATE [this term is a source of the confusion] for MUNICIPAL [means "CITY"] PURPOSES [not for other purposes]... [and this body is empowered to] exercise all... powers of a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [this term is also a source of the confusion and actually means "CITY GOVERNMENT"] not inconsistent with [means "CONSISTENT WITH"] the Constitution and the laws of the United States." http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf.

Thus, the Act of 1871 simply created a "CITY" GOVERNMENT for the "CITY" of Washington, D.C., (NOT FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). But, amateur legal theorists are intellectually unable to tell the difference between the two (a "CITY" GOVERNMENT on one hand and the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" on the other hand). Remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the FEDERAL government is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS".

But, because the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. is the seat of the FEDERAL government and because they mistakenly believe that all corporations in the world are PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporations, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that the terms, "body corporate" and "municipal corporation" (contained in the Act Of 1871) prove that the "ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" (rather than merely the "CITY" GOVERNMENT of Washington, D.C.) IS ITSELF A PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS. https://www.akupressllc.com/150121CriminalCourtDenver.pdf (at page ACTUALLY NUMBERED "3" in the 4th paragraph at about 50% through the text). But, this is not so.

FACT: There is NOTHING about the Act of 1871 that has any affect whatsoever on the FEDERAL government itself. Instead, The Act of 1871 only relates to the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C. Likewise, NOTHING about the Act Of 1971 makes the FEDERAL government itself (or the "CITY" of Washington, D.C. for that matter) a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION which makes "PROFITS" for its private "STOCKHOLDERS". But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

TITLE 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a):
Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)(a) reads in pertinent part, "DEFINITIONS... As used in THIS chapter [ONLY, and not for any other purpose],... United States means- ... a federal corporation [this term is a source of the confusion]... ." FACT: Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15) (a) merely provides the definitions (only) SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SINGLE FEDERAL CHAPTER (AND THOSE DEFINITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER CHAPTER AND CANNOT BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER PURPOSE). This is why the VERY FIRST WORDS of Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 read, “As used in THIS chapter [and NOT other chapters or for other purposes]... ." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 (See the VERY FIRST WORDS at the TOP of this section.). The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 provides definitions is the FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT (chapter 176).

But remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". So, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) proves that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, this is not so.

The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) provides definitions (chapter 176) relates to the "PROCEDURE" ONLY that the "United States" must follow when collecting certain debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3001. Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) DOES NOT actually define the "United States" as a ”federal corporation”. Instead, it actually defines a “federal corporation” (like AMTRAK) as the “United States” SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT.

APPLICATION: So, if AMTRAK (a "federal corporation") sought to collect on such a debt, it would have to follow the SAME "PROCEDURE" set forth in the Fair Debt Collection Procedure Act THAT ANY OTHER PART OF THE "UNITED STATES” GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW TO COLLECT SUCH A DEBT. It is that simple. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

FACT: This definition IN THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT does not mean that the entire “United States” is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which generates "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, consider this. Even if the "United States" was such a "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporation, and it is not, ALL of the governmental decisions made by that alleged "corporation" WOULD STILL BE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT WE "ELECT" TO RUN IT.


THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS" FOR AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY PURPOSES:

1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theories that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] also contends that THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE CORPORATIONS, and as such, can only "interface" with other artificial entities, not natural persons like Petitioner [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]. In support of his argument, Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] cites the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. 3002 et seq [discussed above], and the Michigan Constitution, Article VII, section 1, NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM THAT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE CORPORATIONS [read this phrase again]. Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] contends that, AS CORPORATIONS, the State of Michigan and the federal government cannot "concern [themselves] with anything OTHER THAN CORPORATE, ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES AND INTANGIBLE ABSTRACTIONS [a false claim that Rod Class also makes].... .’' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, “SUCH REASONING IS DEVOID OF LEGAL SUPPORT [Translation: are amateur legal theories] and contrary to common sense." (at paragraph 9 at about 40% through the text of the case). The court continues at footnote 2 near the end of the case as follows, "The FDCPA [discussed above] DOES NOT STATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CORPORATION [much less a private, for-profit corporation]. Article VII of the Michigan constitution merely indicates that 'each organized county shall be a BODY CORPORATE [not a private, for-profit corporation].'" (at footnote 2 near the end of the case).

2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4379559949396907798&q="DuBose+v.+Kasich"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] sets forth his own versions of various 'sovereign citizen' [amateur legal] theories. Such [amateur legal] theories involve the alleged CORPORATE STATUS OF OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]... . " (at the 13th paragraph, just above section "IV" at about 95% through the text).

3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are federal "CORPORATIONS".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government agencies and officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] responds that the STATE OF TEXAS is not protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a 'FEDERAL CORPORATION'... ." (at section "D" at about 65% through the text of the case). Later in the text in section "k" the court held otherwise and wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] in the paragraph pertaining to his claim against the USA... . To the extent that Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] relies on § 3002(15) [discussed above] to sue the USA, IT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE § 3002 [discussed above] IS SIMPLY A DEFINITIONS STATUTE IN THE CHAPTER THAT AUTHORIZES THE USA TO... [COLLECT CERTAIN DEBTS]." (in section "k" at about 85% through the text).

4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Ernest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] District of Columbia'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia.' ... . BUT [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] IS MISPLACED [read that phrase again]. That statute is simply a definitional provision DEFINING the "United States" as, among other options, 'a federal corporation' SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER WHICH IT IS PART... . The applicability of [this] Chapter... is confined to CIVIL actions [filed] by the United States [against debtors]... to recover a judgment on a debt... . This CRIMINAL action [this case] is not [such a] a CIVIL debt collection action [so that definition is inapplicable in this case]... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the District of Columbia [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] District [Of Columbia. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wiggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "Wiggins [an amateur legal theorist]... ERRONEOUSLY CITES 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] to support his assertion that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION... . [But, t]hat statute governs the collection of federal debt.... . Section 3002(15) [discussed above] merely provides that the term "United States," WHEN USED "IN THIS... [STATUTE]," refers to a federal corporation, agency, entity, or instrumentality of the United States [not a private, for-profit corporation]." (at footnote 18).

6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q="Kitchens+v.+Becraft"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a Texas state official]. The court wrote, "Next, Kitchens [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' and thus has no sovereign authority." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Plaintiff's [Kitchen's] objections ARE WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 50% through the case).

7). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q="US+v.+Beavers"+meritless+"is+a+federal+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, the court wrote, "The Defendants [both amateur legal theorists] assert that THE "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION that went bankrupt in 1933 [a false claim that Rod Class also makes] and lacks jurisdiction to prosecute criminal matters... .' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THE COURT FINDS THE DEFENDANT'S [the amateur legal theorists'] ARGUMENTS TO BE MERITLESS [read this phrase again]." (at the 17th-18th paragraph at about 50% through the text). At footnote 9, the court continues, "As explained [above], the Defendants cite 28 U.S.C. § 3002 [discussed above] to support their claim that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION. HOWEVER, A COMPLETE READING OF 28 U.S.C. § 3002 BELIES [means "REFUTES"] THIS INTERPRETATION." (at footnote 9).

8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, a tax protester/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the United States. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] argues that Defendant [the United States] has no immunity [from his suit], BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS IDENTIFIED ITSELF AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection activity.' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "To support this proposition, Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)[discussed above]. THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection. Instead, IT MERELY PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES’ FOR PURPOSES OF THE [SAME] STATUTE [IN WHICH IT APPEARS] AS A ‘FEDERAL CORPORATION’ [not a private, for-profit corporation]... ." (at the 8th paragraph not including block-indented portions at about 60% through the text).

9). U.S. v. Boyce, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15212483763058805690&q="US+v.+Boyce"+"limited+to+individuals+residing"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE TAX PROTESTERS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "The Boyces [both tax protesters and amateur legal theorists]... assert that the court's jurisdiction is limited to individuals residing within the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia citing 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above], WHICH DEFINES THE "UNITED STATES" AS... A FEDERAL CORPORATION... . [T]hey contend the court's jurisdiction extends only to the section of territory occupied by 'THE ULTIMATE PARENT FEDERAL CORPORATION,' i.e. the ["CITY" of The] District of Columbia." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THIS ARGUMENT IS UNAVAILING [is an amateur legal theory]. Section 3002(15) [discussed above] defines 'United States ONLY for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 3001...', which governs 'federal debt collection procedure'. IT DOES NOT DEFINE THE 'UNITED STATES' AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX LAWS [much less as a private for-profit corporation], NOR DOES IT CIRCUMSCRIBE [means "LIMIT"] THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. [citing] Kubicki v. United States [the case directly above], ... '[the subject statute]... DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX COLLECTION [mush less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation].'" (at the 15th full paragraph at about 25% through the text).

10). U.S. v. Smith, http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/JONES/1-10MJ00061.PDF (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION". In this case, the court wrote, "... Smith [the Defendant/amateur legal theorist] stated: '... {I]n no way, shape or form am I an employee of the Federal government or am I an employee of the FEDERAL CORPORATION under the United States Code Title 28, Section 28 Section 3002, Subsection 15, Section A [discussed above] where THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION AND IT'S A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION as spelled out there.'" (at the 1st paragraph on page 7 of this case as it appears in this link). But, the court held otherwise and called the Defendant's amateur legal theories, including this one, "OUTLANDISH" and actually required the Defendant to undergo an INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (a psychiatric evaluation while a patient incarcerated in a mental institution). Note: Rod Class has been forced to undergo several such psychiatric examinations for similar reasons.

11). Joiner v. Perry, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5999032368422140072&q="RAYMOND+DAKIM++HArris+Joiner"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PRISONER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a prisoner/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a North Carolina state official. The court wrote, "He [the prisoner/amateur legal theorist] also testified that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' to which he holds no 'allegiance', and that therefore the United States may not tax him." (at footnote 3 at the very end of the case). But, the court held otherwise and called the prisoner’s arguments "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and NOT ONLY THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT, but actually FINED THE PRISONER for making such ridiculous claims.

12). State v. Hartsoe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=83340477619696621&q="John+L.+Hartsoe"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "Hartsoe's [the Defendant's] affidavit was based upon his belief that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, which created 'straw men,' fictitious persons separate from real individuals, for each man and woman in order TO CONTROL the people of the United States. Hartsoe [the Defendant] refused to submit to the CORPORATE government and filed his affidavit denying his [own imaginary] 'straw man' or [imaginary] CORPORATE existence." But, the court ruled otherwise.

13). Miles v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3357725607032486211&q="Harry+Edwin+Miles"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case the Defendant filed what amounted to a Motion For Relief From Conviction. The court wrote, "The grounds [in the Defendant's motion] include... that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and does not have the power to prosecute individuals, and that citizens are not subject to statutory jurisdiction under the Constitution [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]." (at footnote 1). But, the court held otherwise and unceremoniously THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

14). U.S. v. Provost, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17406735750311497964&q="Andre+Paul+Provost"+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "... Defendant [the tax protester] filed a request to answer [the complaint], claiming that he had 'a good faith belief that the UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and that there was no parity with the flesh and blood man.'" But, the court ruled otherwise, DENIED the tax protester's request to file a delinquent answer and UPHELD THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.

15). Maxwell v. Snow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15464772622202031639&q="Maxwell+v.+Snow"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL THE TAX PROTESTER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a tax protester unsuccessfully sued a U.S. Treasury official and claimed that, "Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government", that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A "CORPORATION", that "the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to [within] the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia and [to within the borders of] other federally owned lands". But, the court held otherwise and held that such amateur legal theories were "WITHOUT MERIT", "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and "LIKEWISE FRIVOLOUS."

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "all governments are corporations") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether governments are corporations WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above. https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

NOTE HOW ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE ALWAYS EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE TO WHAT THE REAL LAW HAS TO SAY ON THE SAME SUBJECT. THIS SUBJECT IS NO EXCEPTION.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,385
Likes
6,524
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
Oh darn YOU LOSE!
(15) “United States” means—
(A)
a Federal corporation;

(B)
an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C)
an instrumentality of the United States.

found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

And, you can just go flip burgers!
Michael59,

Your Comment: Oh darn YOU LOSE!
(15) United States” means
(A)
a Federal corporation;

MY RESPONSE: ABOUT "FEDERAL CORPORATIONS"

Our federal government has structured seventeen of our federal government agencies as PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations" (NO STOCKHOLDERS, NO PROFITS, etc.). In general, all of the federal agencies that are structured this way have two things in common, they all have their own customers (or their own source of revenue) and none of them receive any money from Congress.

Three well-known examples of such federal agencies are the United States Postal Service (The Post Office-U.S. Mail), AMTRAK (a publicly-owned, non-profit railroad) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (a publicly-owned, non-profit ELECTRICAL POWER utility). You will note that ALL THREE of these PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations" have their own customers and none of them receive any money from Congress.

There are THREE MAIN REASONS why the federal government structured these federal agencies as PUBLICLY-OWNED, NON-PROFIT "federal corporations": 1). To force each such federal agency to work within their own budgets BY USING THEIR OWN REVENUES (received from their own customers/sources) instead of receiving money from Congress; 2). To relieve taxpayers of the burden of paying for governmental services that they might not even use (not everyone uses snail mail, rides trains or lives in the "Tennessee Valley"); and 3). To ensure that each such federal agency provide the highest possible quality of service at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer in order to avoid their own failure and collapse (which, due to this organizational structure, would have no adverse effect on the rest of the federal government or on the taxpayer anyway). IT'S ALL ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND FAIRNESS TO THE TAXPAYER. For more on this subject, click here. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30365.pdf


TITLE 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a):
Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)(a) reads in pertinent part, "DEFINITIONS... As used in THIS chapter [ONLY, and not for any other purpose],... United States means- ... a federal corporation [this term is a source of the confusion]... ." FACT: Title 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15) (a) merely provides the definitions (only) SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SINGLE FEDERAL CHAPTER (AND THOSE DEFINITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER CHAPTER AND CANNOT BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER PURPOSE). This is why the VERY FIRST WORDS of Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 read, “As used in THIS chapter [and NOT other chapters or for other purposes]... ." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 (See the VERY FIRST WORDS at the TOP of this section.). The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 provides definitions is the FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT (chapter 176).

But remember, if any FEDERAL statute contains the terms, "corporate" or "corporation" in reference to anything FEDERAL, then amateur legal theorists will use that FEDERAL statute in support of their false claim that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". So, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) proves that the United States is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which makes "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, this is not so.

The SINGLE CHAPTER for which Title 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(a) provides definitions (chapter 176) relates to the "PROCEDURE" ONLY that the "United States" must follow when collecting certain debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3001. Title 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a) DOES NOT actually define the "United States" as a ”federal corporation”. Instead, it actually defines a “federal corporation” (like AMTRAK) as the “United States” SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT.

APPLICATION: So, if AMTRAK (a "federal corporation") sought to collect on such a debt, it would have to follow the SAME "PROCEDURE" set forth in the Fair Debt Collection Procedure Act THAT ANY OTHER PART OF THE "UNITED STATES” GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW TO COLLECT SUCH A DEBT. It is that simple. But, amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

FACT: This definition IN THE FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE ACT does not mean that the entire “United States” is itself a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation which generates "PROFITS" for its "PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS". But, consider this. Even if the "United States" was such a "PRIVATE", "FOR-PROFIT" corporation, and it is not, ALL of the governmental decisions made by that alleged "corporation" WOULD STILL BE MADE BY PEOPLE THAT WE "ELECT" TO RUN IT.

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS" FOR AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY PURPOSES:

1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theories that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] also contends that THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE CORPORATIONS, and as such, can only "interface" with other artificial entities, not natural persons like Petitioner [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]. In support of his argument, Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] cites the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. 3002 et seq [discussed above], and the Michigan Constitution, Article VII, section 1, NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM THAT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE CORPORATIONS [read this phrase again]. Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] contends that, AS CORPORATIONS, the State of Michigan and the federal government cannot "concern [themselves] with anything OTHER THAN CORPORATE, ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES AND INTANGIBLE ABSTRACTIONS [a false claim that Rod Class also makes].... .’' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, “SUCH REASONING IS DEVOID OF LEGAL SUPPORT [Translation: are amateur legal theories] and contrary to common sense." (at paragraph 9 at about 40% through the text of the case). The court continues at footnote 2 near the end of the case as follows, "The FDCPA [discussed above] DOES NOT STATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CORPORATION [much less a private, for-profit corporation]. Article VII of the Michigan constitution merely indicates that 'each organized county shall be a BODY CORPORATE [not a private, for-profit corporation].'" (at footnote 2 near the end of the case).

2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4379559949396907798&q="DuBose+v.+Kasich"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] sets forth his own versions of various 'sovereign citizen' [amateur legal] theories. Such [amateur legal] theories involve the alleged CORPORATE STATUS OF OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]... . " (at the 13th paragraph, just above section "IV" at about 95% through the text).

3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are federal "CORPORATIONS".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government agencies and officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] responds that the STATE OF TEXAS is not protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a 'FEDERAL CORPORATION'... ." (at section "D" at about 65% through the text of the case). Later in the text in section "k" the court held otherwise and wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] in the paragraph pertaining to his claim against the USA... . To the extent that Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] relies on § 3002(15) [discussed above] to sue the USA, IT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE § 3002 [discussed above] IS SIMPLY A DEFINITIONS STATUTE IN THE CHAPTER THAT AUTHORIZES THE USA TO... [COLLECT CERTAIN DEBTS]." (in section "k" at about 85% through the text).

4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Ernest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] District of Columbia'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia.' ... . BUT [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] IS MISPLACED [read that phrase again]. That statute is simply a definitional provision DEFINING the "United States" as, among other options, 'a federal corporation' SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER WHICH IT IS PART... . The applicability of [this] Chapter... is confined to CIVIL actions [filed] by the United States [against debtors]... to recover a judgment on a debt... . This CRIMINAL action [this case] is not [such a] a CIVIL debt collection action [so that definition is inapplicable in this case]... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the District of Columbia [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] District [Of Columbia. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wiggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "Wiggins [an amateur legal theorist]... ERRONEOUSLY CITES 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] to support his assertion that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION... . [But, t]hat statute governs the collection of federal debt.... . Section 3002(15) [discussed above] merely provides that the term "United States," WHEN USED "IN THIS... [STATUTE]," refers to a federal corporation, agency, entity, or instrumentality of the United States [not a private, for-profit corporation]." (at footnote 18).

6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q="Kitchens+v.+Becraft"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a Texas state official]. The court wrote, "Next, Kitchens [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' and thus has no sovereign authority." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Plaintiff's [Kitchen's] objections ARE WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 50% through the case).

7). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q="US+v.+Beavers"+meritless+"is+a+federal+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, the court wrote, "The Defendants [both amateur legal theorists] assert that THE "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION that went bankrupt in 1933 [a false claim that Rod Class also makes] and lacks jurisdiction to prosecute criminal matters... .' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THE COURT FINDS THE DEFENDANT'S [the amateur legal theorists'] ARGUMENTS TO BE MERITLESS [read this phrase again]." (at the 17th-18th paragraph at about 50% through the text). At footnote 9, the court continues, "As explained [above], the Defendants cite 28 U.S.C. § 3002 [discussed above] to support their claim that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION. HOWEVER, A COMPLETE READING OF 28 U.S.C. § 3002 BELIES [means "REFUTES"] THIS INTERPRETATION." (at footnote 9).

8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, a tax protester/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the United States. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] argues that Defendant [the United States] has no immunity [from his suit], BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS IDENTIFIED ITSELF AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection activity.' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "To support this proposition, Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)[discussed above]. THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection. Instead, IT MERELY PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES’ FOR PURPOSES OF THE [SAME] STATUTE [IN WHICH IT APPEARS] AS A ‘FEDERAL CORPORATION’ [not a private, for-profit corporation]... ." (at the 8th paragraph not including block-indented portions at about 60% through the text).

9). U.S. v. Boyce, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15212483763058805690&q="US+v.+Boyce"+"limited+to+individuals+residing"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE TAX PROTESTERS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "The Boyces [both tax protesters and amateur legal theorists]... assert that the court's jurisdiction is limited to individuals residing within the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia citing 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above], WHICH DEFINES THE "UNITED STATES" AS... A FEDERAL CORPORATION... . [T]hey contend the court's jurisdiction extends only to the section of territory occupied by 'THE ULTIMATE PARENT FEDERAL CORPORATION,' i.e. the ["CITY" of The] District of Columbia." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THIS ARGUMENT IS UNAVAILING [is an amateur legal theory]. Section 3002(15) [discussed above] defines 'United States ONLY for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 3001...', which governs 'federal debt collection procedure'. IT DOES NOT DEFINE THE 'UNITED STATES' AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX LAWS [much less as a private for-profit corporation], NOR DOES IT CIRCUMSCRIBE [means "LIMIT"] THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. [citing] Kubicki v. United States [the case directly above], ... '[the subject statute]... DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX COLLECTION [mush less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation].'" (at the 15th full paragraph at about 25% through the text).

10). U.S. v. Smith, http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/JONES/1-10MJ00061.PDF (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION". In this case, the court wrote, "... Smith [the Defendant/amateur legal theorist] stated: '... {I]n no way, shape or form am I an employee of the Federal government or am I an employee of the FEDERAL CORPORATION under the United States Code Title 28, Section 28 Section 3002, Subsection 15, Section A [discussed above] where THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION AND IT'S A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION as spelled out there.'" (at the 1st paragraph on page 7 of this case as it appears in this link). But, the court held otherwise and called the Defendant's amateur legal theories, including this one, "OUTLANDISH" and actually required the Defendant to undergo an INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (a psychiatric evaluation while a patient incarcerated in a mental institution). Note: Rod Class has been forced to undergo several such psychiatric examinations for similar reasons.

11). Joiner v. Perry, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5999032368422140072&q="RAYMOND+DAKIM++HArris+Joiner"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PRISONER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a prisoner/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a North Carolina state official. The court wrote, "He [the prisoner/amateur legal theorist] also testified that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' to which he holds no 'allegiance', and that therefore the United States may not tax him." (at footnote 3 at the very end of the case). But, the court held otherwise and called the prisoner’s arguments "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and NOT ONLY THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT, but actually FINED THE PRISONER for making such ridiculous claims.

12). State v. Hartsoe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=83340477619696621&q="John+L.+Hartsoe"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "Hartsoe's [the Defendant's] affidavit was based upon his belief that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, which created 'straw men,' fictitious persons separate from real individuals, for each man and woman in order TO CONTROL the people of the United States. Hartsoe [the Defendant] refused to submit to the CORPORATE government and filed his affidavit denying his [own imaginary] 'straw man' or [imaginary] CORPORATE existence." But, the court ruled otherwise.

13). Miles v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3357725607032486211&q="Harry+Edwin+Miles"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case the Defendant filed what amounted to a Motion For Relief From Conviction. The court wrote, "The grounds [in the Defendant's motion] include... that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and does not have the power to prosecute individuals, and that citizens are not subject to statutory jurisdiction under the Constitution [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]." (at footnote 1). But, the court held otherwise and unceremoniously THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

14). U.S. v. Provost, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17406735750311497964&q="Andre+Paul+Provost"+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "... Defendant [the tax protester] filed a request to answer [the complaint], claiming that he had 'a good faith belief that the UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and that there was no parity with the flesh and blood man.'" But, the court ruled otherwise, DENIED the tax protester's request to file a delinquent answer and UPHELD THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.

15). Maxwell v. Snow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15464772622202031639&q="Maxwell+v.+Snow"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL THE TAX PROTESTER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a tax protester unsuccessfully sued a U.S. Treasury official and claimed that, "Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government", that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A "CORPORATION", that "the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to [within] the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia and [to within the borders of] other federally owned lands". But, the court held otherwise and held that such amateur legal theories were "WITHOUT MERIT", "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and "LIKEWISE FRIVOLOUS."

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "all governments are corporations") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether governments are corporations WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

NOTE HOW ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE ALWAYS EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE TO THAT THE REAL LAW HAS TO SAY ON THE SAME SUBJECT. THIS SUBJECT IS NO EXCEPTION.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,703
Likes
6,407
Location
right here right now
Snoopy, your REAL LAW is nothing but lawyer lies, period. And the fact that you continually promote these lies as truth means your agenda is to continually subjugate us to your bullshit commercial code, so called but not, laws, for one reason and one reason only, and it's not about correcting problems in the world around us. It's about pure fucking greed for your fellow fucking lawyers to steal money from the population.

I hope this helps,

All the worst, moron...
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,230
Likes
11,644
I actually enjoy the back and forth with legal references and case law. Thanks for posting Snoop.. There is certainly a lot of armchair legal analysts out there and lots of misinformation on the net.

Here's the thing though, certainly back in the early days of this countries founding the laws were fairly simple and straightforward. Nowadays, not so much. It is impossible for anyone to truly read every law and supporting case that to truly get an understanding of the laws we are being subjected to. Congress passes bills that are thousands of pages long and fines are being sent out for violating the law that no one has even read including those in congress passing the laws. Seem ridiculous that I can be held accountable to some laws that not even congress reads before they pass them. In court though the old saying ignorance of the law is no excuse seems to apply.
Congreses jurisdiction was also supposed to apply to a 10 mile radius around DC until they decided the commerce clause gave them jurisdiction over everything. 350 million people controlled by the whims of the congress that is bought and paid for by corporations trying to eek out every last % of profit from the very people they are supposed to represent. Makes no sense to me. I'd say it makes no sense to about 349,999,999 other people as well.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,777
Likes
65,931
Location
Rocky Mountains
I want to see Snoop post the cases that were dismissed by the Common Law default process wherein they showed the Judge was acting outside his legal authority and about to lose his bond.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
I actually enjoy the back and forth with legal references and case law. Thanks for posting Snoop.. There is certainly a lot of armchair legal analysts out there and lots of misinformation on the net.

Here's the thing though, certainly back in the early days of this countries founding the laws were fairly simple and straightforward. Nowadays, not so much. It is impossible for anyone to truly read every law and supporting case that to truly get an understanding of the laws we are being subjected to. Congress passes bills that are thousands of pages long and fines are being sent out for violating the law that no one has even read including those in congress passing the laws. Seem ridiculous that I can be held accountable to some laws that not even congress reads before they pass them. In court though the old saying ignorance of the law is no excuse seems to apply.
Congreses jurisdiction was also supposed to apply to a 10 mile radius around DC until they decided the commerce clause gave them jurisdiction over everything. 350 million people controlled by the whims of the congress that is bought and paid for by corporations trying to eek out every last % of profit from the very people they are supposed to represent. Makes no sense to me. I'd say it makes no sense to about 349,999,999 other people as well.
Dear Cigarlover,

Thank you for your kind words. I will respond to your comments individual below.

1. I actually enjoy the back and forth with legal references and case law.
RESPONSE: Thanks. I enjoy it too. But, I enjoy it more when we are making real, meaningful progress as a group, like when Goldhedge NAILED IT in answering that question about why the FEDERAL transportation code (Title 49) is limited to matters involving interstate COMMERCE. He answered that question, "Article 1, section 8, clause 3". He ABSOLUTELY NAILED IT! That answer proved to me that some people out there are hungry for knowledge about the law, that some people out there are actually capable of understanding it (despite being misinformed about it before) and that all some people need is the truth. That answer made all my time and effort here worthwhile.

2.Thanks for posting Snoop..
RESPONSE: You are very welcome, my friend. Any time.

3.There is certainly a lot of armchair legal analysts out there and lots of misinformation on the net.
RESPONSE: Agreed. There is a tidal wave of fraud and lies about the law on the net. It's too bad that the truth doesn't get equal editorial space.

4. Here's the thing though, certainly back in the early days of this countries founding the laws were fairly simple and straightforward. Nowadays, not so much.
RESPONSE: In some ways this is true. In other ways it is not true. In the old days, there were less sovereigns (less governments), less states, less counties and less cities (municiplities). So, today we have more elected law making bodies than ever before. In that sense, things are more complicated now than ever before. But, as time passes, unsettled matters in the common law (case law) become more settled and more uniform. So, in this sense the common law (case law) is less complicated.

5. It is impossible for anyone to truly read every law and supporting case that to truly get an understanding of the laws we are being subjected to. Congress passes bills that are thousands of pages long and fines are being sent out for violating the law that no one has even read including those in congress passing the laws. Seem ridiculous that I can be held accountable to some laws that not even congress reads before they pass them. In court though the old saying ignorance of the law is no excuse seems to apply.
RESPONSE: This is true. But, here is the good news. As a practical matter, all you need to know is the law of YOUR OWN STATE (not the law of all 50 of them). As a practical matter, you only need to know a TINY FRACTION OF THE FEDERAL LAW. This is because STATE LAW governs virtually everything that effects the ordinary person, driver's licenses, all traffic law, almost all criminal law, almost all commerce (not involving INTERSTATE commerce), divorce, custody, mortgage, foreclosure, almost all licenses, and so forth. The only FEDERAL law that is likely to affect the ordinary person is federal income tax law, bankruptcy law and the Bill Of Rights (which are themselves already factored into all state and federal law).

6. Congress' jurisdiction was also supposed to apply to a 10 mile radius around DC until
RESPONSE: This is absolutely, positively not true. From its inception, Congress had jurisdiction over EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF EVERY SINGLE STATE IN THE UNITIED STATES AND EVERY SINGLE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES (and over the high seas and over all navigable inland waters).

FACT: Congress has NO LIMITS to it's jurisdiction IN TERMS OF GEOGRAPHY (except for the borders of other countries recognized by The United States).

FACT: The ONLY LIMITS to the jurisdiction of Congress ARE LIMITS BASED ON SUBJECT MATTER (not geography). Congress only has SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over those few legal subjects that THE STATES have expressly delegated to Congress in the U.S. Constitution. Under the tenth amendment, THE STATES reserved to themselves the jurisdiction to regulate every legal subject that they did not delegate to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.

FACT: All you have to do to be subject to the jurisdiction of THE STATE is to be within the borders of THAT STATE, nothing more (no consent or contracts are required). All you have to do to be subject to the jurisdiction of THE UNITED STATES is to be within the borders of ANY STATE, TERRITORY, INLAND NAVIGABLE WATERS OR TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, nothing more (no consent or contracts are required).

7. until they decided the commerce clause gave them jurisdiction over everything.
RESPONSE: This is a very good observation. The INTERSTATE COMMERCE clause is found at Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution (just ask Goldhedge). Congress has used the INTERSTATE COMMERCE clause as a pretext to expand its jurisdictional reach. But, Congress did not use the INTERSTATE COMMERCE clause to expand the TERRITORY OR GEOGRAPHY over which it had jurisdiction (because it already had territorial and geographic jurisdiction OVER EVERYWHERE). Instead, Congress has used the INTERSTATE COMMERCE clause as a pretext to expand its jurisdictional reach into LEGAL SUBJECTS THAT THE STATES RESERVED TO THEMSELVES TO REGULATE under the tenth amendment. So, Congress did not use the INTERSTATE COMMERCE clause to expand the territory over which it had jurisdiction, Congress used the INTERSTATE COMMERCE clause to expand THE LEGAL SUBJECTS over which it had jurisdiction. And, that is just as bad, if not more so.

8. 350 million people controlled by the whims of the congress that is bought and paid for by corporations trying to eek out every last % of profit from the very people they are supposed to represent. Makes no sense to me. I'd say it makes no sense to about 349,999,999 other people as well.
RESPONSE: The people who make up Congress are put there by "We the People" through the ELECTION process. But, Congress only has subject matter jurisdiction over that tiny list of legal subjects that appear in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (just ask Goldhedge). STATE law governs all of the remaining legal subjects. But, I agree with you that corporate money has corrupted our FEDERAL and STATE governments. That needs to be remedied.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
I want to see Snoop post the cases that were dismissed by the Common Law default process wherein they showed the Judge was acting outside his legal authority and about to lose his bond.
Goldhedge,

I will post any case you want. But, it has to be a real case and not an imaginary case. A case of the type you request does not exist because:
1. The term "default" is a term that applies to a DEFENDANT in a case, not a JUDGE. A default results when the DEFENDANT fails to answer a CIVIL suit within the time allowed by law.
2. Judges do not ordinarily act outside their authority because the type of case filed determines which court and which judge actually gets the case. If a case is sitting before a particular judge, it is only because the clerk of court has assigned that particular case to that particular judge because that judge is authorized by law to adjudicate all matters relating to that particular type of case. Except for the Supreme Court Of The United States, judges do not pick the cases they will hear. The clerk picks the court and judge authorized by law to handle that particular type of case. And remember, all STATE court judges are ELECTED by "We the People" anyway. If such an ELECTED judge were to somehow exceed his authority on a particular case (which would be all but impossible), not only would he/she be disciplined (or removed from office) by the STATE Supreme Court, but he/she would be voted out of office by "We the People" in the next election.
3.Judges are not "bonded" and have no "bond". This is because judges are immune from suit and have no liability to litigants who appear before them. So, no "bond" is necessary.


Send me what you are looking for and I'll see what I can do.

I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Snoop

P.S. Would you like me to show you how to find the law for yourself and cut out the "middleman'?
 
Last edited:

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,580
Likes
27,819
Location
ORYGUN
Snoopy, your REAL LAW is nothing but lawyer lies, period. And the fact that you continually promote these lies as truth means your agenda is to continually subjugate us to your bullshit commercial code, so called but not, laws, for one reason and one reason only, and it's not about correcting problems in the world around us. It's about pure fucking greed for your fellow fucking lawyers to steal money from the population.

I hope this helps,

All the worst, moron...
I have 2 close friends that have a lot of graybar hotel time, cars impounded & hundreds in fines AND they keep going with it.
In all fairness, I believe that the states are not as much bent on the actual license & registration as they are on the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!
MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which has never been overturned in over 194 years, which, if travel is truly a Constitutionally protected right, then we do not need lic. & reg, for private travel. PERIOD
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,230
Likes
11,644
I have 2 close friends that have a lot of graybar hotel time, cars impounded & hundreds in fines AND they keep going with it.
In all fairness, I believe that the states are not as much bent on the actual license & registration as they are on the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!
MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which has never been overturned in over 194 years, which, if travel is truly a Constitutionally protected right, then we do not need lic. & reg, for private travel. PERIOD
your not being denied the right to travel. U can take a train, taxi, plane, walk, horse or even skateboard and travel to anywhere you like. If you want to drive a bus, car or airplane then you need permission from the state.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,580
Likes
27,819
Location
ORYGUN
your not being denied the right to travel. U can take a train, taxi, plane, walk, horse or even skateboard and travel to anywhere you like. If you want to drive a bus, car or airplane then you need permission from the state.
Well, isn't that just special ? You did not mention bus, bicycle, pogo stick nor roller skates. OOOOOPs bicycle requires registration, yet no engine. I'm getting confused.
So, what makes a private engine so special?
:mail 2: :green tea:
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
I have 2 close friends that have a lot of graybar hotel time, cars impounded & hundreds in fines AND they keep going with it.
In all fairness, I believe that the states are not as much bent on the actual license & registration as they are on the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!
MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which has never been overturned in over 194 years, which, if travel is truly a Constitutionally protected right, then we do not need lic. & reg, for private travel. PERIOD
Hello Teazzar,

Thank you for your comments. I will respond below.

YOUR COMMENT: if travel is truly a Constitutionally protected right, then we do not need lic. & reg, for private travel. PERIOD
RESPONSE: The Supreme Court of the United States has indeed recognized a Constitutional "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".


BELOW IS THE SUPREME COURT'S ACTUAL LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL. READ IT CAREFULLY.

). Jones v. Helms, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7830792318853896035&q="jones+v.+Helms"+"U.S."+1981&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

2). Saenz v. Roe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4721017505990988840&q="Saenz+v.+Roe"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'... protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR... IN [THAT OTHER]... STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]... THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE. (at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

LOWER COURT DEFINITIONS OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL

3). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q="State+v.+Sullivan"+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME THING AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHCILE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense. (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.

4). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9621580109864231465&q="Miller+v.+Reed"+97-17006&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]... the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL interstate and the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING a car are NOT the same thing. Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

5). North Carolina v. Howard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10451209462604692152&q="North+Carolina+ex+rel"+Kasler&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' ... . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license... . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

6). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "... Petitioner claims that the State... violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]... DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [like every other amateur legal theorist] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor... when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.)

7). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=483036688545450484&q="966+A.2d+919"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although there is a well established and fundamental RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL, (citation omitted), THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING RIGHT TO OPERATE [means "DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... .'[T]HERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE an automobile on the roads and highways... .' 'The courts have UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ["DRIVE"'] A MOTOR VEHICLE.'... . 'Driving on the roads of this State is ... NOT A RIGHT, but a privilege.'" (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 65% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

8). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12477576553628312121&q="John+Doe+No.+1"+georgia+"right+to+travel"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held that there is NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE" and cited the following holding of another case with approval, "[THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... ." The court also cited this holding from another case with approval, "WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... ." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

9). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9780294138406294886&q="Acevedo+v.+New+York+State"++"right+to+drive"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although the [U.S.] constitution recognizes a RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] within the United States, referred to as the "RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT [BETWEEN THE STATES]" (citation omitted), IT [THE CONSTITUTION] DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE' [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (citations omitted). (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

10. Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver's license. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]... he was MERELY 'TRAVELING'... . [He claimed that] THE STATE... CAN [ONLY] REGULATE 'COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY' through the requirement of a [driver's] license BUT NOT 'TRAVELING' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. He contends that the term 'OPERATE' MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff's argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT 'OPERATE' A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].... . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]... . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT 'OPERATING' a motor vehicle BUT MERELY 'TRAVELING' strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO 'OPERATING' A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE 'OPERATED' ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. 'OPERATING,' as the word is used in [the STATE driver's license law]... DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state's public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL... . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

11. Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, "THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN 'COMMERCE' WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig falsely claims], AND ... I WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, 'I don't DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make].' Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED." Regardless, the appellate court disagreed with Myles' theories and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

BONUS LAW:


OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE"

1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q="Hendrick+v.+Maryland"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another.

I hope this helps,

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
your not being denied the right to travel. U can take a train, taxi, plane, walk, horse or even skateboard and travel to anywhere you like. If you want to drive a bus, car or airplane then you need permission from the state.
Cigarlover,

DING! DING! DING!

This is another A+ answer!

Now, Goldhedge has some serious competition for best legal scholar on this site.


Below is the case law (common law) that supports Cigarlover's answer almost verbatim!


1. State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...ATE+v.+SULLIVAN"+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his convictions for driving an unregistered car and for driving without insurance. The defendant argued that such STATE laws violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". The court disagreed and wrote, "If defendant does not wish to follow these statutory requirements, we remind him that HE MAY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, 'If he wishes, HE MAY WALK, RIDE A BICYCLE OR HORSE, OR TRAVEL AS A PASSENGER in an AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE or HELICOPTER. HE CANNOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE ["DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE]... ." (citation omitted). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

2. Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...="MIller+v.+Reed"+97-17006&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the State of California refused to issue Miller a driver's license because he would not reveal his social security number. Miller argued that in so doing, California had violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "The plaintiff is NOT being prevented from TRAVELLING INTERSTATE BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BY COMMON CARRIER [means plane, bus, train or ship], OR [AS A PASSENGER] IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEN BY SOMEONE WITH A LICENSE TO DRIVE IT." (at the 4h paragraph, block indented portion, in the section entitled "DISCUSSION" at about 60% through the text). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

Note how closely Cigarlover's answer "tracked" the actual written words law itself of this very subject (above).

Again, this is an A+ answer.

I count at least two legal scholars on this website. That's a good start.

All The Best,

Snoop.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,230
Likes
11,644
Pretty sure the right to travel also includes outside of the US. I know my lawyer used that right when he sent treasury dept a letter about some fines they wanted me to pay for a few trips to Cuba. Now on to the important stuff. :dduck:

See if I can quote you and post my replies inside of that.


OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE"
Not involved in interstate commerce could still mean involved in commerce within the state in which case the state has the power to require a license.

1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q="Hendrick+v.+Maryland"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

Your probably already defined Motor vehicle someplace in this thread but the arguments I have seen contend that a motor vehicle is a vehicle engaged in commerce or something like that. A driver is for driving a commercial vehicle.

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another.

Since the SC of the United states is issuing this decision would there not be using the federal definitions for driver and motor vehicle? We do recognize that the Feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce and commerce within the states is left up to the states who for the most part obey the feds or follow them, however you want to look at it.

My above highlighted arguments refer to the feds definition of driver and motor vehicle and if using their definitions of those items, I would contend that the SC decision would refer only to them.

My apologies if you have already provided the federal definition of these terms or Black laws definitions. This thread is getting up there in posts and loads of info in here.

Lets assume for a moment that you are correct, and I am not saying you are not, than what your saying is that driving is indeed a privilege and that the privilege is at the states discretion? If so let me throw this out there.

Lets say I am a typical family of 4 living in the suburbs of middle class America. My commute is 30 minute to an hr each way to and from work. Kids participate in after school programs such as sports or smoking pot with their friends. Mom and Dad are mid 40's or so , got a mortgage, 2 cars and loans up the wazoo, just living the American dream LMAo..
Ok now along comes the state and says we are revoking your privilege to drive. This obviously has probably never happened unless there was a DUI or something similar. However if it is a privilege and you have no right then if the state does come along and say something to the above statement than you have no recourse since they are not violating your rights correct?

I know times are changing and always are. back when cars first were invented people were still using horses and buggies and stuff. People worked locally for the most part so not being able to drive an auto was no big deal back then. Now that everyone commutes (Not everyone but lots of people) it seems incredible that the state could, at any moment, revoke your privilege to drive for no reason.
So basically the state can destroy anyones life at any moment without any reason for doing so? Sure they say you can take a taxi or a bus or train to work if you want but it's pretty much an implied right of all people to be able to drive unless blind or handicapped in some manner which prevents that.
Interested on your thoughts.

Thanks again for taking your time to reply .

Going back to page one, post 1 and 10. Are you saying that these are overturned by the SC? I think in these cases definitions do matter and as I stated above if we are using the legal definitions in Blacks law or the feds than I'm not sure how the SC decisions can apply to the states decisions.
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,385
Likes
6,524
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Look snoop get off the porch where the puppies pee, you know quit ur barking from that porch and get out and run with the big dogs.

sorry ppls I just has to hit this end to get what I wanted out...so...shit..so I am going back to read all urs stuffs...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
Well, isn't that just special ? You did not mention bus, bicycle, pogo stick nor roller skates. OOOOOPs bicycle requires registration, yet no engine. I'm getting confused.
So, what makes a private engine so special?
:mail 2: :green tea:
Pretty sure the right to travel also includes outside of the US. I know my lawyer used that right when he sent treasury dept a letter about some fines they wanted me to pay for a few trips to Cuba. Now on to the important stuff. :dduck:

See if I can quote you and post my replies inside of that.





Since the SC of the United states is issuing this decision would there not be using the federal definitions for driver and motor vehicle? We do recognize that the Feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce and commerce within the states is left up to the states who for the most part obey the feds or follow them, however you want to look at it.

My above highlighted arguments refer to the feds definition of driver and motor vehicle and if using their definitions of those items, I would contend that the SC decision would refer only to them.

My apologies if you have already provided the federal definition of these terms or Black laws definitions. This thread is getting up there in posts and loads of info in here.

Lets assume for a moment that you are correct, and I am not saying you are not, than what your saying is that driving is indeed a privilege and that the privilege is at the states discretion? If so let me throw this out there.

Lets say I am a typical family of 4 living in the suburbs of middle class America. My commute is 30 minute to an hr each way to and from work. Kids participate in after school programs such as sports or smoking pot with their friends. Mom and Dad are mid 40's or so , got a mortgage, 2 cars and loans up the wazoo, just living the American dream LMAo..
Ok now along comes the state and says we are revoking your privilege to drive. This obviously has probably never happened unless there was a DUI or something similar. However if it is a privilege and you have no right then if the state does come along and say something to the above statement than you have no recourse since they are not violating your rights correct?

I know times are changing and always are. back when cars first were invented people were still using horses and buggies and stuff. People worked locally for the most part so not being able to drive an auto was no big deal back then. Now that everyone commutes (Not everyone but lots of people) it seems incredible that the state could, at any moment, revoke your privilege to drive for no reason.
So basically the state can destroy anyones life at any moment without any reason for doing so? Sure they say you can take a taxi or a bus or train to work if you want but it's pretty much an implied right of all people to be able to drive unless blind or handicapped in some manner which prevents that.
Interested on your thoughts.

Thanks again for taking your time to reply .

Going back to page one, post 1 and 10. Are you saying that these are overturned by the SC? I think in these cases definitions do matter and as I stated above if we are using the legal definitions in Blacks law or the feds than I'm not sure how the SC decisions can apply to the states decisions.
Cigarlover,

Thank you for your comments. I will respond to them individually below.

1. Pretty sure the right to travel also includes outside of the US. I know my lawyer used that right when he sent treasury dept a letter about some fines they wanted me to pay for a few trips to Cuba.
RESPONSE: It does.
a. This case is about the INTERNATIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). CLICK HERE: Kent v. Dulles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10692694480240175303&q="Kent+v.+Dulles"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 14th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Note that his case is about AN INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, not about a driver's license.


b. This case is about the INTRASTATE RIGHT TO TRAVEL (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). CLICK HERE: In Re Barbara White, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7020999794525483771&q="In+re+Barbara+White"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (at the 23rd paragraph at about 60% through he text). Note that this case is about A PROSTITUTE'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DESIGNATED "NO PROSTITUTION ZONE" while on probation, not about a driver's license.
2. Now on to the important stuff. :dduck:
RESPONSE: I don't know what this means.

3. See if I can quote you and post my replies inside of that.
RESPONSE: No response required.

4. Since the SC of the United states is issuing this decision would there not be using the federal definitions for driver and motor vehicle?
RESPONSE: No, the Hedrick v. Maryland case was NOT ABOUT WHAT DEFINITIONS SHOULD BE USED. IT was about JURISDICITION. It simply held that THE STATES had the Constitutional right the require driver's licenses because THE STATES have jurisdiction over such matters (under the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution).

Regardless, FEDERAL DEFINITIONS do not apply to STATE driver's license laws for three reasons anyway.

First Under the U.S. Constitution, the FEDERAL government only has jurisdiction to regulate driver's licenses and vehicles IF, AND ONLY IF they are engaged in INTERSTATE COMMERCE within the meaning of Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 (just ask Goldhedge). Under the tenth amendment, THE STATES have the jurisdiction to regulate driver's license and vehicles IF, AND ONLY IF they ARE NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE within the meaning of Article 1, Section 8, clause 3. AND, YOU WILL NOTE THAT ALL FEDERAL DEFINTIONS OF DRIVER AND MOTOR VEHICLE ARE LIMITED TO DRIVERS AND MOTOR VEHCILES ENGAGED INTERSTATE COMMERCE (OVER WHICH THE STATES HAVE NO JURISIDICTION). SO, LOGICALLY, THOSE FEDERAL DEFINITIONS CAN NEVER BE USED BY THE STATES (WHICH HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO REGULATE DRIVERS AND MOTOR VEHICLES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE).

Second, the very first words of virtually EVERY FEDERAL statute which provides DEFINITIONS will say "AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER, THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS APPLY" (or words to the same effect). These words at the beginning of virtually EVERY FEDERAL statute that provides definitions, mean that not only do those FEDERAL definitions not apply to STATE LAWS, they do not apply even to OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES OR LAWS. Translation: The definition of words in any ONE statute CAN NEVER BE APPLIED TO ANY OTHER STATUTE OR ANY OTHER LAW (unless written words of the other statute or law actually says so).

Third, under the tenth amendment, THE STATES have the absolute right to provide their own definition of driver and motor vehicle (so long as those definitions do not include drivers and motor vehicles engaged in INTERSTATE COMMERCE, over which FEDERAL law has a monopoly).

5. We do recognize that the Feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce and commerce within the states is left up to the states
RESPONSE: This is another A+ comment. This is a perfect legal analysis. You now occupy the top spot as best legal scholar on the website.

6. {States] who for the most part obey the feds or follow them, however you want to look at it.
RESPONSE: The only limitation on a STATE'S rights to regulate INTRASTATE commerce is FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS (which, until the FEDERAL civil rights laws were passed, were few and far between). So, "COMMERCE" as a whole is still largely governed by STATE law, not by FEDERAL law. This is precisely why the UCC IS STATE LAW, NOT FEDERAL LAW. And, just so that you know, every STATE has its own version of the UCC. While the UCC is a model ("proposed") code, it is not binding on the STATES. So, the STATES tweak it to suit their own citizens and their own interests.

7. My above highlighted arguments refer to the feds definition of driver and motor vehicle and if using their definitions of those items, I would contend that the SC decision would refer only to them.
RESPONSE: Well, for reasons stated above, you are mistaken. The Hedrick v. Maryland case, which held that THE STATES had the right to REQUIRE driver's licenses, WAS NOT ABOUT DEFINITIONS OR ABOUT MICRO MANAGING STATE DRIVERS LICENSE LAWS. Instead, it was about STATE jurisdiction as compared to FEDERAL jurisdiction. It simply held that the STATES had the jurisdiction and the Constitutional right to require drivers licenses. Nothing more. It never touches on the subject of "definitions". Not, should it have. That is up THE STATES under the tenth amendment.

8. My apologies if you have already provided the federal definition of these terms or Black laws definitions. This thread is getting up there in posts and loads of info in here.
RESPONSE: The FEDERAL definitions of driver and motor vehicles ONLY APPLY IN THE SAME FEDERAL STATUTE IN WHICH THEY ACTUALLY APPEAR. FEDERAL definitions do not apply to STATE law (that would violate the tenth amendment). The definition of driver and motor vehicle in Black's Law Dictionary is completely irrelevant and has no force of law. Every STATE has ITS OWN definition of driver and motor vehicle for purposes of its own driver's license law. That is the only definition that applies to STATE drivers licenses. Other definitions are completely irrelevant

9. Lets assume for a moment that you are correct, and I am not saying you are not, than what your saying is that driving is indeed a privilege and that the privilege is at the states discretion? If so let me throw this out there.
RESPONSE: OK.

10. Lets say I am a typical family of 4 living in the suburbs of middle class America. My commute is 30 minute to an hr each way to and from work. Kids participate in after school programs such as sports or smoking pot with their friends. Mom and Dad are mid 40's or so , got a mortgage, 2 cars and loans up the wazoo, just living the American dream LMAO.. Ok now along comes the state and says we are revoking your privilege to drive. This obviously has probably never happened unless there was a DUI or something similar. However if it is a privilege and you have no right then if the state does come along and say something to the above statement than you have no recourse since they are not violating your rights correct?
RESPONSE: Yes. If you read the Hedrick v. Maryland case carefully, it says that the STATE driving and traffic laws must be "UNIFORM". That means EVERY PERSON in the STATE is subject to the SAME laws and those laws must be applied EQUALLY to EVERY PERSON in the SAME way. So, every person who violates the driver's license law and the traffic laws ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PENALTIES, including the lawmakers themselves. And, just so that you know, a person has some due process rights EVEN IN CONNECTION WITH A PRIVILEGE, LIKE A DRIVER'S LICENSE. So, a STATE cannot deprive a person of a PRIVILEGE, LIKE A DRIVER'S LICENSE, arbitrarily, capriciously and without cause. There is whole other body of law on that very subject.

11. I know times are changing and always are. back when cars first were invented people were still using horses and buggies and stuff. People worked locally for the most part so not being able to drive an auto was no big deal back then. Now that everyone commutes (Not everyone but lots of people) it seems incredible that the state could, at any moment, revoke your privilege to drive for no reason.
RESPONSE: They cannot. A person has some due process rights EVEN IN CONNECTION WITH A PRIVILEGE, LIKE A DRIVER's LICENSE. So, a STATE cannot deprive a person of a PRIVILEGE, LIKE A LICENSE, arbitrarily, capriciously and without cause. There is whole other body of law on that very subject.


12. So basically the state can destroy anyone's life at any moment without any reason for doing so?
RESPONSE: They cannot. A person has some due process rights EVEN IN CONNECTION WITH A PRIVILEGE, LIKE A DRIVER'S LICENSE. So, a STATE cannot deprive a person of a PRIVILEGE, LIKE A LICENSE, arbitrarily, capriciously and without cause. There is whole other body of law on that very subject.

13. Sure they say you can take a taxi or a bus or train to work if you want but it's pretty much an implied right of all people to be able to drive unless blind or handicapped in some manner which prevents that.
RESPONSE: That is correct.

Interested on your thoughts.

14. Thanks again for taking your time to reply .
RESPONSE: You bet.

15. Going back to page one, post 1 and 10. Are you saying that these are overturned by the SC?
RESPONSE: No. To the contrary, they REINFORCE the rulings of the Supreme Court.

16. I think in these cases definitions do matter and as I stated above if we are using the legal definitions in Blacks law or the feds than I'm not sure how the SC decisions can apply to the states decisions.
RESPONSE: As I stated above, the Hedrick v. Maryland case was NOT ABOUT DEFINITIONS. It was about jurisdiction.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,385
Likes
6,524
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I am just laughing my ass off at the Tennessee valley authority ahaha I got to admit the miss direction on that one as a definition of what governs the federal judicial system is a HOOT! And, what were the other two?
Title 28 of the United States Code. Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) is the portion of the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the federal judicial system.
All you had to do s4t is follow the link that was provided but that would not fit your vaporous and repetitive drivel with in your passive aggressive posts. Pay attention to the next paragraph....

YOU, yes you did say/write that the USA does not operate/run as a corporation/is a corporation, DID YOU NOT? I supplied you a link along with a copied excerpt of that link where in the code refers unto itself aka the federal gumbyment/government as a corporation. And, you go off to god knows where because I sure don't. YOU should know that it is a presumption of law that when something/someone refers unto its self as something then it is taken to be believed as the TRUTH and to be dealt with as such. But you will say "OH NO!" Let me supply you a hypothetical what IF so I can make myself perfectly clear.

I am standing on the corner slinging heroin by the paper bindles. You cannot see inside the paper but have to take it on faith that heroin is inside the bindle. I get arrested by the DEA and state drug enforcement for selling a controlled substance. At trial it is NOT a defense that inside the bindles was actually wheat flour, not one bit of a defense at all. The reason is, is because it is a presumption of law that I presented it as heroin SO it falls that the federal gumbyment/government presenting its self as a corporation has to fall under this same presumption of law and you go off on the TVA as a federal corporation? What a half truth of misdirection you are.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
I am just laughing my ass off at the Tennessee valley authority ahaha I got to admit the miss direction on that one as a definition of what governs the federal judicial system is a HOOT! And, what were the other two?
Title 28 of the United States Code. Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) is the portion of the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the federal judicial system.
All you had to do s4t is follow the link that was provided but that would not fit your vaporous and repetitive drivel with in your passive aggressive posts. Pay attention to the next paragraph....

YOU, yes you did say/write that the USA does not operate/run as a corporation/is a corporation, DID YOU NOT? I supplied you a link along with a copied excerpt of that link where in the code refers unto itself aka the federal gumbyment/government as a corporation. And, you go off to god knows where because I sure don't. YOU should know that it is a presumption of law that when something/someone refers unto its self as something then it is taken to be believed as the TRUTH and to be dealt with as such. But you will say "OH NO!" Let me supply you a hypothetical what IF so I can make myself perfectly clear.

I am standing on the corner slinging heroin by the paper bindles. You cannot see inside the paper but have to take it on faith that heroin is inside the bindle. I get arrested by the DEA and state drug enforcement for selling a controlled substance. At trial it is NOT a defense that inside the bindles was actually wheat flour, not one bit of a defense at all. The reason is, is because it is a presumption of law that I presented it as heroin SO it falls that the federal gumbyment/government presenting its self as a corporation has to fall under this same presumption of law and you go off on the TVA as a federal corporation? What a half truth of misdirection you are.
THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER GOVERNMENTS ARE "CORPORATIONS" FOR AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY PURPOSES:

1). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theories that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] also contends that THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE CORPORATIONS, and as such, can only "interface" with other artificial entities, not natural persons like Petitioner [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]. In support of his argument, Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] cites the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C. 3002 et seq [discussed above], and the Michigan Constitution, Article VII, section 1, NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM THAT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE CORPORATIONS [read this phrase again]. Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] contends that, AS CORPORATIONS, the State of Michigan and the federal government cannot "concern [themselves] with anything OTHER THAN CORPORATE, ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES AND INTANGIBLE ABSTRACTIONS [a false claim that Rod Class also makes].... .’' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, “SUCH REASONING IS DEVOID OF LEGAL SUPPORT [Translation: are amateur legal theories] and contrary to common sense." (at paragraph 9 at about 40% through the text of the case). The court continues at footnote 2 near the end of the case as follows, "The FDCPA [discussed above] DOES NOT STATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A CORPORATION [much less a private, for-profit corporation]. Article VII of the Michigan constitution merely indicates that 'each organized county shall be a BODY CORPORATE [not a private, for-profit corporation].'" (at footnote 2 near the end of the case).

2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4379559949396907798&q="DuBose+v.+Kasich"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are "CORPORATIONS"). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] sets forth his own versions of various 'sovereign citizen' [amateur legal] theories. Such [amateur legal] theories involve the alleged CORPORATE STATUS OF OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]... . " (at the 13th paragraph, just above section "IV" at about 95% through the text).

3). Florance v. Buchmeyer, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9160057929430622764&q="Florance+v.+Buchmeyer"+"responds+that+the+State+of+Texas"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the state and federal government are federal "CORPORATIONS".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government agencies and officials. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] responds that the STATE OF TEXAS is not protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a 'FEDERAL CORPORATION'... ." (at section "D" at about 65% through the text of the case). Later in the text in section "k" the court held otherwise and wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] in the paragraph pertaining to his claim against the USA... . To the extent that Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] relies on § 3002(15) [discussed above] to sue the USA, IT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE § 3002 [discussed above] IS SIMPLY A DEFINITIONS STATUTE IN THE CHAPTER THAT AUTHORIZES THE USA TO... [COLLECT CERTAIN DEBTS]." (in section "k" at about 85% through the text).

4). U.S. v. Petersen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4484968305092096232&q="Daniel+Ernest+Petersen"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "... Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION, and one that is 'located in the ["CITY" of the] District of Columbia'. ... [The Defendant] further claims that the 'United States Government [rather than merely the "CITY" government of Washington, D.C.] was officially [c]ommercialized in 1871,' apparently arguing that this entity's powers 'shall be limited to the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia.' ... . BUT [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] IS MISPLACED [read that phrase again]. That statute is simply a definitional provision DEFINING the "United States" as, among other options, 'a federal corporation' SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER WHICH IT IS PART... . The applicability of [this] Chapter... is confined to CIVIL actions [filed] by the United States [against debtors]... to recover a judgment on a debt... . This CRIMINAL action [this case] is not [such a] a CIVIL debt collection action [so that definition is inapplicable in this case]... . In addition, [THE] DEFENDANT'S RELIANCE ON THE... [Act Of 1871 discussed above], IS LIKEWISE MISPLACED [read that phrase again] as that statute simply 'created a ["CITY"] government by the name of the District of Columbia [not "The United States Of America"],' a municipal corporation [which means a "CITY" government] with ‘jurisdiction over all the territory within the [CITY] limits of the District.’... . The present CRIMINAL prosecution of [the] Defendant [in this case] has nothing to do with the powers that Congress delegated to the ["CITY" of the ] District [Of Columbia. So, THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE]." (at the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs at about 35% through the text).

5). U.S. v. Wiggins, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9638202248861590589&q="US+v.++Wiggins"+"is+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "Wiggins [an amateur legal theorist]... ERRONEOUSLY CITES 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above] to support his assertion that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION... . [But, t]hat statute governs the collection of federal debt.... . Section 3002(15) [discussed above] merely provides that the term "United States," WHEN USED "IN THIS... [STATUTE]," refers to a federal corporation, agency, entity, or instrumentality of the United States [not a private, for-profit corporation]." (at footnote 18).

6). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14825357831238654036&q="Kitchens+v.+Becraft"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a Texas state official]. The court wrote, "Next, Kitchens [an amateur legal theorist] contends that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' and thus has no sovereign authority." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Plaintiff's [Kitchen's] objections ARE WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 50% through the case).

7). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8251887802426142230&q="US+v.+Beavers"+meritless+"is+a+federal+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, the court wrote, "The Defendants [both amateur legal theorists] assert that THE "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION that went bankrupt in 1933 [a false claim that Rod Class also makes] and lacks jurisdiction to prosecute criminal matters... .' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THE COURT FINDS THE DEFENDANT'S [the amateur legal theorists'] ARGUMENTS TO BE MERITLESS [read this phrase again]." (at the 17th-18th paragraph at about 50% through the text). At footnote 9, the court continues, "As explained [above], the Defendants cite 28 U.S.C. § 3002 [discussed above] to support their claim that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION. HOWEVER, A COMPLETE READING OF 28 U.S.C. § 3002 BELIES [means "REFUTES"] THIS INTERPRETATION." (at footnote 9).

8). Kubicki v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372121264929306790&q="Kubicki+v.+US"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). In this case, a tax protester/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued the United States. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] argues that Defendant [the United States] has no immunity [from his suit], BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS IDENTIFIED ITSELF AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection activity.' But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "To support this proposition, Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] cites 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15)[discussed above]. THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION for purposes of tax collection. Instead, IT MERELY PROVIDES THE DEFINITION OF THE "UNITED STATES’ FOR PURPOSES OF THE [SAME] STATUTE [IN WHICH IT APPEARS] AS A ‘FEDERAL CORPORATION’ [not a private, for-profit corporation]... ." (at the 8th paragraph not including block-indented portions at about 60% through the text).

9). U.S. v. Boyce, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15212483763058805690&q="US+v.+Boyce"+"limited+to+individuals+residing"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE TAX PROTESTERS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including their amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION".). The court wrote, "The Boyces [both tax protesters and amateur legal theorists]... assert that the court's jurisdiction is limited to individuals residing within the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia citing 28 U.S.C. § 3002(15) [discussed above], WHICH DEFINES THE "UNITED STATES" AS... A FEDERAL CORPORATION... . [T]hey contend the court's jurisdiction extends only to the section of territory occupied by 'THE ULTIMATE PARENT FEDERAL CORPORATION,' i.e. the ["CITY" of The] District of Columbia." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "THIS ARGUMENT IS UNAVAILING [is an amateur legal theory]. Section 3002(15) [discussed above] defines 'United States ONLY for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 3001...', which governs 'federal debt collection procedure'. IT DOES NOT DEFINE THE 'UNITED STATES' AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX LAWS [much less as a private for-profit corporation], NOR DOES IT CIRCUMSCRIBE [means "LIMIT"] THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. [citing] Kubicki v. United States [the case directly above], ... '[the subject statute]... DOES NOT DEFINE THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF TAX COLLECTION [mush less a PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT corporation].'" (at the 15th full paragraph at about 25% through the text).

10). U.S. v. Smith, http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/JONES/1-10MJ00061.PDF (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION". In this case, the court wrote, "... Smith [the Defendant/amateur legal theorist] stated: '... {I]n no way, shape or form am I an employee of the Federal government or am I an employee of the FEDERAL CORPORATION under the United States Code Title 28, Section 28 Section 3002, Subsection 15, Section A [discussed above] where THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION AND IT'S A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION as spelled out there.'" (at the 1st paragraph on page 7 of this case as it appears in this link). But, the court held otherwise and called the Defendant's amateur legal theories, including this one, "OUTLANDISH" and actually required the Defendant to undergo an INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (a psychiatric evaluation while a patient incarcerated in a mental institution). Note: Rod Class has been forced to undergo several such psychiatric examinations for similar reasons.

11). Joiner v. Perry, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5999032368422140072&q="RAYMOND+DAKIM++HArris+Joiner"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE PRISONER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a prisoner/amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a North Carolina state official. The court wrote, "He [the prisoner/amateur legal theorist] also testified that 'THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION' to which he holds no 'allegiance', and that therefore the United States may not tax him." (at footnote 3 at the very end of the case). But, the court held otherwise and called the prisoner’s arguments "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and NOT ONLY THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT, but actually FINED THE PRISONER for making such ridiculous claims.

12). State v. Hartsoe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=83340477619696621&q="John+L.+Hartsoe"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "Hartsoe's [the Defendant's] affidavit was based upon his belief that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, which created 'straw men,' fictitious persons separate from real individuals, for each man and woman in order TO CONTROL the people of the United States. Hartsoe [the Defendant] refused to submit to the CORPORATE government and filed his affidavit denying his [own imaginary] 'straw man' or [imaginary] CORPORATE existence." But, the court ruled otherwise.

13). Miles v. U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3357725607032486211&q="Harry+Edwin+Miles"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case the Defendant filed what amounted to a Motion For Relief From Conviction. The court wrote, "The grounds [in the Defendant's motion] include... that THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and does not have the power to prosecute individuals, and that citizens are not subject to statutory jurisdiction under the Constitution [a false claim that Rod Class also makes]." (at footnote 1). But, the court held otherwise and unceremoniously THREW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

14). U.S. v. Provost, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17406735750311497964&q="Andre+Paul+Provost"+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a "CORPORATION"). In this case, the court wrote, "... Defendant [the tax protester] filed a request to answer [the complaint], claiming that he had 'a good faith belief that the UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION and that there was no parity with the flesh and blood man.'" But, the court ruled otherwise, DENIED the tax protester's request to file a delinquent answer and UPHELD THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.

15). Maxwell v. Snow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15464772622202031639&q="Maxwell+v.+Snow"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL THE TAX PROTESTER'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including his amateur legal theory that the United States is a CORPORATION). In this case, a tax protester unsuccessfully sued a U.S. Treasury official and claimed that, "Texas is not part of the United States, and that the United States itself is unconstitutional because it is not a republican form of government", that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A "CORPORATION", that "the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to [within] the ["CITY" limits of the] District of Columbia and [to within the borders of] other federally owned lands". But, the court held otherwise and held that such amateur legal theories were "WITHOUT MERIT", "PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS" and "LIKEWISE FRIVOLOUS."

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "all governments are corporations") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether governments are corporations WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent.
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

NOTE HOW ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE ALWAYS EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE TO THAT THE REAL LAW HAS TO SAY ON THE SAME SUBJECT. THIS SUBJECT IS NO EXCEPTION.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,777
Likes
65,931
Location
Rocky Mountains
  1. STATE CITIZENS vs US CITIZENS

  2. "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

  3. Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia, and the political rights of federal citizens are franchises which they hold as privileges at the legislative discretion of Congress.” (Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 (1885)).

  4. "The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

  5. "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
  6. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

  7. “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

  8. "there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

  9. "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

  10. "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
  11. City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

  12. "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... 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." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

  13. This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

  14. Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

  15. The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

  16. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."

  17. The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

  18. A US citizen is a corporation:

  19. Congressional Record , June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646). A "citizen of the United States" is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

  20. “...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political'[ rights]' which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political '[rights]' of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870)
  21. Like · Reply · 1 min
  22. Del Sharp
  23. Del Sharp United States Code that uses “American national” while maintaining no such status as 14th Amendment “naturalized citizen of the United States”.
  24. 8 U.S.C. § 1502 : Certificate of nationality issued by Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state
  25. The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an AMERICAN NATIONAL and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate official channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the FOREIGN STATE in which it is to be used.
  26. 19 Corpus Juris Secundum § 883, [t]he United States government is a FOREIGN CORPORATION with respect to a state.
  27. 8 USC § 1101(a)(21), [t]he term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.”
  28. 8 USC § 1101(a)(22), [t]he term “national of the United States” means
  29. (A) a citizen of the United States, or
  30. (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
  31. American national ≠ national/citizen of the United States
  32. These are TWO distinct status’ within the American system. The former is a freeman, the latter is a voluntary slave subject to the jurisdiction thereof created by section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It is a FEDERALLY CREATED capacity/title that owes allegiance to it.
  33. Like · Reply · Just now
  34. Del Sharp
  35. Del Sharp American National/State Citizens Printing Office

  36. [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
  37. [DOCID:chapter_txt-5]
  38. [[Page 73]]
  39. Nationalities, etc.
  40. 5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used
  41. for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality.
  42. 5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the
  43. following forms will be used.
  44. Alabamian
  45. Alaskan
  46. Arizonan
  47. Arkansan
  48. Californian
  49. Coloradan
  50. Connecticuter
  51. Delawarean
  52. Floridian
  53. Georgian
  54. Hawaiian
  55. Idahoan
  56. Illinoisan
  57. Indianian
  58. Iowan
  59. Kansan
  60. Kentuckian
  61. Louisianian
  62. Mainer
  63. Marylander
  64. Massachusettsan
  65. Michiganian
  66. Minnesotan
  67. Mississippian
  68. Missourian
  69. Montanan
  70. Nebraskan
  71. Nevadan
  72. New Hampshirite
  73. New Jerseyan
  74. New Mexican
  75. New Yorker
  76. North Carolinian
  77. North Dakotan
  78. Ohioan
  79. Oklahoman
  80. Oregonian
  81. Pennsylvanian
  82. Rhode Islander
  83. South Carolinian
  84. South Dakotan
  85. Tennessean
  86. Texan
  87. Utahn
  88. Vermonter
  89. Virginian
  90. Washingtonian
  91. West Virginian
  92. Wisconsinite
  93. Wyomingite
  94. 5.24. Observe the following forms:
  95. African-American
  96. Alaska Native (Aleuts, Eskimos, Indians of Alaska)
  97. Amerindian
  98. Native American (American Indian)
  99. Puerto Rican
  100. Part-Hawaiian (legal status)
  101. but part-Japanese, etc.
  102. Native American words
  103. 5.25. Words, including tribal and other proper names of
  104. Indian, Aleut, Hawaiian, and other groups, are to be followed
  105. literally as to spelling and the use of spaces, hyphens, etc.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
  1. STATE CITIZENS vs US CITIZENS

  2. "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

  3. Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia, and the political rights of federal citizens are franchises which they hold as privileges at the legislative discretion of Congress.” (Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 (1885)).

  4. "The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

  5. "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
  6. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

  7. “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

  8. "there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

  9. "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

  10. "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
  11. City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

  12. "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... 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." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

  13. This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

  14. Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

  15. The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

  16. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."

  17. The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

  18. A US citizen is a corporation:

  19. Congressional Record , June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646). A "citizen of the United States" is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

  20. “...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political'[ rights]' which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political '[rights]' of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870)
  21. Like · Reply · 1 min
  22. Del Sharp
  23. Del Sharp United States Code that uses “American national” while maintaining no such status as 14th Amendment “naturalized citizen of the United States”.
  24. 8 U.S.C. § 1502 : Certificate of nationality issued by Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state
  25. The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an AMERICAN NATIONAL and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate official channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the FOREIGN STATE in which it is to be used.
  26. 19 Corpus Juris Secundum § 883, [t]he United States government is a FOREIGN CORPORATION with respect to a state.
  27. 8 USC § 1101(a)(21), [t]he term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.”
  28. 8 USC § 1101(a)(22), [t]he term “national of the United States” means
  29. (A) a citizen of the United States, or
  30. (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
  31. American national ≠ national/citizen of the United States
  32. These are TWO distinct status’ within the American system. The former is a freeman, the latter is a voluntary slave subject to the jurisdiction thereof created by section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It is a FEDERALLY CREATED capacity/title that owes allegiance to it.
  33. Like · Reply · Just now
  34. Del Sharp
  35. Del Sharp American National/State Citizens Printing Office

  36. [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
  37. [DOCID:chapter_txt-5]
  38. [[Page 73]]
  39. Nationalities, etc.
  40. 5.22. The table beginning on page 233 shows forms to be used
  41. for nouns and adjectives denoting nationality.
  42. 5.23. In designating the natives of the several States, the
  43. following forms will be used.
  44. Alabamian
  45. Alaskan
  46. Arizonan
  47. Arkansan
  48. Californian
  49. Coloradan
  50. Connecticuter
  51. Delawarean
  52. Floridian
  53. Georgian
  54. Hawaiian
  55. Idahoan
  56. Illinoisan
  57. Indianian
  58. Iowan
  59. Kansan
  60. Kentuckian
  61. Louisianian
  62. Mainer
  63. Marylander
  64. Massachusettsan
  65. Michiganian
  66. Minnesotan
  67. Mississippian
  68. Missourian
  69. Montanan
  70. Nebraskan
  71. Nevadan
  72. New Hampshirite
  73. New Jerseyan
  74. New Mexican
  75. New Yorker
  76. North Carolinian
  77. North Dakotan
  78. Ohioan
  79. Oklahoman
  80. Oregonian
  81. Pennsylvanian
  82. Rhode Islander
  83. South Carolinian
  84. South Dakotan
  85. Tennessean
  86. Texan
  87. Utahn
  88. Vermonter
  89. Virginian
  90. Washingtonian
  91. West Virginian
  92. Wisconsinite
  93. Wyomingite
  94. 5.24. Observe the following forms:
  95. African-American
  96. Alaska Native (Aleuts, Eskimos, Indians of Alaska)
  97. Amerindian
  98. Native American (American Indian)
  99. Puerto Rican
  100. Part-Hawaiian (legal status)
  101. but part-Japanese, etc.
  102. Native American words
  103. 5.25. Words, including tribal and other proper names of
  104. Indian, Aleut, Hawaiian, and other groups, are to be followed
  105. literally as to spelling and the use of spaces, hyphens, etc.

Goldhegde,

I have already once provided you with responses to these very same cut and paste claims before (comment #134). But, I will provide you with duplicate responses to these very same cut and paste claims below.
Look for red type below which corresponds to your red type above.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

2.). Your cut and paste claim: The "American People" and "U.S. citizens" are two different things.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense.
For the REAL law on this very subject, CLICK HERE.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev'd other grounds). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026&q="Dred+Scott+v.+Sandford"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court held that, "The words 'PEOPLE of the United States' and 'CITIZENS' [of the United States] ARE SYNOYMOUS TERMS, and MEAN THE SAME THING." (at the 24th paragraph at about 5% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

3. Your cut and paste claim: A US citizen does not have any rights.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense.

4. Your cut and paste claim: "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include ALL [OF THE] RIGHTS protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v. Dow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17693509694446359639&q="Maxwell+v.+Dow"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a convicted robber appealed his Utah state conviction by claiming that his rights under the federal "privileges and immunities" clause were violated BECAUSE: 1). he was charged by information and not by indictment; 2). the jury had only 8 members rather than 12 members; and that; 3) such violated his federal right to due process. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]here are certain privileges or immunities POSSESSED BY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, because of his [U.S.] CITIZENSHIP... [WHICH]... CANNOT BE ABRIDGED BY ANY ACTION OF THE STATES... . The privileges and immunities of CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES... ARE INDEED PROTECTED by it [the "privileges and immunities" clause]; and... [such]...privileges and immunities [ARE]... GRANTED OR SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES... . [A]mong the privileges or immunities of a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES are the right of trial by jury in a state court for a state offence and the right to be exempt from any trial for an infamous crime, unless upon presentment by a grand jury." (at about 35% through the text). But, the court held that merely being charged by information rather than indictment and having a jury of 8 members rather than 12 members DID NOT VIOLATE the defendant's rights under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court provided a list of other cases which had made similar rulings and wrote, "We have cited these [other] cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include ALL [OF THE] RIGHTS protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution... . (at about 50% through the text). TRANSLATION: The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment protects U.S Citizens against abridgment BY THE STATES of all "privileges and immunities" that are within the meaning of that clause, BUT NOT AGAINST OTHER "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES" THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. AND, SOME OF THE RIGHTS APPEARING IN THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES A U.S. CITIZEN WITH NO PROTECTION FROM STATE ABRIDGEMENT AT ALL. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A U.S. CITIZEN HAS "NO RIGHTS" AT ALL. NOTE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP. THIS CASE IS ABOUT TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".

5. Your cut and paste claim: The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
RESPONSE: CLICK HERE. For the WHOLE quote and context, CLICK HERE. US v. Valentine. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/288/957/1641873/. BACKGROUND: Puerto Rico is not a state. It is a U.S. territory. But, Puerto Rican citizens are nevertheless U.S. Citizens. FACTS: In this case, the United States indicted several Puerto Rican citizens for refusing to serve in the armed services of the United States. The Puerto Ricans raised several grounds for their refusing to serve, including that they were not represented in Congress and COULD NOT VOTE for the President. But, the court held that the absence of a RIGHT TO VOTE alone was not legal grounds for refusing to serve in the armed services of the United States, and wrote, "Defendants' [the Puerto Ricans'] error lies in assuming that THE RIGHT TO VOTE is an essential RIGHT OF [U.S] CITIZENSHIP. The proposition is beguiling, but it will not stand analysis." In trying to EMPHASIZE that the RIGHT TO VOTE is not necessarily an "ABSOLUTE" right of U.S. citizenship, the court admittedly makes the following OVERSTATEMENT, "The only absolute and unqualified right of [U.S.] citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States [not the RIGHT TO VOTE]... . The RIGHT TO VOTE is not... granted to [U.S.] citizens by the [U.S.] Constitution; to the contrary, the matter is left to the states... . [T]he Constitution does not make the franchise per se [meaning the RIGHT TO VOTE] a right of [U.S.] citizenship." Thus, in the context of the surrounding language, the quoted sentence simply means that the RIGHT TO VOTE is not an "ABSOLUTE" right of U.S. citizenship. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A U.S. CITIZEN HAS NO RIGHTS AT ALL.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

6). Your cut and paste quote: "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity. "Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FABRICATED. IT IS ENTIRELY FAKE. This quote (as a whole) does not appear anywhere in the case. Not only that, but no term or phrase contained within this FAKE quote appears within this case, including: "U.S. citizens", "District of Columbia", "residing in one of the states of the union", "are classified as property and franchises of", "the federal government", "as an individual entity". For the REAL language of this case, CLICK HERE. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12239019745554918339&q="Wheeling+Steel+Corp.+v.++Fox"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a state assessed a property tax on property belonging to a corporation which did business (and had facilities) in several states. The dispute in the case centered around which state had the right to tax the corporation's property (the state where the corporation was incorporated, the state where its principal office was located or the states where its properties were located, etc.). The dispute also involved the question of whether certain property was even subject to the state property tax in the first place, like bank deposits in one state reflecting sales which took place in other states and like ships moving up and down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers which did not have a fixed location in any one particular state, and so forth. THIS CASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH "U.S. CITIZENS" OR WHETHER THEY WERE "CLASSIFIED AS PROPERTY" AND "FRANCHISES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" AS AN "INDIVIDUAL ENTITY". TRANSLATION: THIS QUOTE IS 100% FAKE LAW!

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

7). Your cut and paste claim: “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FAKE. This quote (as a whole) does not appear anywhere in the case. Not only that, but many of the terms or phrases contained within this FAKE quote do not even appear within this case either, including: "U.S. citizen", "upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in interstate commerce", "a resident does not have a common law right to travel", "common law" and "right to travel". For the REAL language of this case, CLICK HERE. Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q=%22Hendrick+v.+Maryland%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States actually held that "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe ["pass"] uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES- those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th full paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "U.S. CITIZENSHIP", THE "COMMON LAW" OR THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

8). Your cut and paste claim: A US citizen is a corporation.
RESPONSE: This is not so. Note the glaring absence of a case in support of this amateur nonsense. For the REAL law on this very subject, CLICK HERE: Kowalchik v. Brohl, Kowalchik v. Brohl https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15082204100332672897&q="+person+is+not+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "A natural person is not a corporation, partnership, estate, or trust." (at paragraph actually numbered 35 at about 65% through the text). For the REAL law on this very subject, CLICK HERE. U.S. v. Powell. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16437654944590370256&q="you're+an+individual"+"you're+not+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant, an amateur legal theorist, sought to avoid a criminal conviction and sentencing by asking the court to treat him as a "corporation". In this regard, the court wrote, "Mr. Powell... [the defendant, claimed that] he was not a criminal defendant BUT RATHER A CORPORATION... . But, the court ruled otherwise and held, 'YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL... . YOU'RE NOT A CORPORATION.'" (in the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). See this video.
(at 3:20-4:30 and at 10:40-11:15). In this video, the INDIVIDUAL is actually trying to get the court to accept the amateur legal theory that he has a "split personality" and that one of his personalities, among many, is a "CORPORATION". The INDIVIDUAL wanted the court to convict his "CORPORATION" personality, but not his INDIVIDUAL personality. But, the court refuses and does not accept the INDIVIDUAL'S "split personality" defense and REFUSED TO TREAT HIM AS A "CORPORATION". Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM DOES NOT TREAT INDIVIDUALS AS CORPORATIONS. THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER. THIS CLAIM IS ENTIRELY FAKE!


9). Your cut and paste claim: "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... 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." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote in this case, CLICK HERE. https://archive.org/stream/jstor-3301843/3301843_djvu.txt.
BACKGROUND: This case is almost a century and a half old. It arose after the formation of the confederacy at or about the time of the Civil War. FACTS: In this case, an alien in California sought to become a citizen of the United States and a dispute arose over whether such (becoming an American citizen) was governed by federal or state law. The state court held that becoming an American citizen was governed by state law, not by federal law and wrote in pertinent part, "In the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, enumerating the powers of Congress, is the following separate clause: 'To establish an uniform rule of naturalization [becoming a United States citizen] and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the United States.' BY METAPHYSICAL [CLICK HERE [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical] REFINEMENT, in examining the form of our government, it MIGHT BE correctly said that [standing alone] there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States [without ALSO being a citizen of an individual state 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 UNITED STATES, IS ... A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, although technically and abstractly [CLICK HERE. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technically] there is no such thing [standing alone]. [Meaning that in order to be a United States citizen, you must be a citizen of an individual state or territory of the United States]. To conceive a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN OF ONE OF THE STATES, IS A TOTALLY FOREIGN 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 attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization [becoming a citizen of the United States], was TO MAKE [THEM] CITIZENS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES." Translation: To make a person a citizen of the United States, simply make that person a citizen of any one of the individual states of the United States. THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AT ALL. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, A PERSON MUST BE A CITIZEN OF AN INDIVIDUAL STATE IN THE UNITED STATES (and I would add "OR a U.S territory like Puerto Rico or Washington, D.C.").

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

10). Your cut and paste claim: This [the notion that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States] can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
RESPONSE: This claim is ENTIRELY FAKE. That is why there is no subsection numbers provided (to make verification of this false claim all but impossible). For proof that this title provides no such "confirmation", CLICK HERE. Title 5 USC 8401: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/8401 (Be sure to read the very first words at the very top, "For the purposes of THIS CHAPTER [AND NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES]". For proof that this title provides no such "confirmation", CLICK HERE. Title 26 USC 7701: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701. (Be sure to read the very first words at the very top, "For the purposes of THIS CHAPTER [AND NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES]". For proof that this title provides no such "confirmation", CLICK HERE. Title 1 USC 1-8: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/chapter-1. Not only do these foregoing statutory definitions not apply to anything outside their statutory context, they also provide no support whatsoever for the proposition that "there is no such thing as a U.S. citizen" even if they did apply.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

11. Your cut and paste claim: Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property.
RESPONSE: This claim is ENTIRELY FAKE. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v Garibay, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9472680608280446965&q=+"person+is+not+property"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "As an initial matter, A PERSON IS NOT 'PROPERTY'... ." (in the 1st paragraph under "Discussion and Analysis" at about 50% through the text). For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Equity Group, Ltd. v. Painewebber Inc., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3362407562672372523&q=%22persons+are+not+property%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "...PERSONS ARE NOT PROPERTY... ." (in the 11th paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.


12. Your cut and paste claim: If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
RESPONSE: Ironically, this was actually true UNTIL THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS MADE SLAVERY (and the ownership of a human being as "property") UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Since the THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS WERE RATIFIED, ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CITIZENS OF THE STATE [OR TERRITORY] IN WHICH THEY RESIDE. CLICK HERE. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourteenth-Amendment. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v Garibay, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9472680608280446965&q=+"person+is+not+property"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "As an initial matter, A PERSON IS NOT 'PROPERTY'... ." (in the 1st paragraph under "Discussion and Analysis" at about 50% through the text). For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Equity Group, Ltd. v. Painewebber Inc., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3362407562672372523&q=%22persons+are+not+property%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "...PERSONS ARE NOT PROPERTY... ." (in the 11th paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

13. Your cut and paste claim: The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is:"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
RESPONSE: This is true, BUT INCOMPLETE. The WHOLE text of this section is:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND [citizens] of the state [or territory] wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus, the fourteenth amendment was designed and intended TO PROTECT against abuse BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES (not by the United States).

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

14). Your cut and paste claim: The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.
RESPONSE: Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. Regardless, this claim is not so. The fourteenth amendment simply codified the common law (case law) that citizens of any state in the United States were also thereby citizens of the United States and it made former slaves (who were born or naturalized in the United States or in territories subject to its jurisdiction) citizens of BOTH the United States and citizens of the state in which they resided.


NOTE: THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY CITED THE CASE BELOW CASE DID NOT KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM, "CITIZENSHIP"

15). Your cut and paste claim: "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE text of his case, CLICK HERE. https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1. In this case, a property owner sought a building permit from the city to build a store on his property. The city commission wrongfully denied the permit despite that the proposed building complied with every single requirement of law. The property owner sued. The court was outraged by the city's wrongful denial of the building permit and wrote, "The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and
restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the CITIZENSHIP [A PLURAL TERM REFERRING TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE COLLECTIVELY] to the agencies of government [THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS]. This case does NOT mean the individual's rights are restricted only to the extent they have been surrendered BY THE INDIVIDUAL (because the INDIVIDUAL is not the same thing as the "CITIZENSHIP" OF THE STATE). THUS,THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY CITED THE CASE ABOVE DID NOT KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM, "CITIZENSHIP"

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

16). Your cut and paste claim: "Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State." Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FABRICATED. IT IS ENTIRELY FAKE.
The case cited in support of the FAKE law (above) is over a century old. So, no link to the entire original case text is available. But, the following link below provides several quotes (none of which have any similarity to the subject of the FAKE quote above. For these quotes, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=17177824883859360056&q="Wadleigh++v.+Newhall"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The following quotes indicate what this case is really about. A). "It has been held that in an action for divorce involving the parents of minor children the trial court must keep in mind that the right of the STATE, whose wards the infant children become, rises above and is superior to that of the parents." B). "The charge [the claim] that the statute violates the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States is hardly worthy of serious consideration." C). "[A California statute]... which authorizes proceedings for the appointment of guardians for the persons and estates of minor children having no guardian by will or deed, is a lawful exercise of the STATE'S power; and proceedings based thereon, by which parents are deprived of the custody of their children, do not give them a right of action [means "lawsuit"] against the persons instituting the …action. " D). "Courts before Meyer had generally been slow to extend Fourteenth Amendment PROTECTION to the parent's rights over the child." FACT: Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of the individual state or territory in which he/she resides. This is called "DUAL CITIZENSHIP". CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15343542124860317253&q="dual+citizenship"+state+"United+States"+"fourteenth+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "The 'privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' concern THE DUAL CITIZENSHIP UNDER OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM." (in the 11th paragraph at about 35% through the text, Frankfurter concurring). Since this is so, every citizen of every state in the United States is also a citizen of the United States. Thus, the PROTECTIONS of the fourteenth amendment (against STATE abuse) apply to every STATE citizen. Thus, this case is NOT about "UNITED STATES" citizenship verses "STATE" citizenship (WHICH AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, except in the case of U.S territories like Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.). FACT: the fourteenth amendment EXPANDS protections for the STATE citizen, not the other way around. THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

17) Your cut and paste claim: and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide,
RESPONSE: Every U.S. citizen is also a citizen of an individual state (or territory) of the United States citizen. So, state citizens (all of which are also U.S. citizens) can ALSO murder their unborn children by committing the alleged common law crime of infanticide too.

Your cut and paste claim: and because the unborn are NOT “persons”,
RESPONSE: This can be true. Regretfully, under much of the law, the unborn are "fetuses".

Your cut and paste claim: then they are by definition State Citizens,
RESPONSE: Then, by definition, they are ALSO United States citizens, because every citizen of any individual state in the United States is also a citizen of the United States. For proof, CLICK HERE. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Your cut and paste claim: which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty,
RESPONSE: Let me get this straight. When a baby is born and thereby becomes a State citizen (and therefore also a U.S. citizen under the fourteenth amendment), such means that Bar members (who do not perform abortions) are killing the American government's (the "SOVEREIGN'S") ability to govern (called its "SOVEREIGNTY")? Note that the author of this amateur legal theory does not know the definition of "SOVEREIGNTY". For the truth about the SOVEREIGN, CLICK HERE. Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175996315291348583&q="is+not+a+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be "SOVEREIGN". But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NIETHER [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT"). For the truth about the SOVEREIGN, CLICK HERE. Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1788441780084038901&q="United+States+v.+Cooper+Corporation"+++&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; DELEGATED TO IT BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT"). Thus, it is not the case that "BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against American SOVEREIGNTY" (meaning the government's right to rule).

18). Your cut and paste claim: "The unborn are not included within the definition of "person" as used in the 14th Amendment." Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973.
RESPONSE: Correct. If a human being is born in any state of the United States, the fourteenth amendment provides that human being with United States citizenship, state citizenship and protection of the laws upon being born, but not before then.

19). Your cut and paste claim: “...it is evident that they [MEXICANS LIVING IN THE MEXICAN TERRITORIES CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES] have not the political rights which are vested in [the other] citizens of the States. They [MEXICANS] are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They [MEXICANS] are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]
RESPONSE: This case is almost a century and a half old. So, no link to this case is currently available to the entire text. But, we know what the case was actually about by reviewing the quotes in the following link. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=5886807282023775403&q=+"People+v.+De+la+guerra"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. BACKGROUND: California and several other western states were once part of Mexico. This case was about the rights of Mexican citizens in the ceded territory during the transition from Mexico to the United States. In order to protect these Mexican citizens in the ceded territories during this transition, the United States and Mexico entered into the Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This 1848 treaty effectively conferred United States citizenship upon all the Mexicans inhabitants of the ceded territory who did not, within a specified time, declare their intention to retain their Mexican citizenship, though they were not entitled to ALL the privileges of United States citizenship until the ceded territory was incorporated into a State of the United States. THUS, THE LIMITATION ON THE RIGHTS OF THESE MEXICANS [NOMINALLY ALSO U.S. CITIZENS] WAS TEMPORARY AND LASTED ONLY UNTIL THE CEDED TERRITORY ON WHICH THEY RESIDED WAS INCORPORATED INTO A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN STATE CITIZENS.

How This Case Has Been Cited
"It was no violation of the ninth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that the qualifications of electors [voters], as prescribed in the constitution of California, were such as to [temporarily] exclude some of the [Mexican] inhabitants from certain political rights [until the ceded territory they occupied was incorporated into a state of the United States]."

"holding that [The] Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo directly conferred [United States] citizenship rights [to persons of Mexican ancestry] and rejecting [the] claim that [a] person of Mexican ancestry in California was not [a] US citizen, and thus was ineligible to serve as [a] judge, because Congress failed to specifically afford [provide] citizenship [in that treaty]."

"The treaty of 1848 seems to have conferred [United States] citizenship upon all the inhabitants of the ceded territory [formerly Mexico] who did not, within a specified time, declare their intention to retain their Mexican citizenship, though it has been held that they were not entitled to all the privileges of citizens of the United States until the ceded territory was incorporated into a State."

TRANSLATION: THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN STATE CITIZENS.

20). Your cut and paste claim: “SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign [A MONARCH, LIKE KING OR QUEEN] to whom allegiance is owed.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986
RESPONSE: No response is required.

21). Your cut and paste claim: “[T]he term "citizen," in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11779204520285349077&q=Medvedieff+v.+City+Services&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1. This case actually reads, "It might be that some distinction exists in Italy between a "citizen" and a "subject." This observation is prompted by the fact that the framers of the Constitution employed the phrase "between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects." It is to be remembered that the Colonials were "subjects" until their independence was established. The word was doubtless opprobrious to them. They took the word "citizen" from the Latin "civis" which means "freeman of a city." [citations omitted). They recognized all aliens as "citizens" or "subjects." The law of Italy is a question of fact and no proof has been offered by the defendant to establish whether there is a distinction between "citizen" and "subject." Therefore, the decisions of our own courts must be applied. "Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land." (citation omitted). "The term `citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely ANALOGOUS [CLICK HERE https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogous] to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The SOVEREIGNTY has been transferred from one man [A KING/MONARCH] to the COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE "STATE"] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A KING "IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'" [CLICK HERE http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/sovereign]. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT UNITED STATES CITIZENS ARE "SUBJECTS" (OR THAT STATES CITIZENS ARE NOT "SUBJECTS"). THIS CASE SIMPLY MEANS THAT SOVEREIGNTY (THE RIGHT TO RULE) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN (A KING/MONARCH) TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE (CALLED THE "STATE") —AND HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A KING "IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'"

22). Your cut and paste claim: “In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the
statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government ...”
Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added]
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://casetext.com/case/prowd-v-gore. In this case, a black man was denied a seat in a movie theater after having purchased a ticket that legally entitled him to a seat. The state had in force a statute that made it mandatory to treat all "CITIZENS" equally in terms of admission and seating to movie theaters, regardless of race. So, lawyers for the theater argued that while the black man had had established that he was a "RESIDENT" of the state, he had not established that he was a "CITIZEN" so as to be protected by the subject statute. The court responded to this silly argument by writing, "As employed [used] in [the applicable statute]... , the term "CITIZEN" is NOT USED in a restricted sense — that is, A CITIZEN OF A STATE OR CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES — but [IS USED] in the broad and unrestricted sense, implying that one is a RESIDENT of the state and as such entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of its courts to protect a right guaranteed to all, without reference to race or color, who reside within its jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would render the [subject] statute obnoxious to the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, UNDER WHICH A STATE MAY NOT 'DENY TO ANY PERSON [NOT CITIZEN] WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION EQUAL PROTECTION of THE LAWS.' In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the [applicable] statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government and exclude therefrom unnaturalized residents of foreign birth, whether white or black. The evidence shows that plaintiff [the black man] was a RESIDENT of the state, which fact entitled him to maintain the action [file and continue the lawsuit against the theater owner]. Whether or not he was a CITIZEN of the United States, with all the rights implied by such term, is immaterial. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE "SUBJECTS" OF THE UNITED STATES. It simply means that "EVERY PERSON" is entitled to equal protection of he law. Thus, the fourteenth amendment EXPANDS the rights and protections of the individual, not the other way around.

23). Your cut and paste claim: “Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares only that "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." Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to person born in any place "subject to their jurisdiction." Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added]
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: Downes v. Bidwell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9926302819023946834&q="Downes+v.+Bidwell"++&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case is over a century old. BACKGROUND: Puerto Rico is not a state. It is a territory of the United States. Nevertheless, the citizens of Puerto Rico are U.S. Citizens. FACTS: This case involved the question of whether goods shipped from Puerto Rico to New York were exempt from import duties (taxes). In attempting to explain the rights of Puerto Ricans as compared to other U.S. Citizens, the court wrote, "The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude 'within the United States, OR [this is the key word] in any place subject to their jurisdiction,' this [language] is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are not part of the Union [like Puerto Rico]. [That is] [t]o say that the phraseology of this amendment was due to the fact that it was intended to prohibit slavery in the seceded States, under a possible interpretation [possible argument] that those States were no longer a part of the Union [and]... , if these States were not a part of the Union THEY WERE STILL SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES [making slavery illegal in those states anyway]. Upon the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that "all persons born or naturalized IN THE UNITED STATES, AND [this is the key word] SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are CITIZENS of the United States, and of the STATE wherein they reside." Here [in the fourteenth amendment] there is a limitation [ON U.S. CITIZENSHIP] to persons born or naturalized IN THE UNITED STATES which is NOT extended to persons born in any place [that is merely] 'SUBJECT TO [ITS]... JURISDICTION [like Puerto Rico]' [drawing a contrast between language in the thirteenth and the fourteenth amendment and referring to the word "OR" in the thirteenth amendment as compared to the word "AND" in the fourteenth amendment]. (in the 8th and 9th paragraph at about 5%through the text). THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACES A "LIMITATION" ON THE "RIGHTS" OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS WHEN COMPARED TO STATE CITIZENS. INSTEAD, THIS CASE MEANS THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACES A "LIMITATION" ON "CITIZENSHIP" TO THOSE WHO WERE BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES "AND" WHO WERE SUBJECT THE JURISDICTION THEREOF WHILE THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT BANNED SLAVERY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES "OR" IN ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION (drawing a contrast between language in the thirteenth and the fourteenth amendment and referring to the word "OR" in the thirteenth amendment as compared to the word "AND" in the fourteenth amendment). Nothing more.

24). Your cut and paste claim: "The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.
RESPONSE: The forgoing semi quote actually comes from Twining v. New Jersey. For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7311310850311513299&q="the+right+of+trial+by+jury+in+civil+cases,+guaranteed+by+the+seventh+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The case actually reads, "The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon an information, and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, WERE NOT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS THOSE WORDS WERE USED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The discussion in that case ought not to be repeated. All the arguments for the other view were considered and answered, the authorities were examined and analyzed, and the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, BECAUSE THOSE RIGHTS WERE NOT [PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES] WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE 'PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.'... . We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination IS NOT A PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP GUARANTEED BY THIS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT against abridgment by the States." TRANSLATION: The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment protects UNITED STATES Citizens against abridgment BY THE STATES of all "privileges and immunities" that are within the meaning of that clause, BUT NOT AGAINST OTHER "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES" THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. AND, SOME OF THE RIGHTS APPEARING IN THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES A UNITED STATES CITIZEN WITH NO PROTECTION FROM STATE ABRIDGEMENT OF ANY "PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY"AT ALL.

NOTE: The following few cut and paste partial quotes come from an ancient legal encyclopedia that is more than a century old, not directly from the law itself. To see this ancient legal encyclopedia, CLICK HERE . https://books.google.com/books?id=xqbuJXW0utcC&dq="rules+of+practice+may+be+altered+whenever+found+to+be"&source=gbs_navlinks_s.

25). Your cut and paste claim: "The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422.
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: Kelly v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12042195898940005215&q="the+technical+niceties+of+the+common+law"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case involved a dispute over the value of "improvements" that tenants made to school land that they leased. The case actually says, "McCOWN, Justice, concurring in part, and dissenting in part. [In criticizing a poorly written statute, the judge wrote,] THE LEGISLATIVE DEFINITIONS OF "IMPROVEMENTS" ON SCHOOL LANDS [contained in the subject statute] have had little regard for the technical niceties of the common law OR ITS DEFINITIONS. [In writing the statute,] [t]he Legislature has made no distinctions between "crops," for example, and "land leveling," nor between "IMPROVEMENTS" which are severable from the land and those which become or are an actual part of the land itself and could never be severed. Translation: The subject statute should have defined "improvements". Nothing more. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LAW (OR THE COURTS) DO NOT REGARD THE TECHNICAL NICETIES OF THE COMMON LAW. Notice how deceptive and manipulative this this carefully-edited quote actually is. This trickery speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the author of this document.

THE FOLLOWING FEW CASES WERE APPARENTLY CITED BECAUSE OF THEIR CONNECTION TO "ADMIRALTY" WHICH AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE SECTRETLY GOVERNS EVERY CASE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

26). Your cut and paste claim: "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432.
RESPONSE: For the whole quote, CLICK HERE: https://books.google.com/books?id=U3ZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA432&lpg=PA432&dq="a+jury+does+not+figure"&source=bl&ots=dYo4zJdna1&sig=BTRV_wYsHYpVNdQFPhhm81fEaFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOnZ7DjqDeAhXHuVMKHQPuBk8Q6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="a jury does not figure"&f=false. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court. In difficult cases depending on nautical experience, the judge may call to his aid experienced masters of vessels, whose report must necessarily be of great assistance in the arrival of the correct conclusion." Translation: Matters of admiralty, maritime, navigation, shipping and vessels on he high seas are so complex that courts may disregard he findings of lay person juries and may even consult with outside experts in when such is necessary to "arrive [at] the correct conclusion." CONTRARY TO WHAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKELY BELIEVE, THIS CASE DOES NOT DEPRIVE A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT TO A RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN A CRIMINAL CASE. THIS CASE APPLIES ONLY TO REAL ADMIRALTY CASES, NOT PRETEND ADMIRALTY CASES. THE CASE ABOVE WAS APPARENTLY CITED BECAUSE OF ITS CONNECTION TO "ADMIRALTY" WHICH AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE SECTRETLY GOVERNS EVERY CASE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

27). Your cut and paste claim: "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423.
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote from this ancient legal encyclopedia, CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=EvoUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq="Rules+of+practice+may+be+altered+whenever+found+to+be+inconvenient"&source=bl&ots=mcRR6b3Ls7&sig=MwOmJ8pOlbZXCEvJnGC1iwrtbTU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7mO7ojK_eAhWui60KHaTiDZkQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q="Rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient"&f=false. The WHOLE quote from this ancient legal encyclopedia reads, "The Act of May 8th, 1792 [more than two centuries ago] and by the Act of August 23rd, 1842 [almost two centuries ago], Congress conferred upon the Supreme Court [the] power to make rules from time to time to govern PROCEEDINGS [not the outcomes] in ADMIRALTY [not other types of cases]. Pursuant to these acts, a code of rules was announced, the rules being little more than a recognition of the previous practice of the courts of ADMIRALTY in this country and in England. These rules [that Congress authorized the Supreme Court to make "from time to time"] may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass THE BUSINESS of the court [NOT THE COURT ITSELF].... ." This ancient encyclopdia cites The Steamer St. Lawrence as its source. For the WHOLE quote from the source case, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7217452950844649597&q=%22The+steamer+st.+lawrence%22+%27%271+black+522%27&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "But in the rules then adopted, this rule as well as the others are explicitly adopted as 'a rule of practice,' and, consequently, liable to be altered from time to time, whenever it was found to be inconvenient, or likely to embarrass THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS of the court [NOT THE COURT ITSELF]." THEN, THE COURT EXPLAINED WHAT IT MEANT BY "THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS OF THE COURT. "And there could be no embarrassing difficulties in using the ordinary process in rem, of the civil law, if the State law gave the lien in general terms, without specific conditions or limitations inconsistent with the rules and principles which governed implied maritime liens; and whenever this was the case, the process to enforce it promoted the convenience and facilities of trade and navigation by the promptness of its proceedings." THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL COURTS CAN CHANGE THEIR RULES OF PROCEDURE WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE "EMBARRASED".

28). your cut and paste claim: "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416.
RESPONSE: The author of this document found this language here. CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=U3ZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA416&lpg=PA416&dq="a+court+of+admiralty"+"acts+upon+equitable+principles"&source=bl&ots=dYo4zK4m6X&sig=ml0Ejzw6SShbAqaEOOOEChj8s10&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFo7nakaDeAhXD41MKHSbfAUYQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q="a court of admiralty" "acts upon equitable principles"&f=false.
RESPONSE: The link above cites as its source The Steamer Eclipse. For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12575409069322592345&q=%22the+steamer+Eclipse%22+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. That case reads, "While the court of admiralty exercises its jurisdiction upon equitable principles, it has not the characteristic powers of a court of equity. It cannot entertain a bill or libel for specific performance, or to correct a mistake (citation omitted) or declare or enforce a trust or an equitable title (citations omitted) or exercise jurisdiction in matters of account merely (citations omitted) or decree the sale of a ship for an unpaid mortgage, or declare her [the ship] to be the property of the mortgagees and direct possession of her [the ship] to be given to them. (citation omitted). The jurisdiction [of a court of admiralty] embraces all maritime contracts, torts, injuries or offences, and it depends, in cases of contract, upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to contracts, claims and services PURELY MARITIME, and touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and NAVIGATION. THE CASE ABOVE WAS APPARENTLY CITED BECAUSE OF ITS CONNECTION TO "ADMIRALTY" WHICH AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE SECTRETLY GOVERNS EVERY CASE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

29). Your cut and paste claim; "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381
RESPONSE: No direct link to this case is available. But, the alleged quote appears to be entirely fake. CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=Olo8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq=%22the+emily+v.+the+caroline%22&source=bl&ots=WQqbcDzQSD&sig=IUBEu_Uzo3v-yQWyG4bdLX1YNzs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi64PCalqDeAhUP11MKHVNeD0cQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20emily%20v.%20the%20caroline%22&f=false. CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=V6hLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq="the+emily+v.+the+caroline"&source=bl&ots=0hXhN7XOby&sig=EAcllyTESHMrtBwfLjyv7cxbuyY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi64PCalqDeAhUP11MKHVNeD0cQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="the emily v. the caroline"&f=false.
CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=etUaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq="the+emily+v.+the+caroline"&source=bl&ots=TTba1q1MHh&sig=9uy38gDZRhVZ5hYcwx6Iw7fKMOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi64PCalqDeAhUP11MKHVNeD0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q="the emily v. the caroline"&f=false. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006&q=+"9+wheat.+381"+Emily+Caroline&btnG=.

NOTE: This same ancient case is also cited in connection with several other imaginary holdings “…that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the republic 50 several states, ... . " CLICK HERE AND SCROLL DOWN TO THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY WEBISTES NEAR THE BOTTOM. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=651&ei=v_PQW8XHJMPHzwKmvoewBA&q=%22the+emily+v.+the+caroline%22+&oq=%22the+emily+v.+the+caroline%22+&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..13...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.PpYG3PS3j0g.

30). Your cut and paste claim: "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: Maxwell v. Dow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17693509694446359639&q=%22Maxwell+v.+Dow%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case is over a century old. FACTS: In this case, a convicted robber appealed his Utah state conviction by claiming that his rights under the federal "privileges and immunities" clause were violated BECAUSE: 1). he was charged by information and not by indictment; 2). the jury had only 8 members rather than 12 members; and that; 3) such violated his federal right to due process. The court responded by writing, "[T]here are certain privileges or immunities POSSESSED BY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, because of his [U.S.] CITIZENSHIP... [WHICH]... CANNOT BE ABRIDGED BY ANY ACTION OF THE STATES. In order to limit the powers which it was feared might be claimed or exercised by the Federal Government, under the provisions of the Constitution as it was when adopted, the first ten amendments to that instrument were proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the first Congress on the 25th of September, 1789. They were intended as restraints and limitations upon the powers of the General Government, and were not intended to and did not have any effect upon the powers of the respective States. (at about 35% through the text).

In the Slaughter-house cases, 16 Wall. 36, the subject of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE OF A PARTICULAR STATE, was treated by Mr. Justice Miller in delivering the opinion of the court. He stated that the argument in favor of the plaintiffs, claiming that the ordinance of the city of New Orleans was invalid, rested wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment are the same as to citizens of the United States and citizens of the several States. This he showed to be not well founded; that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the States, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, AND THAT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES OF A CITIZEN OF A STATE, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question [the "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment], but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested [MEANING STATE LAW]. (at about 35% through the text). TRANSLATION: The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment protects United States citizens against abridgment BY THE STATES of all "privileges and immunities" that are within the meaning of that clause, BUT IT DOES NOT PROTECT United States citizens AGAINST OTHER "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES" THAT ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. The court held that merely being charged by information rather than indictment and having a jury of 8 members rather than 12 members DID NOT VIOLATE the defendant's rights under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the U.S. Constitution . THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATE CITIZENS ARE NOT UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND VICE VERSA. NOTE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP. THIS CASE IS ABOUT TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".

31). Your cut and paste claim: "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; — Timeline Photos
RESPONSE: This is a duplicate of number 4 (above) which is explained in number 4 (above).

32). Your cut and paste claim: There have always been 2 classes of citizens in America.
RESPONSE: This was only true until the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments were ratified.

33). Your cut and paste claim: The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
RESPONSE: That "talk" was amended (effectively repealed) by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments.

34). Your cut and paste claim: Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
RESPONSE: This is true. For that language CLICIK HERE. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv. But, this does not mean that every "right" in the first eight amendments of the U.S. Constitution is a "privilege and immunity" within the meaning of that clause. Some "privileges and immunities" come from STATE law, not from the U.S. Constitution.

35). Your cut and paste claim: The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9699370891451726349&q=%22US+v+Cruikshank%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case is not about two classes of CITIZENS. Instead, it is about two classes of GOVERMENTS. The case reads, "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." Thus, this case is not about two classes of "CITIZENS". This case is about two classes of "GOVERMENTS" (federal and state).

36. Your cut and paste claim: The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
RESPONSE: This is not so. And, dictionaries do not have the force of law and are not binding on any court in any jurisdiction at any time.

THIS QUOTE BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE. GOOGLE this FAKE phrase in quotes. Not a single case comes up.

37). Your cut and paste claim: "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson 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."Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
RESPONSE: Not only is the quote above ENTIRELY FAKE, it is also EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to the REAL law on this very subject. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11409994194895910402&q=%22a+citizen+of+a+state+and+not+a+citizen+of+the+United+States%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Similarly, the court rejects Dr. Hansen's contentions that... he is a citizen of a state and not a citizen of the United States... . These arguments have no basis in the law." (in the second to last paragraph at about 95% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

38). Your cut and paste claim: "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
RESPONSE: This is true. But, read closely. The devil is in the details. CLICK HERE: United State v. Hansen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15030024530808914170&q=%22Crosse+v.+Board+of+Supervisors%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a man born in another country applied with the state to run for sheriff. Under state law, a person can not run for sheriff until they have been a state citizen for five years. The case reads, "The court below held and the [election] Board contends that the appellant [the man who applied to run for sheriff] did not become a citizen of Maryland... until he became a citizen of the United States, and is therefore ineligible to be Sheriff... because he was not a United States citizen at least five years preceding the election. We disagree. 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." TRANSLATION: Both before and after the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, is has only been necessary for a person to be a citizen OF A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES in order to be a citizen OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PERSON CAN BE A CITIZEN OF A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT ALSO BEING A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

39).Your cut and paste claim: "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE. Gardina v. Board of Registrars, https://books.google.com/books?id=hcgKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq="gardina+v.+board+of+registrars"&source=bl&ots=zQnleMVJqr&sig=H6msWQmxdUlWH88OH0VEKHvE7D4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw6-vj26zeAhVnhuAKHaT-DscQ6AEwAXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q="gardina v. board of registrars"&f=false. The case actually says, "There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without he other, AS IN THE CASE OF A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [or Puerto Rico]; BUT BOTH CLASSES USUALLY EXIST IN THE SAME PERSON." (in the final paragraph of this case at the very bottom). Notice how deceptive and manipulative this this carefully-edited quote is. This trickery speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the author of this document.

40). Your cut and paste claim: "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FAKE. For proof of this fraud, CLICK HERE. Tashiro v. Jordan, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/278/123.html

41). Your cut and paste claim: The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship
in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said: "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
RESPONSE: Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this false claim. If this claim were actually true, then the author of this false claim would have provided a long list of Supreme Court cases showing proof that the Supreme Court had "quite thoroughly expanded on the [alleged] two classes of citizenship." But, this author did not do this. This is because The United States Supreme Court NEVER "thoroughly expanded on the [alleged] two classes of citizenship" in the Maxwell case. The Maxwell case was NOT about TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP. The Maxwell case was about TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES". (The Maxwell case itself is already explained above.).

42). Your cut and paste claim: These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
RESPONSE: First of all, this case was later vacated by 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals. For proof, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3471263521112773139&q="Jones+v.+Temmer"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. Regardless in this case, certain foreigners who sought to open a new taxi cab service in Denver sued various government officials for enforcing state laws that made it difficult for new taxi cab services to enter the market place. The foreigners argued that the subject state laws violated their rights under the "privileges and immunities" clause and the "equal protection" clause of the fourteen amendment. In response, the court wrote, "By its terms, § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment [the "privileges and immunities" clause] protects only 'persons born or naturalized in the United States.' By his own admission, plaintiff Ebong is neither... . The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). 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. Id. TRANSLATION: Our rights come from TWO DIFFERENT SOVEREIGNS at the same time, NOT ONE. Our rights come from BOTH the United States AND from the state of the United States in which we reside. The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment DOES NOT PROTECT against abridgment BY THE STATES of those rights THAT COME FROM THE STATE. Instead, the "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment ONLY protects against abridgment BY THE STATES of all those "privileges and immunities" THAT COME FROM THE UNITED STATES. In order to enforce rights THAT COME FROM THE STATES, you must use STATE law, not FEDERAL law (of which the "privileges and immunities" clause is a part). Thus, this case does not mean that that fourteenth amendment does not protect citizens of the state in the United States where that citizen resides. To the contrary, it does. But, it ONLY protects against abridgement BY THE STATES of those rights THAT COME FROM THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT THOSE RIGHTS THAT COME FROM THE STATE OF THE UNITED STATES IN WHICH THAT PERSON RESIDES. NOTE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENS. THIS CASE IS ABOUT TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".

43). Your cut and paste claim: Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
RESPONSE: Coming soon.

44). Your cut and paste claim: A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
RESPONSE: Coming soon.

45). What is a US citizen?
RESPONSE: A citizen of an individual state in the United States.



KNOWLEDGE IS POWER





Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Judge Hysterically Owns a Sovereign Citizen



Judge Hysterically Owns a Sovereign Citizen
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,385
Likes
6,524
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
what is wrong with you? Little miss, little miss cant' be wrong? I mean wtf? Your vacuous editing into case law leaves a lot to be , be? well I don't know but it leaves a lot.

edited to add: If you can't dazzle them with no brilance then baffle them with bullshit. got it s4t
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,703
Likes
6,407
Location
right here right now
:trolls:

This thin has got to be a friggin bot...
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,777
Likes
65,931
Location
Rocky Mountains
If you can't dazzle them with no brilliance then baffle them with bullshit.
Exactly my thought.

What has anyone here 'learned' from snoop?

Nothing! Verbal vomit.

Not a very good teacher of law that is for sure.


Still waiting to find out which law overrules Yick Wo v Hopkins


Still waiting to learn how the government gains jurisdiction over the human man with out his consent.


Article III Jurisdiction
Trial by an Impartial Jury of One's Peers


Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the united States of America, provides that crimes must be tried before an impartial jury of one's peers.
If you are not in an Article 3 court then you are not being charged with an actual "crime."

Article 3 courts are the ONLY courts designated in the Constitution to deal with Constitutional questions and issues by language.

Therefore, we ALWAYS challenge the jurisdiction of the court because no court has jurisdiction over a human being, the courts ONLY have jurisdiction over corporations, corporate fictions, and employees of the government.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
Exactly my thought.

What has anyone here 'learned' from snoop?

Nothing! Verbal vomit.

Not a very good teacher of law that is for sure.


Still waiting to find out which law overrules Yick Wo v Hopkins


Still waiting to learn how the government gains jurisdiction over the human man with out his consent.


Article III Jurisdiction
Trial by an Impartial Jury of One's Peers


Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the united States of America, provides that crimes must be tried before an impartial jury of one's peers.
If you are not in an Article 3 court then you are not being charged with an actual "crime."

Article 3 courts are the ONLY courts designated in the Constitution to deal with Constitutional questions and issues by language.

Therefore, we ALWAYS challenge the jurisdiction of the court because no court has jurisdiction over a human being, the courts ONLY have jurisdiction over corporations, corporate fictions, and employees of the government.
Goldhedge,

I have to go out tonight. So, I'll have to reply tomorrow. I'm flattered that you guys think I am a machine or equipped with an app, etc. But, this is not so.

I am equipped with nothing but a passion for the truth, a passionate hatred for fraud, a juris doctorate degree and 30 years of research and writing expertise.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,703
Likes
6,407
Location
right here right now
I am equipped with nothing but a passion for the truth, a passionate hatred for fraud, a juris doctorate degree and 30 years of research and vested interest with my fellow shysters misleading the public about law for big profit.
Fixed it for ya snoop...
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
Exactly my thought.

What has anyone here 'learned' from snoop?

Nothing! Verbal vomit.

Not a very good teacher of law that is for sure.


Still waiting to find out which law overrules Yick Wo v Hopkins


Still waiting to learn how the government gains jurisdiction over the human man with out his consent.


Article III Jurisdiction
Trial by an Impartial Jury of One's Peers


Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the united States of America, provides that crimes must be tried before an impartial jury of one's peers.
If you are not in an Article 3 court then you are not being charged with an actual "crime."

Article 3 courts are the ONLY courts designated in the Constitution to deal with Constitutional questions and issues by language.

Therefore, we ALWAYS challenge the jurisdiction of the court because no court has jurisdiction over a human being, the courts ONLY have jurisdiction over corporations, corporate fictions, and employees of the government.
Goldhedge,

1. Exactly my thought.
RESPONSE: The reason that some of the guys on this thread think I am a machine (or use an app) is because they do not read what I post. They ask me a question and I always provide the complete answer to their question. But, they do not read the answer. They are too busy attacking me for challenging their belief system. Then, they ask me the very same question all over again. So, I post the very same answer again. But, this time, I delete the top paragraph or two, SO THE ANSWER DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE SAME ASNWER THAT I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED TO THEM (IN THE HOPES THEY WILL ACTUALLY THE ANSWER THIS TIME). But, they never do. They are too busy attacking me for challenging their belief system. One of the guys on this thread has actually asked me the same question four times. I have provided him with the very same answer all four times, but I have deleted more and more of it SO THE ANSWER DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE SAME ANSWER THAT I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED (IN THE HOPES HE WILL ACTUALLY THE ANSWER THIS TIME). But, he never does.

However, the mere fact that I am able to post these NEAR DUPLICATE answers so quickly has lead some of the guys on this thread to believe I am a machine or use an app. But, this is not so. If the guys on this thread would actually my FIRST comment on the subject COMPLETELY, then I would not have to keep providing them with NEAR DUPLICATE answers to their repeated questions on the same exact legal subject. Indeed, if these guys would actually read my very first comment in this thread on the subject of driver's licenses, sovereignty and corporations NOW, they would find that EVERY SUBESEQUENT ANSWER THAT I HAVE EVER PROVIDED TO THEM ON THESE SUBJECTS IS NOTHING MORE THAN CUT-AND-PASTE SECTIONS OF MY FIRST COMMENTS ON THESE SUBJECTS THAT THEY NEVER READ THE FIRST TIME I POSTED THEM. Sadly, even you do not read my answers. This is why you keep asking me for answers to questions to which I have already provided you with answers. My answer to you in post 183 above (in the red text) is a perfect example. I can provide you with many more examples of this , but that appears to be pointless. If you are simply not going to read my answers, then why ask me the question in the first place?


2. What has anyone here 'learned' from snoop?
RESPONSE: AGREED. If the guys on this thread are simply going to refuse to read my answers, then they are going to learn nothing.


3. Not a very good teacher of law that is for sure.
RESPONSE: AGREED. I can only be a good teacher to those who are good students. If the guys on this thread are simply going to refuse to read my answers, then they are going to learn nothing.


4. Still waiting to find out which law overrules Yick Wo v Hopkins
I have already addressed this same exact subject TWICE. What follows is DUPLICATE of MY FIRST RESPONSE TO YOU ABOUT THIS SUBEJCT.

COMMENT #21
YOUR COMMENT: Yick Wo v Hopkins spells it out quite clearly. The people are the sovereigns.
RESPONSE: Yes. Agreed. You are absolutely correct. The PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY as the government of "We the People" are sovereign. But, an INDIVIDUAL person is not sovereign (a "government"). And, according to Thomas Jefferson (quoted in the case law I provided to you above) the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) exercise their (a PLURAL term) sovereignty by their (a PLURAL term) votes (also a PLURAL term).

I have already addressed this subject TWICE. What follows is DUPLICATE of MY SECOND RESPONSE TO YOU ABOUT THIS SUBEJCT.

COMMENT #41
YOUR COMMENT: also post the law/ruling that overturned Yick Wo v Hopkins.
RESPONSE: To my knowledge, Yick Wo v. Hopkins HAS NOT BEEN OVERTURNED. It is a small part of a greater body of law which holds that the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY are sovereign and that the INDIVIDUAL is not sovereign. See below.

1). Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175996315291348583&q="is+not+a+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be "SOVEREIGN". But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NIETHER [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

2). U.S. v. Crawford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15454740030846246018&q=+"U.S.+v.+Crawford"+"is+not+a+sovereign"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] asserts in his motion that HE IS A... SOVEREIGN, and as such is ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY from prosecution." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Defendant... IS NOT A SOVEREIGN [meaning a GOVERNMENT], BUT [IS] AN INDIVIDUAL. As with ANY INDIVIUAL criminal defendant, Crawford [the INDIVIDUAL defendant] is NOT ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY despite his claims to the contrary [because he is NOT a GOVERNMENT]... ." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

3). Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1788441780084038901&q="United+States+v.+Cooper+Corporation"+++&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT ONLY THE UNTIED STATES AND THE INDIVIDUAL STATES ARE "SOVEREIGN"). In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; DELEGATED TO IT BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

4). Chisolm v. Georgia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1448810606414351612&q="states+are+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT THE STATES AND THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "EVERY STATE IN THE UNION in every instance where ITS SOVEREIGNTY has NOT been delegated to THE UNITED STATES, [IS]... COMPLETELY SOVEREIGN, AS THE UNITED STATES ARE [SOVEREIGN] IN RESPECT TO THE POWERS SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]. THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY SURRENDERED [TO THEM BY THE STATES]: EACH STATE IN THE UNION IS SOVEREIGN AS TO ALL POWERS RESERVED. " (at the 14th paragraph at about 15% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

5). Parker v. Brown, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6941459492107844075&q="states+are+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 (HOLDING THAT STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "Under the Constitution, THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN, SAVE ONLY [means "EXCEPT"] AS CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY [under Article 3, Section 8] SUBTRACT FROM THEIR AUTHORITY [their SOVEREIGNTY]." (at the 16th paragraph at about 30% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

6). Feldman v. Gardner, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5056434096924289910&q="state+is+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. (HOLDING THAT THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, "Inherent in our system of government is the concept of DUAL [meaning FEDERAL and STATE] SOVEREIGNTY; EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN, except to the extent that ITS SOVEREIGNTY is curtailed by the [United States] Constitution or validly restricted by Congress [as set forth in Article 3, Section 8]." (at the 1st paragraph in "Section B" at about 25% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

7). Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev'd other grounds) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026&q="Dred+Scott+v.+Sandford"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court held that the terms "SOVEREIGN" and "SOVEREIGNTY" refer ONLY to "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form of the GOVERNMENT and NOT TO INDIVIDUALS. He wrote, "The words 'people [a PLURAL term] of the United States' and 'citizens' [a PLURAL term] are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe THE POLITICAL BODY [a SINGULAR term] who, according to our republican institutions, FORM THE SOVEREIGN [MEANING FORM THE GOVERNMENT], and who [COLLECTIVELY] hold the power and conduct the Government THROUGH THEIR [A PLURAL TERM] [ELECTED] REPRESENTATIVES [meaning the SOVEREIGNTY of "We the People" is exercised COLLECTIVELY through our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not INDIVIDUALLY], They [a PLURAL term] are what we familiarly call the "SOVEREIGN PEOPLE [a PLURAL term]," and every [INDIVIDUAL] citizen is ONE of this [SOVEREIGN GROUP OF] PEOPLE [a PLURAL term], and a constituent member of this SOVEREIGNTY [the GOVERNMENT of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY]." (at the 24th paragraph at about 5% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

8). Republic Of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, Inc. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12271616043948019184&q="not+a+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The rules of personal jurisdiction protect an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS, NOT A SOVEREIGN'S RIGHTS [drawing a stark contrast between an INDIVIDUAL and a SOVEREIGN]." (in the 24th paragraph). Translation: An INDIVIDUAL has entirely DIFFERENT RIGHTS rights when compared to the rights of a SOVEREIGN. So, a SOVEREIGN cannot logically be an INDIVIDUAL.

(COMMENT CONTINUED)
Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists who oppose their own ELECTED government ACTUALLY OPPOSE THE VERY "SOVEREIGN" AND THE VERY "SOVEREIGNTY" THAT THEY CLAIM TO SUPPORT. This means that Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists who oppose their own ELECTED government ARE ACTUALLY THE ENEMIES of the "SOVEREIGN" and ACTUALLY THE ENEMIES of "SOVEREIGNTY", not their supporters. But, they do not know enough to even realize this. This is why many such amateur legal theorists (like Rod Class) find themselves on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST (because they actually oppose the "SOVEREIGN" and because they actually oppose "SOVEREIGNTY").


This fundamental mistake (the mistaken belief that the INDIVIDUAL is "SOVEREIGN" and that the GOVERNMENT of "We the People" IS NOT "SOVEREIGN") reflects that the terms, "SOVEREIGN" and "SOVEREIGNTY" are perhaps the single most misused and misunderstood terms in all of amateur legal theory.

BACKGROUND: Originally in politics, a "SOVEREIGN" was a SINGLE "MONARCH" (King or Queen) GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE who GOVERNED a nation state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the nation state. Originally, the RIGHT of a SINGLE "MONARCH" GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE to GOVERN his/her own nation state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in its own nation state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE was that MONARCH's right of "SOVEREIGNTY".

Then and now, a "SOVEREIGN" meant/means a "GOVERNMENT" OF ITS OWN NATION STATE and all of the individuals in its own nation state. Then and now, "SOVEREIGNTY," meant/means that GOVERNMENT’S RIGHT TO GOVERN ITS OWN NATION STATE and all of the individuals in its own nation state WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

THE STATES: But, here in the United States, we rejected the notion of a SINGLE "MONARCH" GOVERNMENTAL HEAD OF STATE to GOVERN the state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state. Here in our country, we adopted a republican form of government whereby "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) GOVERNED our own states and all of the INDIVIDUALS in our own state COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through our ELECTED representatives of our own STATE.

So, here in our country, THE STATE ITSELF, which consists of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) became "SOVEREIGN" (which still means THE GOVERNMENT OF A STATE). This means that in our country THE STATE ITSELF legally stands in the shoes of the SINGLE MONARCH of yesteryear. So, in our country, THE STATE ITSELF GOVERNS the STATE and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state (instead of the SINGLE MONARCH of yesteryear). But, the right, power and authority of THE STATE ITSELF as a "SOVEREIGN" and the right, power and authority of the MONARCH of yesteryear as a "SOVEREIGN" ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. In our country, a "SOVEREIGN" IS STILL A "GOVERNMENT" OF A STATE, but a "SOVEREIGN" is no longer a SINGLE MONARCH.

DEFINITION OF "SOVEREIGN":
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sovereign


THE BOTTOM LINE: Thus, In our country, the term, "SOVEREIGN" is a term THAT ONLY APPLIES TO A GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY (AS A WHOLE) AND NOT TO A SINGLE "CITIZEN", INDIVIDUAL OR PERSON INDIVIDUALLY. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

Here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL did not become a "GOVERNMENT" OF A STATE. So, here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL did not become a "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT OF A STATE). As a result, here in the United States, the INDIVIDUAL does not GOVERN the STATE or any of the INDIVIDUALS in the state.

THE UNITED STATES: The United States ITSELF is also a SOVEREIGN nation state consisting of a union of MEMBER SOVEREIGN STATES. So, here in the United States, THE STATES and the United States are both "SOVEREIGN" GOVERNMENTAL HEADS OF STATE (WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS AS DIFFERENTIATED BY SUBJECT MATTER IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION).

This means that here in the United States, THE STATE AND THE UNITED STATES OCCUPY THE SAME EXACT LEGAL POSITION (AND HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHT, POWER AND AUTHORITY TO GOVERN THE STATE AND ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE) AS DID THE SINGLE MONARCH OF YESTERYEAR, except that the powers of the United States (as distinguished from the individual STATES) are limited to those powers expressly delegated to it BY THE STATES in the United States Constitution (a tiny list of subjects), whereas the powers of the individual STATES (as distinguished from the United States) have no such limitation.

Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1788441780084038901&q="United+States+v.+Cooper+Corporation"+++&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; delegated to it BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd TO LAST paragraph of this case).

(COMMENT CONTINUED)
Here in the United States, "We the People" exercise our "SOVEREIGNTY" COLLECTIVELY (NOT INDIVIDUALLY) through our VOTES. ---Thomas Jefferson (see below). Thus, "We (a PLURAL term) the People (also a PLURAL term)" exercise our "SOVEREIGNTY" (COLLECTIVELY, not INDIVIDUALLY) through our ELECTIONS.
Jenkins v. Williamson-Butler, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2459141824775540924&q="Jenkins+v.+Williamson-Butler"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The court quoted Thomas Jefferson and wrote, "IT IS BY THEIR [a PLURAL term] VOTES [also a PLURAL term] THAT THE PEOPLE [also a PLURAL term] EXERCISE THEIR [also a PLURAL term] SOVEREIGNTY [AND NOT BY ANY OTHER MEANS]. ---Thomas Jefferson." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 60% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY IN THE FORM OF "THE GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL ACTING OUTSIDE THE GOVERMENT CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").


Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.


But, as INDIVIDUALS, none of us are “SOVEREIGN” (which still means the GOVERNMENT of a state) and as INDIVIDUALS, none of us can exercise any "SOVEREIGNTY" (which still means the right to GOVERN the state and all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state). In our country, we no longer recognize a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (or “MONARCH”) as “SOVEREIGN”. In our country, no single INDIVIDUAL is the GOVERNMENT OF A STATE. This is why, in our country, no INDIVIDUAL can be "SOVEREIGN" (WHICH STILL MEANS A GOVERNMENT OF A STATE).

Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175996315291348583&q="is+not+a+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The court held, "First, she [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [such as the Queen Of England]. She [the plaintiff] is neither [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT").

APPLICATION: This is why every amateur legal theorist who claims to be "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT) ALWAYS LOSES on that issue with ALL law enforcement officers and with ALL courts. This is why ALL law enforcement officers and ALL courts ALWAYS treat such amateur legal theorists as the mere INDIVIDUALS that they really are. Amateur legal theorists who claim to be "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT) to law enforcement officers and in court do nothing but demonstrate their IGNORANCE of the law and their IGNORANCE of history--- AND THEY ALWAYS LOSE!

WHAT YOU CAN DO: If you do not like the laws, the ELECTED legislators, the ELECTED executive officers or the ELECTED judges or the ELECTED prosecutors, then do something about it. VOTE OR RUN FOR OFFICE. Pretending to be an INDIVIDUAL, GOVERNMENT OF A STATE (a “SOVEREIGN” MONARCH) has never, and will never work for you as a “defense” to the application of any law, the jurisdiction of any law enforcement officer or court or to the consequences any arrest, charge or conviction.

CONCLUSION: IN OUR COUNTRY, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN BE A "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" (OR OTHERWISE "SOVEREIGN"). HERE, AND ELSEWHERE, ONLY A GOVERNMENT CAN BE A "SOVEREIGN".

I hope this helps.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS MORE INFORMATION THAT I PROVIDED TO MICHAEL59 ON THIS VERY SAME SUBJECT.

COMMENT #47

The sovereign is the people [YOU ARE CORRECT! "People" is a "PLURAL" term.].
RESPONSE: Yes. You are ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY CORRECT!!! I AGREE 100%!


"we [A PLURAL TERM] the people {ALSO A PLURAL TERM]"

HOW THIS MISUNDERSTANDING CAME ABOUT:
Amateur legal theorists are unable to distinguish between PLURAL terms and SINGULAR terms. This inability results in much of their confusion about the law. In a republican form of government, such as ours, "WE" (a PLURAL term) the "PEOPLE" (also a PLURAL term) exercise our power and control over our own government COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY). But, as INDIVIDUALS, we exercise no such power or control. In a republican form of government, such as ours, the authority of a government depends on the COLLECTIVE (not INDIVIDUAL) "consent" of the "governed" (also a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY. But, as INDIVIDUALS, our "consent" to our government (contractual or otherwise), to its jurisdiction or to our laws IS NOT REQUIRED.


7TH GRADE CIVICS:
Our three branches of government are the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (the ELECTED statutory law makers), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (the ELECTED law enforcement officials and their appointees) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the ELECTED judges, the ELECTED prosecutors and the ELECTED public defenders of the courts). Through the ELECTION process, "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) control ALL THREE BRANCHES of our own government. But, as INDIVIDUALS, we have no such control.


Regardless, EVERY single person in EVERY single branch of our STATE and FEDERAL government is put into office DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY by "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process. Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

THE MISTAKE:
The fundamental mistake made by ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS is their inability to comprehend the difference between the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute) and the ABSENCE of power of the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (which is almost nothing) when opposing the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute). Every single amateur legal theory ever promoted (ex: "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN", etc.) reflects a basic misunderstanding of the following simple legal principle, "THE MAJORITY RULES and the INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT." All amateur legal theorists get this simple legal principle exactly BACKWARDS (or OPPOSITE) to what the law really is (a common problem in amateur legal theory). Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.


It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state LAW MAKERS to pass our state statutes and to make them binding upon all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS to ticket, arrest and charge any INDIVIDUAL in the state who violates our state statutes without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) that empowers our ELECTED state JUDGES to preside over state court proceedings of such an INDIVIDUAL without that INDIVIDUAL’S "consent" (“contractual or otherwise”).

This means that in a republican form of government such as ours, an INDIVIDUAL'S "consent” (“contractual” or otherwise) is NOT REQUIRED in such matters. Instead, in a republican form of government such as ours, "CONSENT” TO THE LAW COMES FROM “WE THE PEOPLE” COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, NOT FROM THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OUTSIDE THE ELECTION PROCESS.

THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAVE THE COLLECTIVE “CONSENT” OF “WE THE PEOPLE” TO MAKE OUR LAW, TO ENFORCE OUR LAW AND TO PUNISH FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUR LAW. Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term). https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.

Under our federal and state constitutions, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT ALSO NEED THE INDIVIDUAL “CONSENT” OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY OUT THOSE FUNCTIONS. Note that the term "the governed' (below) IS A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consent-of-the-governed.


So, every single legal burden placed on the INDIVIDUAL in a republican form of government such as ours is a legal burden that is placed upon the INDIVIDUAL directly or indirectly by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.

In a republican form of government such as ours, the power of the INDIVIDUAL is limited to VOTING, RUNNING FOR OFFICE and to enforcing what few INDIVIDUAL rights and protections that "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) allow the INDIVIDUAL to have (such as those INDIVIDUAL rights and protections listed in the Bill Of Rights). In a republican form of government such as ours, these INDIVIDUAL rights and protections of the INDIVIDUAL are determined by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL). This is why in a republican form of government, such as ours, ELECTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT. In a republican form of government such as ours, ELECTIONS (which reflect the will of the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTROL EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. THESE ELECTIONS DETERMINE WHAT OUR LAWS ARE, WHO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE, WHO OUR JUDGES ARE, WHO OUR PROSECUTORS ARE, WHO OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT ANY DESIRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OR REPEALS MIGHT BE.

FACT: THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR STATUTES VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR COURTS VALID, OUR JUDGES VALID, OUR PROSECUTORS VALID AND OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS VALID.

FACT: In a republican form of government such as ours, every conviction of a single INDIVIDUAL involves the efforts of ALL THREE ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (the ELECTED LAW MAKERS who write the statutes, the ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS whose appointees make the arrests and who file the charges, the ELECTED JUDGES who preside over proceedings in court AND the ELECTED PROSECUTORS who attempt to convict the statutory violators in court). In a republican form of government such as ours, NO SINGLE ELECTED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CAN CONVICT AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE OTHER TWO ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

FACT: The people who oppose, defy and seek the overthrow our ELECTED government, our ELECTED legislatures, our ELECTED executive (law enforcement) officials, our ELECTED judges, our ELECTED prosecutors and our ELECTED public defenders ACTUALLY OPPOSE, DEFY AND SEEK THE OVERTHROW OF OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF and in so doing, SEEK TO OVERTHROW THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF "WE THE PEOPLE" OURSELVES. This desire to overthrow our ELECTED republican form of government and the will of the majority of "We the People " COLLECTIVELY, along with his long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and his MULTIPLE weapons-related FELONIES are the reasons that Rod Class, has been placed on the United States "TERRORIST WATCH LIST".

I hope this helps.

MORE ON THIS SAME SUBJECT THAT I HAVE NOT YET PROVIDED TO YOU. (The links did not copy correctly. I will repair them as soon as I can)

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ON WHETHER AN "INDIVIDUAL" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN" AND THEREFORE BE "IMMUNE" FROM PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATING STATUTES WRITTEN BY LAWMAKERS ELECTED BY "WE THE PEOPLE":

1. U.S. v. Benabe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, several defendants (all of whom were amateur legal theorists) falsely claimed to be "SOVEREIGN" and therefore claimed that they were not subject to the court's jurisdiction. But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "We [the courts] have REPEATEDLY REJECTED their [referring to amateur legal theorists'] theories of INDIVIDUAL [rather than collective] SOVEREIGNTY, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." (citations omitted). The court then cited a number of other decisions with approval which. " ... REJECT[ED] the 'shop worn' argument that a[n] [INDIVIDUAL] DEFENDANT IS A SOVEREIGN [a GOVERNMENT] and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court. (citation omitted)... [and another case] describing defendant's proposed 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN defense as having 'NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW' (citation omitted)... [and another case] DISMISSING [SOVEREIGN CITIZEN] jurisdiction arguments as FRIVOULOUS... ." In the case at bar, the court held, "Regardless of an INDIVIDUAL'S claimed status of descent, be it as a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN,' a 'secured-party creditor,' or a 'flesh-and-blood human being [rather than a corporate fiction],' THAT [INDIVIDUAL] PERSON IS NOT BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED summarily [means "without any delay"], however they are presented." (at paragraph 23 at about 50% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

2. Williams v, Georgia Dept. Of Corrections, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "[The Plaintiff's]... claims are brought under a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' [amateur legal] theory. THIS IS A FRIVOLOUS [AMATEUR LEGAL] LEGAL THEORY THAT IS CONSISTENTLY REJECTED BY... [THE] COURTS [read this phrase again]." (citations omitted). The court went on to cite the holdings of other courts in support, "The ... [amateur legal] theories of `SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' are NOT ESTABLISHED LAW IN THIS COURT OR ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY'S VALID LEGAL SYSTEM (citations omitted)... [and another decision] finding the SOVEREIGN CITIZEN argument to be to 'WHOLLY INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS' (citation omitted)... [and another decision which] REJECT[ED] THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN ARGUMENT as 'SHOP WORN' and FRIVOLOUS.'" In the case at bar, the court held, "The Court [referring to itself] therefore finds that [the Plaintiff's SOVEREIGN CITIZEN]... LEGAL THEORY is also 'INDISPUTABLY MERITLESS' [read this phrase again]." (at paragraph 8 in this case at about 90% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

3. Paul v. State Of New York, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "It is clear [that the Plaintiff]... is an adherent of the 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' movement (citations omitted) which the Second Circuit has described as 'a loosely affiliated group who [mistakenly] believe that the state and federal governments [of "We the People"] lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to regulate their behavior.'" (citations omitted)... . The court cited other cases with approval and continued, "So-called SOVEREIGN CITIZENS [mistakenly] believe that they are not subject to government authority [of "We the People"] and [UNSUCCESSFULLY] employ various tactics in an attempt to, among other things, avoid paying taxes, extinguish debts, and derail criminal proceedings. (citation omitted). The `SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT' is well documented. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has classified`SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' as domestic terror threats BECAUSE THEY ARE ANTI-GOVERNMENT [of "We the People"] EXTREMISTS... ." In the case at bar, the court wrote, "The gravamen [core of] of plaintiff's amended complaint is that as a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the ... courts... . [But] contrary to plaintiff's contentions, 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS,' like ALL... [INDIVIDUALS in] the United States, ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THEY [FIND THEMSELVES]... ." (citations omitted). The court cited other decisions with approval which found "similar [SOVEREIGN CITIZEN] claims by Moorish Nationals... [to the effect] that they are not subject to... state laws, to be 'MERITLESS'. Plaintiff's purported [means "pretended"] status as a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' 'does NOT enable him to violate state and federal laws [of "We the People"] without consequence.'" (citations omitted). Since... plaintiff's factual allegations in the amended complaint are CLEARLY BASELESS, and "[t]he conspiracy and legal revisionist [amateur legal] theories of 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' are NOT ESTABLISHED LAW IN THIS COURT OR ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY'S VALID LEGAL SYSTEM,"... , plaintiff's amended complaint is both FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY FRIVOLOUS. Accordingly, the amended complaint is sua sponte [means "on the court's own motion"] DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS." (at paragraph 10 at about 75% through the text of the case.). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

4. Frye v. Barbour, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued various government officials who he mistakenly blamed for his many criminal convictions and incarcerations. The court wrote, "[The]... Plaintiff [claims]... that this court lacks jurisdiction over him [because]... he is a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, not subject to the laws of the United States of America... . However, the courts that have [already] considered such 'SOVEREIGN' CITIZEN' claims have found them to be FRIVOLOUS." The court cited other decisions is support which held, "[C]ourts ROUTINELY REJECT "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' claims as FRIVOLOUS. (citation omitted). 'Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a `SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' , a `secured-party creditor,' or a `flesh-and-blood human being [rather than as a corporate fiction],' that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED summarily, however they are presented.' (citation omitted). 'OVEREIGN CITIZEN claims are WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS [read that phrase again].'" (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 85% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

5. Dudley v. Eggert, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a government official for "seeking to incarcerate a SOVEREIGN and NATURAL FREE-MAN of the land [referring to himself] and extort [his] money without a contract threatening [his] liberty [as if a contract were necessary]." The court held that "[courts have]... "REPEATEDLY REJECTED... [such amateur legal] theories of INDIVIDUAL [rather than collective] SOVEREIGNTY, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." (citation omitted). SOVEREIGN CITIZEN [amateur legal] theories are typically raised by defendants in criminal prosecutions or by tax protestors, but courts in this Circuit HAVE [ALSO] SUMMARILY REJECTED THEM in other contexts as well. (citation omitted). The court cited another case in support which "REJECT[ED] the plaintiff's SOVEREIGN CITIZEN challenge to state child support proceedings as "SHOP WORN" and "FRIVOLOUS." (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 85% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

6. Hoglund v. Indiana, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a prisoner (and amateur legal theorist) unsuccessfully sued various state agencies and officials for imaginary misconduct that he mistakenly claimed resulted in his convictions. He alleged that government officials created laws "meant to control the people a as [fictional] legal entities, but not the SOVEREIGN man [referring to himself]... ." But, the court held otherwise and wrote, "The court of appeals has "REPEATEDLY REJECTED... [amateur legal] theories of INDIVIDUAL [rather than collective] SOVEREIGNTY, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." (citation omitted). Even if an individual claims the status of "a `SOVEREIGN CITIZEN,' a `secured-party creditor,' or a `flesh-and-blood human being,' that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED summarily, however they are presented." (citation omitted). The court also cited another case in support which "describe[ed] defendant's 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' defense as having "NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW.'" The court ruled, "Because all three of Plaintiff's claims rest on his [amateur legal] theories of SOVEREIGN CITIZENSHIP, this complaint must be DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS." (at the 3rd and 4th paragraph at about 85% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

7. U.S. v. Johnson, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was charged with filing a fraudulent lien against a federal employee. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges and claimed to be "a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" and thus [claimed] the court ha[d] no jurisdiction over him." But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]he Seventh Circuit HAS READILY REJECTED such arguments alleging the SOVEREIGNTY OF [INDIVIDUAL] CITIZENS, finding such arguments to be FRIVOLOUS." (citation omitted). The court also cited other cases in support, one of which, "REJECT[ED] the 'SHOP WORN' argument that a defendant is a SOVEREIGN ["a GOVERNMENT"] and is beyond the jurisdiction bounds of the district court'... [and another case which] "DISMISS[ED] [a] lack of personal jurisdiction argument as FRIVOLOUS because [federal district] COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER [ALL] DEFENDANTS [charged with]... VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW. A [FEDERAL] DISTRICT COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT WHO 'IS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.' (citation omitted). Thus [A] DEFENDANT... WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES [IS] ...SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.' (citation omitted)... . Therefore, the Court REJECTS Defendant's argument that he is somehow a SOVEREIGN ["a GOVERNMENT"]... WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT." TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

8. U.S. v Schneider, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was convicted and sentenced to prison for five years for mailing a threatening letter to a judge (just like Rod Class routinely does). His sole defense to the charges was that "he is a FREE, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN and as such not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts." But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]hat defense has NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW... ." (at the 2nd paragraph at about 40% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

9. Bey v. Indiana, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued the state to stop it from taxing his real property. This case reads, "Bey says he's a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' and therefore can't lawfully be taxed by Indiana or its subdivisions in the absence of a contract between them and him [as if a contract were necessary]." (citations omitted). But, the court wrote, "We have REPEATEDLY REJECTED such claims. (citations omitted). We do so [REJECT SUCH CLAIMS] in this case as well... ." (at the 2nd paragraph at about 35% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

10. Osoria v. Connecticut" https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist who was convicted for sexually molesting a child sued the state that convicted and imprisoned him. The court wrote, "... Plaintiff's complaint MUST BE DISMISSED as... FAILING TO STATE A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM... and AS "FRIVOLOUS"... because it is based on an "INDISPUTABLY MERITLESS LEGAL THEORY [referring to SOVEREIGN CITIZEN THEORY]. (citation omitted). Given the language of Plaintiff's Complaint — declaring himself a "real flesh and blood man," "a natural born, free, living, breathing, flesh and blood human with SENTIENT and more existence... upon the soil, and "the living man,"... Plaintiff appears to consider himself a 'SOVEREIGN CITIZEN'... . Numerous Circuits have ... REJECTED [the]... underlying premise [of SOVEREIGN CITIZENS to the effect] that federal courts lack jurisdiction over all 'LIVING MEN.'" (citations omitted). In support, the court cited a number of holdings from other cases as follows, "[T]o the extent that the plaintiff argues that he is a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN and not subject to... [state] laws, [such an argument is]`WHOLLY INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS.' (citations omitted). Defendants claiming to be 'SOVEREIGN CITIZENS' assert that the federal government [of "We the People"] is illegitimate and insist that they are not subject to its jurisdiction. [But] [t]he [SOVEREIGN CITIZEN] defense has `NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW.'... ." The court then wrote, "[Federal and state courts]... have SIMILARLY DISMISSED "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" claims." Then, in citing those other courts, the court wrote, "...[A]rguments common to the "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN" movement[]... have been CONSISTENTLY REJECTED by federal courts." (citation omitted). The court then cited another case which held, "This Court adds its voice TO THE JUDICIAL CHORUS [means hundreds of other courts] REJECTING, AS LEGALLY UNSUPPORTABLE, SOVEREIGN-CITIZEN-BASED challenges to federal law." (citation omitted). The court cited another case which held, "The`SOVEREIGN CITIZEN' BELIEF SYSTEM has been described by other courts as `COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT, 'PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS', and HAVING 'NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY IN AMERICAN LAW. (citations omitted)... ." In the case at bar, the court wrote, "[t]he crux of Osorio's Complaint is that [courts]... have no 'jurisdiction over living men.' [He argues that]... because... SOVEREIGN [CITIZENS]... are not named in the codes, [they]... are not subject to the codes... . He explicitly asserts that he, the "Secured Party/Plaintiff is not a subject of, or to . . . the United States Constitution, its Ordinances, Statutes, Codes, or Regulations... . Because Plaintiff's claims are ALL PREMISED on this "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN"... theory, THEY [ALL] FAIL TO STATE A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. (citation omitted). Accordingly, they [the Plaintiff's claims] are "FRIVOLOUS" and WILL BE DISMISSED... ." (at the 25th, 26th, and 27th paragraph beginning at about 75% through the text, and at the 2nd to LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). TRANSLATION: Claiming to be "SOVEREIGN" ("a GOVERNMENT") WILL NOT BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY IN ANY TYPE OF CASE. This is because under U.S. law, no INDIVIDUAL is a GOVERNMENT (a "SOVEREIGN").

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "individuals are sovereign and exempt from the law") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and intended to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

5. Still waiting to learn how the government gains jurisdiction over the human man with out his consent.
RESPONSE: What follows is THE RESPONSE THAT I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED TO YOU.

COMMENT #41
and while you are at it also post where the State has jurisdiction over me.
RESPONSE: The "STATE" is simply all of the people of Colorado COLLECTIVELY (not individually) speaking with a SINGLE VOICE through their ELECTED representatives. The people of Colorado and their agencies and branches of government have jurisdiction over ALL PERSONS AND THINGS within the borders of Colorado over which the states have not delegated to the FEDERAL government jurisdiction over such matters in the United States Constitution. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. If more is needed, let me know. This very subject is expertly explained in "THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX" above. You really should read it. It will help you enormously.

COMMENT #41
Also how does the state obtain jurisdiction over me if I refuse?
RESPONSE: No event occurs to give the state jurisdiction over you. So, the state does not do anything to obtain jurisdiction over you. Likewise, nothing you do or do not do can put you beyond the jurisdiction of the state. THE STATE ALREADY HAS JURISDICTION OVER YOU BEFORE YOU COMMIT A CRIME OR A TRAFFIC INFRACTION SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE STATE. Nothing else is required for the state (the people of Colorado COLLECTIVELY) to have jurisdiction over you. Your INDIVIDUAL "CONSENT" to the laws, the courts or to the state's jurisdiction is NOT REQUIRED. The "CONSENT" required comes from the people of Colorado COLLECTIVELY, NOT FROM YOU INDIVIDUALLY. This very subject is expertly explained in "THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN HOAX" above. You really should read it. It will help you enormously.

6. Article III Jurisdiction
Trial by an Impartial Jury of One's Peers

RESPONSE: Article III courts are FEDERAL courts, not STATE courts.

7. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the united States of America, provides that crimes must be tried before an impartial jury of one's peers.
RESPONSE: Article III courts are FEDERAL courts, not STATE courts.

8. If you are not in an Article 3 court then you are not being charged with an actual "crime."
RESPONSE: No so. If there is a case that says that if you are not in an Article III court, then you are not being charged with an actual "crime", then if you are not in an Article III court, then you are not being charged with an actual "crime". On the other hand, if there is no case that says that if you are not in an Article III court, then you are not being charged with an actual "crime", then if you are not in an Article III court, then you are being charged with an actual "crime". It is that simple.

9. Article 3 courts are the ONLY courts designated in the Constitution to deal with Constitutional questions and issues by language.
RESPONSE: Yes, Article III courts are the ONLY courts designated in the U.S. Constitution to deal with U.S. Constitutional questions. But, under the tenth amendment, STATE courts are authorized to deal with all STATE Constitutional questions AND EVERY OTHER LEGAL SUBJECT NOT EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, like STATE law "CRIMES".

9. Therefore, we ALWAYS challenge the jurisdiction of the court because no court has jurisdiction over a human being, the courts ONLY have jurisdiction over corporations, corporate fictions, and employees of the government.
RESPONSE: If there is a case that says the courts only have jurisdiction over corporations, corporate fictions and employees of the government, then the courts only have jurisdiction over corporations, corporate fictions and employees of the government. But, if there is no case that says courts only have jurisdiction over corporations, corporate fictions and employees of the government, then the courts have jurisdiction over EVERYTHING.

BELOW IS THE REAL LAW ON THAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY:

1). United States v. Rodney [DALE] Class, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006
This case addressed the following amateur legal theories of Rodney DALE Class (ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE), claiming that statutes "ONLY APPLY TO BUSINESS ENTITIES, GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES AND CORPORATE PERSONS, but not to natural persons such as himself" citing as support the inapplicable United States Tax Code, the inapplicable Texas Administrative Code and the inapplicable Delaware Administrative Code (all of which are inapplicable in this criminal case), The court described Class' amateur legal theories as follows, "[They are] UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE" (a sign of MENTAL ILLNESS) "purport to cite legal principles that either DO NOT EXIST (a certain sign of MENTAL ILLNESS) or are provisions of civil law [that are] WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE to this criminal case (also a sign of MENTAL ILLNESS)", and holding that Class’ purported defenses "ARE IRRELEVANT", "INAPPLICABLE", TOTALLY UNRELATED", ENTIRELY INAPPLICABLE", have "NO APPARENT RELEVANCE", and are UNSUPPORTED AND IRRELEVANT" (all signs of MENTAL ILLNESS). The court ruled against each and every such amateur legal theory.

2). DuBose v. Kasich, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): The Plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) raised, "the relationship between the yellow fringe on the United States flag and ADMIRALTY jurisdiction and the effect of capitalizing the letters of his name. Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] ultimately maintains that he does not have a contract with either Ohio or the United States and, therefore, does not have to follow government laws [as if that would make any difference]." In response, the court wrote, "... [F]ederal courts have routinely recognized that such [amateur legal] theories are MERITLESS and WORTHY OF LITTLE DISCUSSION [read that phrase again]. 'Other courts have noted the sovereign citizen theory has been CONSISTENTLY REJECTED...' . [and citing another case which] '... REJECT[ED] AS FRIVOLOUS Defendant's argument that HE WAS A 'PRIVATE NATURAL MAN AND REAL PERSON' [MEANING NOT AN ARTIFICIAL, CORPORATE OR GOVERNMENT ENTITY] and therefore not subject to the laws of the United States [and citing another case which] 'REJECT[ED] [this] sovereign citizen argument as FRIVOLOUS and UNDESERVING OF 'EXTENDED ARGUMENT [and finally citing another case which] 'h[eld] that a plaintiff's 'yellow fringe flag' arguments were 'INDISPUTABLY MERITLESS' [meaning amateur legal theories]." The court ruled against each and every such amateur legal theory.

3). Kitchens v. Becraft, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case RULED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, all of which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that there is "no lawful money for the payment of debts" because of the "[imaginary] national bankruptcy of 1933" and because of the "abolition of the gold standard", claiming that there is a "secret state of war" that exists between THE 'FEDERAL UNITED STATES,' WHICH IS A 'FEDERAL CORPORATION', and the people of the several states, claiming that "Federal Reserve Notes are not legal tender", claiming to be a "secured creditor" in a case which has NO "CREDITORS" AT ALL ("secured" or otherwise) and which imaginary "creditor" has no collateral allegedly "securing" the imaginary debt, claiming that "the Supreme Court has determined that all codes, rules, and regulations ARE FOR GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES ONLY, and not [for] human beings in accordance with God's laws", claiming that "all codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lack due process", claiming that "the supreme law of the land is the Constitution for the united States, and not the Constitution of the United States [pretending that there are two different Constitutions]", claiming that the only "lawful money of the Constitution for the united States is gold or silver coin of specific fineness and weight [a Constitutional provision actually applies ONLY TO THE STATES and not to the United States itself]", claiming that "the only lawful jurisdiction of a de jure common law court is under the American flag of peace, and not the Vice ADMIRALTY Court, military jurisdiction, which the Magistrate is treasonously imposing", claiming that "the only lawful jurisdiction is under common law, and not under vice ADMIRALTY, as signified by the U.S. battle flag with gold fringe and eagle on the flagpole currently displayed within the CORPORATE de facto court," claiming to have already "lawfully exercised his remedy" under Public Law 73-10 by "redeeming his birth certificate bond" and "captur[ing] his [imaginary] straw man", claiming "not [to be] a party or signatory to, nor being named in, any statute, code, law, or rule, nor having the provided power of attorney to any government agent or employee to enter him into such compacts” (as if that would make any difference), claiming to be exempt from all laws except those to which he voluntarily assents (as if individual "assent" is required) and claiming that a "military tribunal exercising ADMIRALTY jurisdiction, lacks jurisdiction over his claims, which jurisdiction may only be exercised by a constitutional common law court under the American flag of peace." The court ruled against each and every such amateur legal theory.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,777
Likes
65,931
Location
Rocky Mountains
Great post


Still waiting to find out which law overrules Yick Wo v Hopkins


Still waiting to learn how the government gains jurisdiction over the human man with out his consent.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
Great post


Still waiting to find out which law overrules Yick Wo v Hopkins


Still waiting to learn how the government gains jurisdiction over the human man with out his consent.
Goldhedge,

1. Still waiting to find out which law overrules Yick Wo v Hopkins
RESPONSE: No you are not. But, I will provide you with even more duplicate answers anyway. The answer is still "NONE". Yick Wo v. Hopkins is a small part of a larger body of law which holds that the PEOPLE (a PLURAL term) COLLECTIVELY as the government ARE "SOVEREIGN" and that the INDIVIDUAL (a SINGULAR term) IS NOT SOVEREIGN. Apparently, you mistakenly believe that the Yick Wo v. Hopkins case is somehow inconsistent with (or contrary to) the law on sovereignty that I have posted. It is not. You are simply unable to distinguish between PLURAL and SINGULAR terms as they are written into the law.

2. Still waiting to learn how the government gains jurisdiction over the human man with out his consent
RESPONSE: No you are not. But, I will provide you with even more duplicate answers anyway. The answer is still that THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE IS ALL OF THE PEOPLE RESIDING WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE STATE SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. THAT IS ALL THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE. (If you are unable to comprehend that simple principle, then it is pointless for you to go any further.). Years, and perhaps centuries, before you were ever born, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE GAVE THE STATE (which is ALL of the people of the STATE) JURISDICITION OVER ALL THINGS, ALL ACTIVITIES AND ALL PEOPLE WITHIN THEIR OWN STATE BORDERS, INCLUDING YOU, AS LONG AS YOU ARE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THAT STATE. SO, THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER YOU DOES NOT COME FROM YOU. INSTEAD, THE STATE'S JURIDICITION OVER YOU COMES FROM THE STATE ITSLEF (which is ALL of the people of the STATE). YOUR INDIVIDUAL CONSENT TO THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER YOU IS NOT REQUIRED. THE STATE (which is ALL of the people of the STATE) ALREADY HAS JURISIDCITION OVER ALL THINGS ALL ACTIVITIES AND ALL PERSONS WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS, INCLUDING YOU, SO LONG AS YOU ARE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE STATE. (If you are unable to comprehend this simple principle, then it is pointless for you to go further.). YOUR INDIVIDUAL CONSENT TO THE STATE JURISDICTION OVER YOU IS NOT REQUIRED. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. IT NEVER WILL BE.

Two and a half centuries ago, the STATES delegated to the FEDERAL government jurisdiction over A TINY LIST of THINGS, ACTIVITIES AND PEOPLE over which they once had jurisdiction. SO, IF YO ARE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES, ITS INLAND NAVIGABLE WATERS OR ITS TERRITORIAL OCEANIC WATERS, AND IF YOU ARE CONNECTED TO THE THINGS OR ACTIVITIES OR IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE PERSONS OF THE TYPE OVER WHICH THE STATES DELEGATED JURISDICITION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALSO HAS JURISDICITON OVER YOU. YOUR INDIVIDUAL CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT REQUIRED. IT NEVER HAS BEEN. IT NEVER WILL BE.

FACT: THE PHRASE, "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" LIKE THE TERM, "SOVEREIGN", IS A PLURAL TERM THAT REFERS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY IN THE FORM OF THE SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" (NOT TO AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON INDIVIDUALLY).

FACT: THE "CONSENT" THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" TO HAVE JURISDICITION OVER YOU COMES FROM THE CONSENT OF ALL THE PEOPLE (COLLECTIVELY) IN THE FORM OF THE SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" (NOT FROM A MERE INDIVIDUAL LIKE YOU).

FACT: THE AGENCIES OF THE SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" ALREADY HAVE ALL OF THE COLLLECTIVE "CONSENT" OF "WE THE PEOPLE" THAT THEY NEED TO HOLD YOU TO THE LAWS OF "WE THE PEOPLE". THE AGENCIES OF THE SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE" DO NOT ALSO NEED YOUR INDIVIDUAL "CONSENT" TO HOLD YOU TO THE LAWS OF "WE THE PEOPLE".

You desperately need to read what I have already posted on these two subjects above. You are missing so much.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,385
Likes
6,524
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Funny, just flat funny. A written law implicates by the use of words that what it is referring to is not what it says and one needs books and other people to tell me that. And, here I thought that the congress could pass no law that a sixth grader could not understand. And, here we are saddled with snoop a progenitor of the "That's not what they ment club" to straighten us out.

Oh Hedge of Gold plz do not mention that one could construe a pice of gold as a sovereign…. Opppsie did I just do that?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,385
Likes
6,524
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Well in all honesty I did go back and I did try to read your stuff snoop and I derailed. Each and every time I run into a half truth that you put out as a truth I just stop reading, so It was fairly quick to cover all your material.....And I noticed you are using red lipstick to write with now. Wow, how Novela of an Idea. Like no one has ever seen that before!
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
Well in all honesty I did go back and I did try to read your stuff snoop and I derailed. Each and every time I run into a half truth that you put out as a truth I just stop reading, so It was fairly quick to cover all your material.....And I noticed you are using red lipstick to write with now. Wow, how Novela of an Idea. Like no one has ever seen that before!
Michael59,

Each and every time I run into a half truth that you put out as a truth I just stop reading,
RESPONSE: I do not write half truths. You do not know enough about the law to know what is true and what is false. But, here is a clue. If it appears in the actual written words of the law itself (to which I have provided you with links above), then it is true. If there is no case that says something is the law, then it is not the law. It is that simple.

so It was fairly quick to cover all your material....
RESPONSE: Michael, you don't read a single word. That is why you continue to ask me the same question over and over again, despite that I have already answered it for you four and five times in a row. You read nothing. You absorb nothing. That is the real reason that you cover all the material so quickly. You do not read it. You have yet to click on a single link out of fear that it will challenge your belief system. You love your state of ignorance. You love your sophomoric belief system. You love to be a hater (and to be perceived by others as such). You do not want the truth. That is why you still believe in the amateur legal theories that you do. That is why you are still utterly clueless about the law. You do not want the truth. You do not want knowledge. It is more important to you to play your childish games than to become educated in matters of the law. It is more important to you to be cute and clever than to understand how the legal system really works. It is more important to you to be oppositional and defiant in the face of overwhelming proof than to see logic and reason. It is more important to you to make your petty insults than to empower yourself with the truth. Your priorities are backwards and pointless.

And I noticed you are using red lipstick to write with now. Wow, how Novela of an Idea.
RESPONSE: As if color makes any difference. If you had really read my posts above, then you would already know that the red lipstick that I used in my answers above corresponded to the red lipstick that Goldhedge used in his questions to me on the same legal subject. That is, I used the red lipstick to show Goldhedge that I had already answered the questions that he put to me in red lipstick above. So, I used red lipstick to match Goldhedge's red lipstick.

Look Michael, if you have a question or comment for me about the LAW ITSELF, then I am happy to respond to you. I am always happy to help those with a real interest in the law. But, let's get past the pointless, irrelevant stuff OK?

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,703
Likes
6,407
Location
right here right now
let's get past the pointless, irrelevant stuff OK?
If that's your wish then your best bet would be to leave this forum because the only pointless irrelevant drivel here is your postings.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,777
Likes
65,931
Location
Rocky Mountains
Here's a question.

It's all about the law correct? The "Law" is everything...

If Article I Section 10 says "No State Shall Make Anything But Gold and Silver Coin a Payment In Tender Of Debt"

How is it that every state violates their Constitution by using Federal Reserve Notes?

It couldn't be that they all incorporated back in the 1960's could it? THE STATE OF TEXAS et al are all caps corporations...Hmmmmm
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
25,327
Likes
35,889
Location
Qmerica
If that's your wish then your best bet would be to leave this forum because the only pointless irrelevant drivel here is your postings.
That is clearly no way to speak about the REAL LAW Armi.
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,110
Likes
12,233
Horseshit
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,580
Likes
27,819
Location
ORYGUN
Exactly my thought.

What has anyone here 'learned' from snoop?

Nothing! Verbal vomit.

Not a very good teacher of law that is for sure.


Still waiting to find out which law overrules Yick Wo v Hopkins


Still waiting to learn how the government gains jurisdiction over the human man with out his consent.


Article III Jurisdiction
Trial by an Impartial Jury of One's Peers


Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the united States of America, provides that crimes must be tried before an impartial jury of one's peers.
If you are not in an Article 3 court then you are not being charged with an actual "crime."

Article 3 courts are the ONLY courts designated in the Constitution to deal with Constitutional questions and issues by language.

Therefore, we ALWAYS challenge the jurisdiction of the court because no court has jurisdiction over a human being, the courts ONLY have jurisdiction over corporations, corporate fictions, and employees of the government.
GH, I do not disagree. I only say: Try telling that to a judge & the jailer !!!" :rage 1