RSS

14th Amendment citizenship

08 Nov

English: 14th Amendment of the United States C...

English: 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, page 1. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Several of this blog’s readers were commenting on 14th Amendment citizenship.  I respond as follows:

Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas declares in part, “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.”  This tells me two things: 1) That State constitution is a trust; and 2) the “people” of that State are the beneficiaries of that State constitution/trust.

From that information, I presume that 1) all constitutions are trust indentures; 2) in every State constitution, the “people” are the beneficiaries; and 3) if you want to claim any of the rights secured by a constitution, you had better not appear in the capacity of a “person,” “inhabitant,” “occupant” or “citizen,” etc.–you’d better expressly claim to a “man made in God’s image” and one of the people of a particular State of the Union.

I also believe the federal Constitution is a trust, but it’s not yet absolutely clear to me if the beneficiaries of the federal Constitution are “We the People” or the individuals States of the Union. It’s also not clear to be that there’s a distinct difference between the “States” and the “People”.

If it’s true that the People are the beneficiaries of the State constitutions, who are the fiduciaries? I can see no answer other than the elected officers, appointed officials, and employees of the government. In short, as originally intended by the Founding Fathers, the people were the beneficiaries and government was the fiduciaries. That makes perfect sense to me.

In the early 1990s, I wrote a number of articles on the “Missing 13th Amendment”. This is an Amendment to the federal Constitution that was almost certainly ratified back about A.D. 1820 but has nevertheless been removed.  The purpose of the Amendment was to create a penalty for anyone who accepted an “honor” or “title of nobility”.  A “title of nobility” is an advantage or privilege enjoyed by some but prohibited to others.  It is an inequality.  Titles of nobility are prohibited in the body of the federal Constitution, but there is no specified penalty. The “Missing 13th Amendment” proposed that anyone taking an “honor” or “title of nobility” would be penalized by a loss of citizenship. This loss did not mean that you’d be ejected from the country. It only meant that once you’d lost your “citizenship” you could no longer be a government officer or employee.

In other words, if you lost your citizenship, you lost your standing to become a fiduciary (government officer or employee) under any State of federal constitution/trust.

It therefore seems to me that the words “citizen,” “fiduciary” and “employee” may be roughly synonymous when we talk about government.

But government never wanted to be the people’s fiduciary/servant. Government wanted to rule and in order to do so, it was necessary to reverse the constitutional relationship wherein the people were the beneficiaries (who had virtually all of the rights) and the government officers and employees were the fiduciaries (who had virtually all of the duties and liabilities). In order to rule with abandon, government had to become the beneficiary while the people were subjected to the status of governmental employees, servants, fiduciaries and virtual slaves.

I suspect that the 14th Amendment was designed (or at least evolved to be treated as) as a device for reducing the “persons” and citizens to the status of fiduciaries/ servants/ slaves to the government. Part of the reason for that suspicion is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment which declares, “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.”

If it’s true that under the “Missing 13th Amendment” a loss of citizenship would only make one ineligible to be a government officer or employee, then it follows that “citizenship” (the status of a fiduciary or at least one eligible to become a fiduciary in relation to a State or federal constitution) might be very close reducing a “man” (one of the people) to the status of a “person”/ “citizen”/ “fiduciary”/ “employee” of the United States.  The only question would be whether that “person” was also “subject to the the jurisdiction” of the United States.  If a “person” was both: 1) “born in the United States”; and 2) “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, then that “person” would be a citizen/fiduciary of and for the benefit of the “United States”.

Of course, so long as you were within the borders of a State of the Union, you would not normally be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.  Thus, within the borders of a State of the Union, it might not be possible to be a “14th Amendment citizen” (fiduciary for the United States).  Of course, because the 14th Amendment also declared that such persons who “resided” within a State of the Union would be also be citizens of that State.  Of course, it seems possible to me that if you expressly declared yourself to be one of the “people” rather than one of the “persons” resident in a State of the Union you might still be deemed to be a beneficiary of your State’s constitution.

But if the States of the Union could supplanted by territories of the United States, then (under the 14th) evidence of your birth might be sufficient to prove (or at least presume) that you are a citizen/ fiduciary of and for the “United States”.  I.e., if you’re not within a State of the Union, but are instead presumed to be acting in a territory (like TX, CA or NY), there is no question about being one of the people (or even a citizen) of a State of the Union.  Within the territories, all are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and the only determining factor as to whether you are or are not a “citizen/fiduciary” might be your place of birth.

Under the 14th Amendment, as a citizen/fiduciary you would no longer have standing as one of the “people”/beneficiaries of your State or federal constitutions. You might have some civil rights. You might have some administrative rights.  You might be entitled to procedural due process.  But, as a citizen/fiduciary, you would no longer have standing to claim any of the rights (including the God-given, unalienable Rights) with which the “people” had been previously endowed. You would be a subject and government would be your master.

Additionally, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment reads in part, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

My first question is “shall not be questioned by whom?”

It seems to me that the people/beneficiaries of a trust can question anything about the administration of that trust and the trust’s fiduciaries (in this case the government) are bound to provide an honest answer.  On the other hand, the fiduciaries of the trust could be prohibited from questioning anything about the trust’s debts.   Insofar as any individual is prohibited from questioning the public debt, that individual would seem to be a fiduciary rather than a beneficiary. The Section 4 prohibition seemingly applies to the “persons“/ “citizens“/ fiduciaries of the United States. If you can’t question the debt, it seems certain that you are also deemed to be a debtor (perhaps even a debtor in bankruptcy). The debtor always stands in the role of fiduciary in relation to the creditor–who is always the beneficiary in relation to the debt and debtor.

I interpret the Section 4 prohibition as further evidence that 14th Amendment “citizens” are deemed to be debtors/fiduciaries of and for the United States government rather than members of the “people” beneficiaries of their State and/or federal constitutions.

If my interpretation is correct, as 14th Amendment citizens, folks are deemed by the government to be little more than servants and arguably slaves.

I don’t doubt that my interpretation is missing many important details and is flawed in some regards.  Still, I think this interpretation may be roughly correct and useful in helping to understand the issue of 14th Amendment citizenship.

In essence, I suspect that 14th Amendment citizens don’t truly receive “benefits”–instead, as fiduciaries, they primarily receive duties, obligations, debts and liabilities.

 

Tags: , , ,

125 responses to “14th Amendment citizenship

  1. Christian Gains

    November 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM

    VERY WELL STATED AL!! And, probably the key corner stone to our procuring FREEDOM once again!

    Unfortunately though, the breadth & depth of ignorance of the MEANING of the terminology of the Constitutions, (State & Federal), is quite a huge hurdle to overcome.

    If, in an attempt to reestablish the PROPER relationship between the PEOPLE (man made in God’s image), & the State or federal Govt.s, the attempt became a case law issue, I doubt very seriously that you could ever get a Jury that could manage to comprehend the difference between the GENERALLY believed meanings of the wording of the Constitutions under examination, AND the ACTUAL meanings of those same words, because “We the People” have grown up, and heard, (from EVERY aspect of learning reality), that #1] We are a Democracy {Most Senators don’t even KNOW that’s wrong!?! — #2] The lexiconal meanings of MANY of the words utilized in the writing of those Constitutions, have “evolved” FROM one meaning, INTO another, or several others, which original meanings “we the people” have never even HEARD!?!

    As an example, Jesus’s declaration, in Matt. 16:18 “… build My church, and the gates of hell shall not PREVAIL against it”, has two VERY SIGNIFICANT lexiconal differences in this day and age: CHURCH & PREVAIL have two VERY different actual meanings!

    The ACTUAL Hebrew / Greek utilized in the original text, for BOTH the Words – Church AND PREVAIL are NOT what the original wording depicted!

    FIRST: “church” is a derivative of the Scotish word “KIRK” — meaning “building / place”, whereas, in the original, the word was #1577 [Strong’s],ekklesia, meaning “a calling out”; “a meeting”; “a religious congregation”, and, in other words, “a called out people”, and

    SECONDLY the modern meaning taken of PREVAIL, is the opposite of the 1611 A.D. meaning. THEN [1611 and before], it meant to “withstand strongly”, but, today, it means: #2729, [Strongs], “overpower”.

    The DIFFERENCE is that — in the FIRST sense, “withstand strongly” indicates that the “called out ones” are ON THE ATTACK AGAINST the “gates of hell”! While, the modern “overpower” meaning, indicates that the “gates of hell” are attacking the “ekklesia — called out people”. QUITE the OPPOSITE mentality of WARRIORS….one is ATTACKING, while the other is on the DEFENSSIVE.

    In other words Yeshuah NEVER intended for HIS children to take a passive stance against “the gates of hell”…a “let it be”, maintain the status quo” mentality! To “resist strongly” as the “gates of hell” attempted to overcome the “ekklesia”!?! QUITE the opposite! The ekklesia was to OVERCOME, since the “gates of hell” would NOT “resist strongly”!!!

    And, as this change in intended meaning brought about a MASSIVE CHANGE in the convictions of the believers, so too, do the changes of meanings within the wording of the Constitutions, change the convictions of the modern readers of them! And, getting those original meanings out to a sufficient number of the people, is QUITE the harrowing task…as YOU well know Al!

    And, I certainly commend you on the valiant effort that you’re making! THANK YOU!!!

     
    • Don

      November 8, 2012 at 5:31 PM

      @Christian Gains
      November 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM

      We are really in a mess, aren’t we? & that’s saying something good about it.

      This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them. Hebrews 10:16

      Somewhere, I forget where, in the “Holy Bible,” there is a scripture that mentions a “new language” will be taught to us. Do you by chance know where specifically? Anyway, Hebrews 10:16 is good enough for me. Thank you for your post.

       
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 10:01 AM

      @VERY WELL STATED AL!!

      Birds of a feather do flock together & it takes one to know one,hence your statement of: VERY WELL STATED AL!!
      Now I,Don,understand why you did not respond to my statement & question asking you:

      “Somewhere, I forget where, in the “Holy Bible,” there is a scripture that mentions a “new language” will be taught to us. Do you by chance know where, specifically?

      Thanks anyway, “Christian.” I did not “Gain much from you,did I? Is it because you don’t want me to become “smart” like you & Al & most of the other people on this “Alfred Adask “LAW” blog? No response is necessary, I know the answer, anyway.

       
    • suzie kane (@susankane1)

      September 10, 2013 at 7:37 PM

      I have this page book marked. You fellow men and women are having a most intelligent conversation about the 14th amendment and the missing 13th amendment I have ever seen. The missing 13th amendment was ratified in most if not all the states. There is evidence of it i archives People like us have found. 13th had to go because it didn’t allow attorney’s to old office. When you look at who holds office .. Well they are all attorneys, I grew up thinking you had to be an attorney to become president. The 14th followed the new 13th..one, freed the negro slaves from the southern plantations and the other (the 14th transferred ownership to the federal District of Columbia, and made them citizen of the united states and protected them but made them subjects under the jurisdiction of the United States, in time through trickery white folks have contracted there God given natural rights for limited civil rights via .. Voting, a drivers license, passport, any place your asked this question: ” are you a United States citizen?” and we said yes! Legalese a language we were never taught in school.

       
      • Joe L'Amarca

        December 28, 2013 at 11:44 PM

        BEFOR YOU OR ANYONE SPEAKS / TALKS ABOUT THE U S CONSTITUTION YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND IT FIRST .
        FIRST OF ALL HOW MANY PROPOSALS DID THE FOUNDING FATHERS BRING TO THE CONVENTION ?
        CAN’T ASK YOU THE SECOND Q . IT WILL GIVE YOU THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST .
        SUZIE ! IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE BILL OF RIGHTS YOU WILL BE MORE KNOWLEDGEBLI THEN A LIAR !! OOPS LAWYER

         
    • Joe L'

      June 30, 2014 at 1:24 AM

      How many conflicts can you find in the amendments to the U S Constitution ? I will help you with the 14 amendment !
      It violates 4th and fifth Article of the Bill of Right ..
      The 11th amend. has two conflicts can you locate them ? here is an email for your respond josephlamarca@hotmail.com
      How can anyone assert his rights if he or she dont know if they have any rights ? should the incapicited regain his/her understanding of the U S Constitution then they can assert them without the help of a liar . FOR FREE !!

       
  2. Don

    November 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM

    The court explains in U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. case 829-830, that, PRIOR to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there WERE NO citizens of the United States AS SUCH, but only some one (state) of them (states).”

    Slaughterhouse cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 21 L. Ed. 394.It is quite clear then, that there is “A” citizenship of the United States and “A” citizenship of a state, which ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER and which depend upon different CHARACTERISTICS OR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INDIVIDUAL. If, then there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States AS SUCH, AND those belonging to the citizen of the state AS SUCH, the LATTER (State Citizens) MUST REST for their security and protection where they have HERETOFORE RESTED for THEY (State Citizens) ARE NOT EMBRACED BY THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE AMENDMENT” (Amendment 14, which is ENFORCED BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION). As to who comprised the State Citizens, see Amy v. Smith, 1 litt. Ky. R. 326, 334; also, see Marshall v. Donovan, 10 Bush (Ky) 087 (1874), wherein the court say the Dred Scott case was never overruled, and gives the primary objective of the 14th Amendment).

     
  3. Don

    November 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM

    If we have been taken over by a “foreign entity” via “spiritual warfare” I guess we have no other choice other than wait for the “Messiah” to put us all in “our right place.” This is what “The Olivet Prophecy” is ALL about.The “Good LORD” has permitted “Man” to do everything possible to prove “once & for all” that unless it is done “his” way it is futile. IF we could get everything straightned out “ourselves” there would be no nedd for theMessiah to return. The only thing I’m concerned about is whether or not the powers that be are going to give the Messiah a license to travel,return.

     
    • Adask

      November 8, 2012 at 5:15 PM

      We may have been taken over by some foreign spiritual (even “evil”) entity. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that we should therefore just sit quietly and endure while we wait for the second coming. My Bible includes a verse that particularly resonates with me: “Those who stand firm til the end shall be saved.” It does not say “those who sit tight til the end shall be saved.” I feel compelled by that verse to “stand firm” to the end of my life in resistance to the wicked spiritual entity that seems to dominate our government and grow stronger on a daily basis. I don’t see my obligation to “stand firm” as passive. I see it as a mandate to “do something” to manifest my resistance, even if that “something” is merely hosting a blog or refusing to take a driver’s license.

       
      • Don

        November 8, 2012 at 5:45 PM

        @ It does not say “those who sit tight til the end shall be saved”

        If you or anyone thinks I am or may be “sitting tight,” why do I have my own cases in law books in every law library in this so called U.S.of A.? Both, “State & Federal” cases.

        @I see it as a mandate to “do something”

        I have not only done “something” I have done a lot & lost everything,”earthly wise” in doing so. All this aside, I am in harmony with you 100% in what you say in your message.

         
      • Don

        November 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

        Dear Alfred,
        @“stand firm”
        I believe you are “standing firm” by what I am “aware” of that you do. Please give those like me,if any,who want to stand firm some examples of how we may/can stand firm. I ask this sincerely.

         
    • Joe L'Amarca

      December 28, 2013 at 11:55 PM

      i WOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT A LICENSE IF I WERE YOU !
      AS FOR MYSELF I LIVE IN THE RAIN FOREST OF THE WA. State REGARDLESS OF WHOSE COMING HE WILL NEED A BUILDING PERMIT AND I STILL HAVENT LOCATED THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR WHEN HE BUILT THE UNIVERSE .

       
  4. Don

    November 8, 2012 at 4:43 PM

    Also, we have, the act of April 9th, 1866, Chapter 31, section 1, 14 Statute, 27, today, codified in Title 42, section 1982, which SAYS: “All citizens of the United States SHALL HAVE the same right in every State and Territory, as IS enjoyed by white citizens thereof…” Shall have, is mandatory but it is also in the future tense; Is, IS PRESENT TENSE. It IS Apparent, shall have, means by “Appropriate legislation” passed then, and in the future,” otherwise, CONGRESS COULD HAVE, JUST AS EASILY SAID: “All citizens of the United States, “HAVE,” NOT, “shall have,” better yet, The 39th Congress could AND SHOULD HAVE SAID: “The Rights, Privileges and immunities of the COMMON LAW SHALL NOT BE DENIED to ANYONE on account of RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE.” However, there IS MORE in what WAS said, than meets the eye and mind. NOW, IF THE WHITE CITIZENS “IS” ENJOYING RIGHTS THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE, and IF YOU or I, IS, YES, IF WE “IS” OF THE WHITE RACE, enjoying certain rights, how IS WE in need of an ACT of Congress “to have,” or “shall have,” the certain rights that WE IS supposed to be enjoying ? The Congressional act says in pertinent part: “……all PERSONS born in the United States and NOT SUBJECT to ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and SUCH citizens, OF EVERY RACE AND COLOR SHALL HAVE the SAME RIGHT, in every State and Territory in the United States……. as IS ENJOYED by WHITE CITIZENS.”

    On the surface, the words above, OF EVERY RACE AND COLOR, APPEARS TO APPLY FOR/TO ALL RACES. HOWEVER, since I, “IS” of the white race and I “IS,” supposed to be, enjoying certain rights, how “IS” it, I SHALL HAVE,rights,WHICH I “IS” supposed to NOW be enjoying ? Maybe it will help by asking anyone to consider the words of Congress when they say :”NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER.” IS it not interesting, that Chief Justice Marshall, of the “supreme Court” says in Buckner v. Finley and Van lear, 2 Peters 590 (Before Amendment 14);”For all national purposes embraced by the federal Constitution, the States and the Citizens thereof are one, united under the same sovereign authority, and governed by the same laws. In all other respects the States are necessarily FOREIGN TO, AND INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER”. This is quoted also, in dissent of Bank of Agusta v. Earle. ALSO, from N.Y re Merriam 36 N.E.505, and AFFIRMED IN 16 S.Ct.1073, 41 L. Ed. 287, the Courts say: “The United States Government is a FOREIGN CORPORATION with respect to a state” (Emphasis mine). Other authority The I IS relying on, IS: U.S. v. Harris 106 U.S. 629; Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S.678-692: “..….wherein it was decided over one hundred years ago that Revised Statutes, Sections 5508/5519, which are worded like 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242, were unconstitutional when applied in a State of the Union to wit: ” For these reasons we are satisfied that the word CITIZEN as used in this statute, must be given the SAME MEANING it has in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and that to constitute the offense which is there provided for, the wrong done must be done to ONE WHO IS A CITIZEN IN THAT SENSE.”

     
    • Adask

      November 8, 2012 at 5:10 PM

      We may all have rights equal to those of “white citizens” but are those “citizens” of any color necessarily fiduciaries? If so, I don’t want rights equal to those of “white citizens/fiduciaries“–I want rights equal to “white men made in God’s image” and/or rights equal to “white people“.

      Everyone knows that the government promotes “citizenship” as if it’s the highest status available in this country. The “person” presume that “citizenship” is the brass ring. Maybe that presumptions needs to be carefully reconsidered.

       
      • Don

        November 8, 2012 at 5:51 PM

        You seem to like the Statute of 1776,a.k.a The Declaration of independence except for the word; “Consanguinity.” The only thing I don’t like about the word “Citizenship,” is the last word in it.

         
      • Don

        November 9, 2012 at 12:07 AM

        The “person” presume that “citizenship” is the brass ring. Maybe that presumptions needs to be carefully reconsidered.

        Those “White Citizens of The United States, such as, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams,Thomas Jefferson,Patrick Henry,etc, did not seem to have a problem reconsidering it.

         
    • Don

      November 8, 2012 at 8:54 PM

      AND, That IS the way it IS !!!!

       
  5. Anon4fun

    November 8, 2012 at 6:19 PM

    As you imply, a different word than “benefit” is needed to describe what 14th Amendment citizens receive in exchange for performing the duties of citizenship. Something like “compensation” might be better. That is, the fiduciary is compensated with civil rights, certain due process guarantees, “equal protection,” etc. for services rendered. Benefits go to the beneficiary, namely the entity which the 14th Amendment citizen has indentured himself into being “subject to the jurisdiction” of.

     
    • Adask

      November 8, 2012 at 7:59 PM

      I agree.

       
      • Don

        November 9, 2012 at 11:15 AM

        The history of the present King of Great Britain (gov-co,today) is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

        The statement above is an excerpt from: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
        The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

        “I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last oppressed their master and maker. (Justice Wilson)

        It is impossible to say in a SHORT way what 6,000 years of history has done.

        A history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States is accomplished today via “Appropriate Legislation” & not via legislation “necessary & proper.”

         
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 2:52 AM

      To:Anon4fun
      @November 8, 2012 at 6:19 PM

      “As you imply, a different word than “benefit” …..”

      Get in touch as soon as you can with the Congressman/woman that presides over the Federal Regional Military Venue where you RESIDE & tell him/her about it.

      Why do you think the The 39th Congress did not say but SHOULD HAVE SAID: “The Rights, Privileges and immunities of the COMMON LAW SHALL NOT BE DENIED to ANYONE on account of RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE.” ??!!!??

       
  6. Don

    November 8, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    But if the States of the Union are reduced to the status of territories, what citizenship remains other than that of “United States”?

    All citizens of the United States SHALL HAVE the same right in every State and Territory, as IS enjoyed by white citizens thereof

    and Territory,and Territory,and Territory. So called “Appropriate Legislation” is always “evolving” & to the extent that “citizens of the “United States” NOW,TODAY, & for a long time, DO NOT have ANY rights,only PRIVILEGES. Terrority in & of itself has nothing to do with it. So called Appropriate Legislation has EVERYTHING to do with it, BUT,for WHO?

     
  7. Lex Mercatoria

    November 8, 2012 at 7:32 PM

    Their current 14th Amendment is an interesting read but as I am a man made in the image of God it has nothing to do with me–where is the nexus?

    On another note:
    The article mentions the “missing” 13th Amendment. Although it may not seem obvious the current 13th Amendment *IS* the “missing” one in that it honors the intent & truth of the orginal Amendment verbiage expressed from the “real world” side, yet is stated from the opposing fictional “Matrix”.

     
    • Don

      November 8, 2012 at 9:16 PM

      @Lex Mercatoria,

      IF you are ever “escorted” OR freely volunteer to walk into any court in this U.S.of A. & say their current 14th Amendment is an interesting read but as I am a man made in the image of God it has nothing to do with me,you will be scheduled for a competency hearing, GUARANTEED !!!

       
      • Lex Mercatoria

        November 9, 2012 at 1:34 PM

        @Don

        I doubt I would be escorted there because to get that far they would have needed a name for the ledger, and I don’t have one. For the same reason they wouldn’t be able to schedule me for one of their competency hearings, not that one of the administrators (“judges”) would have the capacity to order me around anyway. If you believe they have authority over you they will pick up on that and run with it.

        Every encounter with their minions is tantamount to a mental exam, especially with their police actors. Who are you and what are you made of? Do you know who you are? That’s what they are testing you on, whether the individual actor is aware of this or not.

        It’s all about who you are. All else is irrelevant.

         
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM

      @ ” I doubt I would be escorted there because to get that far they would have needed a name for the ledger.”

      Thanks Lex. I post most of what I do because of actual happenings. I WAS escorted “there” for refusal to cooperate, refusal to give name, refusal to sign ticket, & so on & so forth.& NO DL & ID AT ALL. That’s what the 29 IQ hiway bandit wrote, AT ALL, yes, with the caps. At least he knew how to emphasize.I asked the bandit,on the way, Look, if I give you my name, I won’t have one,will I ? He, the bandit said: You B gihn-nit to duh juh aw-rite, when translated means,”You’ll be giving it to the Judge alright. I did not gih it to duh juh E-vuh, and the juh “GAVE” me 30 days.

      Thanks Lex Mercatoria, for taking the time to send me a message.

      אני אוהבת אותך

       
      • Lex Mercatoria

        November 9, 2012 at 5:38 PM

        Don,

        Did you tell the highway bandit who/what you are? If so, what did you tell him? If one merely doesn’t give a name it could be presumed one has a name, that one is one of their “juristic persons” and thus is not “co-operating” the Matrix machine along with the cop/judge/whatever actor. One must tell them who/what one is! Now different actors will test one to varying degrees, but it still is a test. You know: “does this guy really believe/know what he is saying or is he just spewing stuff he read on the internet?”

        If you tell them who you are and that you do not consent to be identified as/by a name, and you are adamant about that, they’ll eventually back off else they’ll be violating their own rules and would thus lose their precious immunity.

        In the end one is either in their make believe system or one isn’t; one cannot have it both ways simultaneously.

         
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 7:31 PM

      Shalom, Lex Mercatoria, אני אוהבת אותך

      @Did you tell the highway bandit who/what you are?

      When the “emergency stop” happened, I said, Good evening, how may I help you? Lex,rather than put you through the agony of everything that happened & what was said, I’ll try & cut to the chase. When the bandit tells me after I ask him what is your probable cause for this emergency stop, & he says, “I stopped you probably cause I wanted too, that tells me all I need to know & it’s a waste of time to try & explain my stand/position,etc.I did tell the hiway bandit my name IS,Donald.

      I thought I had a right to remain silent because I was “advised” on another prior occassion that “anything” I “said” “could” & “would be” used against me. In this particular,The “Judge” was previously the “Chief of Police” so I had a fairly good idea what his level of knowledge was.I did not utter a word “in HIS Court.” Made him madder than a wet hen too.

      But mostly, I chose to remain silent because of the following. I knew both of us ranked somewhere in the following IQ range.

      80 – 89 Dullness
      70 – 79 Borderline deficiency
      50 – 70 Mild mental retardation
      35-50 Moderate mental retardation
      20 – 35 Severe mental retardation

      The next time I am “pulled over” I’m only going to say, No speeke eng-lih,no speek-Eng leh.

      אני אוהבת אותך

       
  8. Anon4fun

    November 8, 2012 at 7:45 PM

    Lex Mercatoria: “Their current 14th Amendment is an interesting read but as I am a man made in the image of God it has nothing to do with me–where is the nexus?”

    This does not compute. What besides a man or woman made in God’s image qualifies to be a 14th Amendment citizen? An animal? A vegetable?

    “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.”

    Only a man or woman made in God’s image can fit this description.

     
    • Lex Mercatoria

      November 9, 2012 at 1:56 PM

      “This does not compute. What besides a man or woman made in God’s image qualifies to be a 14th Amendment citizen? An animal? A vegetable?”

      A fiction, as that’s all the system deals with, and can deal with.
      ————————————————————————————————————————
      “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.”

      “Only a man or woman made in God’s image can fit this description.”

      The words are carefully chosen. The Amendment’s verbiage does not reference men and women, only persons which are fictions. If you wish to see yourself as, or identify yourself as a person that is your choice. They didn’t even presume to do that as they are well aware that no one can speak for another without the latter’s consent. They’d be going down the road of involuntary servitude, something which is forbidden on both low and high levels and they just won’t do it. As I noted in another post on this site, one would be hard pressed to find any of their purported statutes/codes/regulations that specifically reference men & women. If it was indented to be binding on men and women the verbiage would read differently. They write their legalese in such a way that it specifically states “X”, knowing full well that people will mistakenly infer “Y”.

      The whole system operates on our consent. They are testing you to see if you know that. Think about it. There is nothing on a piece of paper that can point back to any man or woman, even what appear to be photos. Interpretation of images is subjective and even their police, attorney & judge actors know that. One must voluntarily relate oneself to whatever appears on a piece of paper.

       
      • Don

        November 9, 2012 at 8:09 PM

        “it specifically states “X”, knowing full well that people will mistakenly infer “Y”.

        How true !!

         
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 7:52 PM

      @What besides a man or woman made in God’s image qualifies to be a 14th Amendment citizen?

      A very fair & reasonable question,Mentor. All the Justices I am aware of thought your question meant a man or woman made in God’s image who was a person of color. That is how they “saw” those people, as people of color made in the image of “God.” Believe it or not, Mentor, “God” does not approve of “interracial marriage.” He believes in “ethnic purity.” Always has,& always will. Believe it or not, a Black man, taught me practically everything I understand. I’m not ashamed to say I still love him, & I miss him. He died several years ago. I am not being fuh C shus either. What time zone are you in, Mentor? I am in the “Mountain time zone.”

       
  9. Harry

    November 8, 2012 at 9:20 PM

    In respect to Title 42 Sec. 1982 dealing with “property rights” of citizens it is well to note that the “right” that all citizens of the United States SHALL HAVE in every State and Territory is not necessarily identical to “THE RIGHT” enjoyed (i.e. being exercised) by white citizens.

    ENJOYMENT. The exercise of a right

    SAME. The word “same” does not always mean identical. It frequently means of the KIND or species, not the specific thing. When preceded by the definite article meaning the one just referred to.

    HOLD. v. To possess in virtue to a LAWFUL TITLE; to be the grantee OR TENANT of another; to take or have an estate from another, Properly. To have an estate ON CONDITION of paying rent, or performing service. Black’s 4th

    “Status” is the legal relation of individual to rest of the community. “Community” in the civil law means “corporation.” Status is the rights, duties, capacities and in-capacities which DETERMINE a PERSON to a given class of PERSONS. Status is one’s legal PERSONAL relationship and it is not temporary in its nature nor terminable at the mere will of the parties with which THIRD PERSONS and the state are concerned. Example: The “state” is concerned where a marriage license was issue to permit the PERSONS who applied for the license to ASSUME the marriage relation. Only people can marry and they don’t need a license. Persons can only assume the marriage relationship because persons are only persons, not people.

    While “status” implies relation it is not a mere relation. It ALSO means ESTATE, because it signifies the CONDITION or CIRCUMSTANCES in which one stands with regard to his property.

    Do we really know where we stand (due to our actual or presumed status) with regard to our property? I suspect “citizens of the United States” only have the apparent possession of their property while the actual possession is in another who I suspect holds the equitable title and beneficial interest. If I am correct then citizens of the United States are owners who only hold the legal title and as such have been converted into a trustee for the real owner who has the actual possession of the property. Apparently a constructive trust has been created by the courts when a supposed citizen of the United States purcheses a parcel of property. Due to his second rate citizenship he cannot own property absolutely without violating some principle of equity – he may have the “same” right to own property (i.e. a conditional right) but he does not have the identical right as do white citizens or free inhabitants domiciled in one of the states who can own property absolutely..

    Parcel, as a verb mean to divide an estate. The ad valorem real property tax is always assessed against a “parcel” of land that is “in this State” or “in this Commonwealth.” “The law does not like the division of an estate.” Maxim of Law

    In regard to the equal propection of the laws in the 14th Amendment we must remember that most laws (statutes and ordinance) differentiate in some fachion between CLASSES OF PERSONS. The Equal Protection Clause does NOT forbid classifications. It simply keeps governmental decission makers from treating differently PERSONS who are in all respects alike (i.e. in the same class of persons). See: F.S. Rayster Guano Co. v. Virginia 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920)

    OWNERSHIP. n. Legal title COUPLED with EXCLUSIVE legal right to possession.

    Citizenship “in the United States” has become “a political obligation depending not on ownership of land, but on the ENJOYMENT of the protection of government, and it binds the citizen to the observance of all laws of his sovereign.” Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492; (1863) Black’s 3rd page 95

    Citizenship MAY include membership in a body politic. However, there is a citizenship and citizens who have civil rights that are not connected with the organization or the administration of government. Then there is another citizenship that is granted to a PERSON in virtue of his citizenship with rights that can be redressed in civil actions. Finally, there are 14th amendment citizens of the United States federal government (Federal citizens) who have privileges and immunities that owe their existence to the federal goverment, its constitution and its laws..

    “Protection draws subjection; subjection protection.” Maxim of Law

    Can you give up the protection in order to avoid the subjection???????????????????

    .”The diligent shall bear rule, but the slothful shall be under tribute.”

    The ad valorem real property tax is a tribute tax that an inferior subject owes to his superior sovereign to reimburse the sovereign for services and protection rendered and ACCEPTED.

    No one can be compelled to accept a benefit against his will. Amendment 13 still allows voluntary servitude.

    Peace

    .

     
    • Don

      November 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

      Harry
      November 8, 2012 at 9:20 PM
      @In respect to Title 42 Sec. 1982

      Unless Title 42 Sec.1982, applies to you, Harry, what difference does it make as to what it really means?

      If Title 42 Sec.1982 applies to you,Harry,I would be vitally interested in what it really means.

       
  10. Jim

    November 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

    Due to the legal industrial complex not disclosing the nature of citizenship schemes operating in America, the Article IV “free inhabitant” (Articles of Confederation) guarantee seems most desirable.

     
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

      Jim
      November 8, 2012 at 10:31 PM

      I am in New Mexico. The NM Supreme court of NM say ALL of those “Organic Law Documents” are of historical interest only because of the merger of law & equity & the development of the law. I would like to be able to shake ALL of them until their teeth rattled but they have a lot of “body guards.”

       
  11. Timmy

    November 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

    Al, great thinking. I hope you develop the trust concept further.

    Would it be useful to look at the distinctions between public and private trusts, whatever they might be?

     
    • Adask

      November 8, 2012 at 11:40 PM

      The thing about research is that you never know what will be “useful” until after you’ve done the research. But all research is good, although not all research is immediately “useful”.

      But as a practical matter, the distinction between “public” and “private” trusts is probably not about the fundamental form of the trusts. Both forms will probably be identical. The primary distinction will probably be in the identity of the grantors, beneficiaries and fiduciaries of each trust. In the public trust, the grantor may be the government. The trustees might be the citizens. . . . In a private trust, the grantor may be a private person or the beneficiaries might be the grantor’s own children or perhaps his wife or family.

      If so, it’s hard to say what we’d learn from studying the two types of trust. However, while I’m not particularly interested in studying private trusts, I would be interested to see the fundamental characteristics of “public” trusts.

       
      • Don

        November 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

        THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
        ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

        Sec. 1.”FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States,…………”

        FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE>>>>>subject only to the Constitution of the United States. <<<<< This should make A light come on especially when you consider IF it said: "subject only to the Constitution of the United States as unlawfully amended."

        Text of Section 1:
        Supreme Law of the Land

        The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

        The words above prove,at least to me, the relinquishing of "State Sovereignty" to the Federal Government. I call it betrayal of trust & worse. I'm trying to keep this "short."

         
  12. Harry

    November 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM

    In my searching in the bone piles of American history researching land ownership in America It appears to me that TODAY everyone is presumed to be of the status of 14th Amendment citizen of the United States government a.k.a. federal citizen. When a federal citizen buys a plot of land and discharges his debt via a legal tender of Fed Notes a constructive trust is raise due to the grantee’s status and perhaps his failure to actually pay for the right to possession of the property. It appears to me that the land is granted and is not a thing of value that can be bought or sold or traded.

    The federal citizens has a right to hold property, but due to his status and his use of legal tender it appears he cannot hold the absolute title to or estate in the land as can white citizens and free inhabitants can (if they pay for the property rights with a lawful tender of gold or silver coin I would suspect. I am just throwing out ideas here to see what sticks.

    “Constructive trust.” A trust RAISED by construction of law, as distinguished from an express trust. WHENEVER the CIRCUMSTANCES of a transaction are such that the PERSON who takes the legal ESTATE in property cannot also ENJOY the beneficial interest without violating some established principle of equity, the COURT will immediately RAISE a constructive trust, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to CONVERT him into a TRUSTEE for the parties who IN EQUITY are ENTITLED to the beneficial ENJOYMENT.”

    Do you feel a constructive trust fastened to your conscience? If you do then you only hold the legal estate in your land and therefore you only have the apparent possession thereof while another holds the equitable estate and beneficial interest. In equity the equitable owner is regarded as the real owner of the land. To wit:

    “Legal title.” One cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one which is complete and perfect SO FAR as regards the APPARENT right of ownership and possession, BUT which carries with it NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST in the property, ANOTHER PERSON being equitably entitled thereto.

    “Equitable title.” An equitable title is a right in the party to whom it belongs TO HAVE the legal title TRANSFERRED to him; or the beneficial interest of one PERSON whom equity REGARDS AS THE REAL OWNER, although the legal title is vested in another.

    “Beneficial interest.” Profit, benefit, or advantage resulting from a contract, OR or the ownership of an estate as distinct from the legal ownership or control.

    EMPLOY. To equitably CONVERT. Equitable conversion, constructive conversion. An implied or virtual conversion, which takes place where a PERSON does such acts in reference to the goods of another as amount in law to the appropriation of the property to himself.

    A direct conversion takes place when a person actually appropriates the property of another to his own beneficial use and enjoyment.

    ENJOYMENT. The exercise of a right.

    As I pointed out, “status” also means ESTATE because it signifies the CONDITIONS and circumstance in which one stands with regard to his property. Again, I ask, do you know the conditions and circumstance in which you stand with regard to your property? If not, why not?

    It appears the “state” is the equitable owner of the parcel of land in one’s apparent, but not actual possession. When they sell a property to recover unpaid taxes all they are selling is the first right to pay the use tax and use the property. The state has an obligation to hold that equitable title in trust as security or surety for either the unpaid purchase price and/or any future unpaid ad valorem real property taxes assessed againt the property and for which the ASSERTION of a lien on the land itself is made.

    It appears to me that since the property was not PAID for originally and the debt only discharged via use of Fed Notes the constructive trust was raised. Or, perhaps it was raised due to the “status” of the person acquiring the property. The remedy, if there is one must be in equity because there in no common law remedy for a purchase with only a promise to pay the present value of the property. I suspect that only a tender in in gold or silver coin executes payment and passes both the property and the actual right of possession and disposal. What shall we do to remedy this distaseful situation?

    Perhaps none of the above is relevant to our present situation, but it sure appears to be relevant to me. And, when I ask questions of the county concerning the ASSERTION of a lien on the land itself and what proof they have that the lien is lawfully regular and legally valid they have gone mute on me and suggest I seeek legal advice.

    O what tangled web we weave, when we practice to decieve.

    Evertually the truth will prevail and make us free from our present ignorance or lack of knowledge. Keep the faith.

    Please forgive any typos or mispelled words in the above. I don’t have time to read over this, Must get back to work with my hand in case someone has need.

     
  13. Don

    November 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM

    FEMA closed its office yesterday because of snow flurries. (Brasscheck)

    Sooooo, maybe there is a glimmer of hope. Right PatriotOne. I hope sooooo. Guhmunt is BS !!

     
  14. Anon4fun

    November 9, 2012 at 2:28 PM

    Lex Mercatoria: “The words are carefully chosen. The Amendment’s verbiage does not reference men and women, only persons which are fictions.”

    Some persons are fictions. Other persons are living men and women. A person can be either a fiction, or a living man or woman, depending on the context. There is ZERO EVIDENCE that anyone can specifically cite, right here on this page, to the effect that a living man or woman cannot be a person. And “such-and-such disinfo charlatan says so” does not count as evidence.

    14th Amendment: “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.”

    While a fiction does reside and perhaps can be naturalized, it definitely was not born. The only type of persons that are born are a living men and women.

     
    • Lex Mercatoria

      November 9, 2012 at 6:36 PM

      @Anon4fun

      “There is ZERO EVIDENCE that anyone can specifically cite, right here on this page, to the effect that a living man or woman cannot be a person.”
      ————————————————————————————————————————–
      No one is saying that a living man or woman cannot be a person, just that a person by nature is not a living man or woman–big difference. Evidence is irrelevant because we are taking about perception of oneself. Only you can state you are a person, or act/identify as one. No one will do that for you absent your consent. Persons are NOT people, although people may *choose* to identify themselves as, or act in, a person/fiction capacity and thus be treated as one.

      Granted, part of the confusion arises from the devious Matrix actors’ trickery.
      To use an analogy, they offer–and we accept–a jersey emblazoned with a name yet they intentionally don’t tell us (a) the jersey is to be worn to play their games, (b) there even are games being played, (c) one can only play in their games wearing that jersey, and (d) the games’ rules only deal with the names and the jerseys’ (and thus by extension the people wearing the jerseys) positions on the field. To add to the confusion they often don’t tell us what games are being played at any given time and/or the positions therein.

      The point is: we have to voluntary connect ourselves to the fictional world; it does not, and cannot reach out from pieces of paper to grab us or, to use the above analogy, force us to wear *their* sports jersey sporting *their* name (intellectual property). The fictional legal nonsense everyone frets over are just abstractions, things written on paper. People are acting as if this stuff has an objective, separate existence from themselves when in reality, it’s all in their heads. I suppose one could say it’s all one mass hallucination.

      The power is and has always been in our hands. We don’t have to participate.

       
      • Don

        November 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

        @To add to the confusion they often don’t tell us what games are being played at any given time and/or the positions therein.

        In other words it is not a level playing field ?

        @We don’t have to participate.

        “They” do make offers that are “hard” to refuse. The tyranny starts with the lowest rung of the “municipal authorities.” All that is required to be a “magistrate” is a High School education. When a man/woman is in the “executive branch” for most of his/her life & suddenly decides that he/she wants to try being a Magistrate(Judge) & only has a high school edecation & a G.E.D. at that, I find it hard to believe that he/she is aware of what you,Lex, say.Here is one thing I do know I knew enough about their “statutory law” to know that a “District Court” Judge, did not have the authority to issue his order against me (<?) & I gently tried to make him aware of it. It was impossible for me to obey his order even if I wanted too. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of New Mexico. That Court agreed with me that the lower court judge acted without authority & said his order is invalid. HOWEVER, the S.Ct. of N.M. said I did not have the right or privilege to decide whether the lower court had authority.They said only they had the authority to decide whether the lower court acted without authority & therefore since I did not obey the lower court's made without authority invalid order they said I contemptiously violated the made without authority invalid order & affirmed the "contempt" portion because of the lower court's contempt power. Isn't there something called parens patriae ? Does it fit this particular?

         
    • Cody

      November 16, 2012 at 2:08 AM

      If I recall correctly, a “person” is something that must bear a title. I.e. a corporation, a trust, or an individual of those. However it is never defined as a man or woman. The act of being “born” is when there is a certification of an instance of beginning. The certificate of live birth records and certifies a person exists. Not that a child of man has come into the world.

       
  15. palani

    November 9, 2012 at 2:40 PM

    The 14th amendment is a misnomer. It is not an amendment but instead is a complete constitution such as the British have always bragged about, one with no written provisions. It provides notice from the old Republic that the new Democracy is free to incur debts on its own that will not be paid for by “big daddy” much the same as this 1867 legal notice informs the world that his sons James and Charles are free to take on the world on their own behalf and without holding the subscriber as surety. http://i48.tinypic.com/xpbmyx.jpg

     
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM

      palani
      November 9, 2012 at 2:40 PM

      @The 14th amendment is a misnomer.

      I’m sure the 39th Congress would have agreed if it had only brought to their attention.

       
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 7:58 PM

      I’m sure the 39th Congress would have agreed if it had only “been” brought to their attention.

       
    • Cody

      November 20, 2012 at 2:26 AM

      palani,
      A cursory reading of the 14th does show it creates another constitution. I agree.

      Cody

       
  16. Peter

    November 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

    So prior to any National Gov. the people had their state gov coming from them, by them and for them. So the Declaration of Independence had to have been a Trust: coming from them (Grantor), by them (Trustee) for them (Beneficiary) asserting God given unalienable rights, however when the US Constitution was adopted, the people were gauranteed a “minimum” of rights or ‘CAPITIS DIMINUTIO MINIMA” because the borrower is servant to the lender, the Revolutionary war debt had to be repaid. (The hand that gives is above the hand that takes) the American Re-public was born.
    It was set up in Trust, the Grantor was the lender of the gold to fund the war, the Trustees were the representatives from the several States, and the beneficiaries were also those who lent the gold. So as time went on, there appears to be 2 Trusts working with each other: the States and the National Government respectively.
    So if the US Constitution was a Trust indenture, then the Southern States seceding the Union was a breach of Trust. Therefore, the Civil War was not fought to free slaves but rather to remedy the situation with the estranged Southern States. Since the Southern States were declared the enemy, and the Constitution allowed for equal footing amongst the States, they just went ahead and declared the Northern States as enemies as well thru the War Powers Act, so all the people in the States are now enemies of the new Gov-Co and I would venture a guess that there was a further diminishing of the granted rights (but I’m not sure) but this would make sense since the powers that be had to resort to war to keep their contract in force and the people were now reduced to the status of “persons” due to the War debt not getting repaid and other issues. At this point in time Im not sure the common man on the street was deemed a fiduciary or a Trustee, yet. I think that came about 70 years later in the 1930’s when FDR called in all the gold held by “persons” and the New Deal came in and everyone got a “number” to “buy and sell” and everyone got an “ALL CAPS NAME” as their corporate entity.
    Your all caps name is a Trust and you the living man/woman is most likely holding a fiduciary capacity or even the Trustee (I’m not sure though) since your productive capacity is now being taxed and in Trust Law the Trustee always pays.
    So people now “enjoy” a complete extinguishment of their granted rights through the capitalization of their name (and accepting that NAME as their own), the 14th Amendment debt slave status that was on the books since the Reconstruction Acts has come to fruition and it is the “mechanism” whereby they are looting each and every one of us whether it be through taxation, foreclosure, repossessions, court actions etc…

     
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 9:34 PM

      “…however when the US Constitution was adopted, the people were gauranteed a “minimum” of rights…. ”

      The 9th Article in addition (Bill of Rights) says otherwise. I see maximum, not minimum written in it & all over it.

       
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 10:41 PM

      “All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other.” (President Andrew Johnson, March 23,1867)

      “Appropriate Legislation” legislative machinery,e.g, the Power Clauses in the WAR Amendments-martial law, military coercion——Notice the Military Flags in ALL the SO CALLED “civil Courts”

      “… here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 (million) people at once.It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades them all…” President Andrew Johnson, March 23,1867

      And, the stealthy beat goes on & has never truly stopped since President said those words.

       
  17. Anon4fun

    November 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

    Lex Mercatoria,

    In the post I originally responded to, you said: “The Amendment’s verbiage does not reference men and women, only persons which are fictions.”

    Now you say: “No one is saying that a living man or woman cannot be a person, just that a person by nature is not a living man or woman–big difference.”

    If you admit men and women can be persons, on what basis do you claim the 14th Amendment’s persons are not men and women, only fictions? Can you give an example of a fictional person that is, as the 14th Amendment puts it, “born” in the United States?

     
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 9:50 PM

      @Can you give an example of a fictional person that is, as the 14th Amendment puts it, “born” in the United States?

      Please don’t misunderstand my prior comment to you.The above question is not a confusing question. It makes sense to even a dunce like me. I can’t help but believe that Lex got a good laugh out of it too.

       
      • Anon4fun

        November 10, 2012 at 11:59 PM

        Mike Scott: “A trust created by the Social Security Administration.”

        Do you have actual evidence that such a trust was ever “born” in the United States? If so, please cite it here. Also, who was the mother?

        Born. Act of being delivered or expelled from mother’s body, whether or not placenta has been separated or cord cut. (Black’s 6th)

         
    • Mike Scott

      November 10, 2012 at 10:30 PM

      >> Can you give an example of a fictional person that is, as the 14th Amendment puts it, “born” in the United States?

      A trust created by the Social Security Administration.

       
      • Don

        November 10, 2012 at 11:51 PM

        @A trust created by the Social Security Administration.

        AW-RIGHT !!!!!! YEAH !!! GO GITUM !!!

         
      • Don

        November 10, 2012 at 11:55 PM

        Mike Scott
        @November 10, 2012 at 10:30 PM

        Way to go,Mike Scott.

         
    • Lex Mercatoria

      November 11, 2012 at 12:52 AM

      @Anon4fun:

      In the post I originally responded to, you said: “The Amendment’s verbiage does not reference men and women, only persons which are fictions.” ….. etc….
      ———————————————————————————————————————–

      They are good questions which opens the door for more hair-splitting logic and clarification.

      A man/woman becomes, can be treated as, a person/fiction only when and if the former consents to that. That line you cited from the Amendment containing the words “person” and “born” implies an inherent relation between the two, though not necessarily in a grammatical sense. The link between the real (men/women who are born) and fiction/person (persona?) must be made by the man/woman via the latter’s words & actions, otherwise it isn’t there. That is “how” a person can be “born.”

      It’s deviously simple wording and easily overlooked yet one should expect no less from them, right?

      Most people tell the Matrix Agents they (people) are something said people are not, in fact, something which even the Agents don’t believe the people to be! They’ll never tell us that, of course. Bad Guys: “Hey guys, let’s see if we can get God’s children to act like ‘fake’ people, you know, anything except what they are. Better yet, let’s see if we can trick them into believing it. We’ll have them running around in circles, befuddled & lost forever as they slavishly do our bidding. They’ll never figure it out. Haw-haw-haw!”

      This relates to what I previously posted regarding the current and missing 13th Amendments being the same thing expressed from opposing standpoints.

      The missing Amendment, from the real world tells the fictional world: “We won’t allow fictions, titles, and other limited liability/capacity crap over here. Only living beings dealing mano-a-mano with each other will be tolerated, otherwise we’ll boot you out!”

      The current Amendment from the fictional world tells the real world: “OK, fine. In that case we won’t *FORCE* (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) anyone to play in our games, that is to say, we won’t compel anyone to wear any hat, act in any capacity, hell, we won’t compel anyone to do anything!” Not compelling anyone implies what was left unsaid: “However, if anyone by his/her own free will (Matrix term: self determination) chooses to come to our side and play in our sandbox, well… that another matter.”

      There it is, the truth echoed in their Amendment. It all boils down to our choice–consent. Doesn’t some of their own verbiage talk about “consent of the governed?” It really is that simple, though it can appear complex in application.

       
      • Don

        November 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

        @They’ll never figure it out.

        Aw c’moan Lex. Look at all the people on this site who have it all figured it out. Practically everybody!!! Haw-haw-haw!”

        @“We won’t allow fictions, titles, and other limited liability/capacity crap over here.
        Like in, ESQUIRE, most of all.

        @our sandbox,
        We will sooth your self inflicted wounds with our sandpaper if you just play in our own private sandbox,& NO !! We will never BOX you in.

         
  18. Don

    November 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM

    Anon4fun
    @November 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

    I can just see Satan having a BIG Belly Laugh re: your comment.He is the author of confusion, and thoroughly enjoys it when he sees how good he is at it

     
  19. Anon4fun

    November 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM

    Don:

    Oh yeah, a trust being “born” in the United States makes plenty of sense.

    Also, elephants build nests in treetops. This is a fact simply because I declare it so, without evidence, as needed to support some flimsy disinfo theory I’m promoting.

     
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 12:59 PM

      Anon4fun
      November 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM

      I keep forgetting that I must stop being fuh-C shus.

       
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM

      @Also, elephants build nests in treetops.
      Quit stealing my material. I don’t give facts such as this out to everybody.

       
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

      @Oh yeah, a trust being “born” in the United States makes plenty of sense.

      Believe it or not, I already knew this. I think the problem really is, most people don’t know the difference between a male & a female trust except most of those trustworthy “born” again christians.” I trust you though,my Mentor.

       
  20. Anon4fun

    November 11, 2012 at 1:49 AM

    Lex Mercatoria: {A man/woman becomes, can be treated as, a person/fiction only when and if the former consents to that.}

    Perhaps you can cite a source for this claim, because, by my reading, a man or woman is always a person, with or without their consent:

    PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. […] The word in its natural and usual signification includes women as well as men. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed.)

    {That line you cited from the Amendment containing the words “person” and “born” implies an inherent relation between the two, though not necessarily in a grammatical sense. The link between the real (men/women who are born) and fiction/person (persona?) must be made by the man/woman via the latter’s words & actions, otherwise it isn’t there. That is “how” a person can be “born.”}

    Sorry, but I can’t make sense of this. For one thing, there is no need to explain that a person can be born. Discounting animals, every entity ever known to be “born” (in the legal sense) was a person: specifically, a man or woman. So “persons born or naturalized in the United States” clearly includes men and women.

     
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM

      To, my Mentor,
      @….by my reading, a man or woman is always a person, with or without their consent:”

      AND, a male or a female without their consent. With their consent, not-with-standing.

       
      • Don

        November 11, 2012 at 1:36 PM

        AND, BORN, a male or a female without their consent. With their consent, not-with-standing.

         
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM

      Anon4fun
      November 11, 2012 at 1:49 AM

      Your Exchanges with Lex,remind me of yours & mine several months back,remember?
      Mentor, we are not robots & we are going to understand somethings differently. It looks like you & Lex both like a good challenge. I enjoy your exchanges. Both of you are “sharp,” but, I know, you have to consider the source. Why don’t you want to tell me what “Time Zone” you are in?

       
    • Lex Mercatoria

      November 12, 2012 at 6:25 PM

      @Anon4fun:

      Lex Mercatoria: {A man/woman becomes, can be treated as, a person/fiction only when and if the former consents to that.}

      Perhaps you can cite a source for this claim, because, by my reading, a man or woman is always a person, with or without their consent:
      ———————————————————————————————————————————–
      As Colonel House stated “They” have plausible deniability about their system and one can see too much truth is not allowed in the public. If one were to search for the truth only among their court rulings, statutes, etc., one would be looking forever. Their system verbiage dances around the truth, alludes to it and is based on it yet won’t openly speak of it as that would defeat the purpose of the Matrix itself. We can reverse engineer what the Matrix states to derive what their system must be based on and there, lies the truth.

      I don’t know what your self perceptions are but I know I am the final authority about who & what I am and no one has any authority over me other than what I grant them. That said, let us not mistake force for authority. Are you the final authority as to who/what you are? Do you believe you need to rely on others’ definitions of terms for that? Even if They(tm) were to mean “men” & “women” when they use the term “person” do you think their verbiage has anything to do with you, is even binding upon you? If so, why? I could write verbiage similar to that of the Matrix wherein I specifically state men & women must or must not do X, Y and Z. Would my newly self-declared so-called “laws” and what-not now be binding upon you or anyone else just because I say so? I’m not necessarily looking for your answers to these questions but pose them because these are things all of must ponder as the answers are based on how we perceive ourselves, which in my opion, is all that matters as that shapes our lives. To put it in more legal sounding terms: identity is the only issue of import because unless They can resolve that issue in their favor they have no basis to proceed against us.

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

      {That line you cited from the Amendment containing the words “person” and “born” implies an inherent relation between the two, though not necessarily in a grammatical sense. The link between the real (men/women who are born) and fiction/person (persona?) must be made by the man/woman via the latter’s words & actions, otherwise it isn’t there. That is “how” a person can be “born.”}

      Sorry, but I can’t make sense of this. For one thing, there is no need to explain that a person can be born. Discounting animals, every entity ever known to be “born” (in the legal sense) was a person: specifically, a man or woman. So “persons born or naturalized in the United States” clearly includes men and women.
      ————————————————————————————————————————————-
      The definition from Black’s 4th you cited speaks of the man in terms of fictional aspects he may be perceived as having (rank, right, duty) which are distinct from the living being himself. If they believed a man is intrinsically a person, i.e, that the terms “man” & “person” are synonymous, there would have been no need to enumerate those attributes; simply stating “persons include men and women” alone without the weasel wording verbiage of “The word in its natural and usual signification….” would have sufficed. Stating there’s a “natural & usual” signification implies the opposite. If an unnatural & unusual signification (alternate/’legal’ consideration/definition?) didn’t exist to them there would have been no point in adding that “disclaimer”. They are well aware many people would have assumed their “natural & usual signification” definition applies anyway. Therefore I deduce they believe a man is not considered a person unless he has, that is to say, is perceived as having or acts as having said attributes; the attributes becoming in effect the man’s “person” (persona?). I think the Matrix agrees with my position.

      Regardless of whether my deduction is correct it’s still someone else’s opinion we are reading. If they believed their definitions were binding upon people, that they automatically have authority over us just because they wrote something on paper they wouldn’t need to seek our consent at every turn, which they do though it’s not always obvious. Their actions speak louder than their words purport to do.

      I’m sorry my previous post didn’t help clarify my point that there’s a distinction between persons and people but I don’t know what else I can say to explain my view on this matter.

       
  21. palani

    November 11, 2012 at 7:26 AM

    Anyone who believes they know what the definition of a person is should read chapter XVI of Hobbes Leviathan. A free version is found here … http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3207

    Short summary: A person is not flesh and blood. A person is an action. A person is a word. A person is representation. Any later definitions are either intended to deceive (highly likely) or because the author of the definition was deceived himself or both.

     
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 1:06 PM

      palani
      November 11, 2012 at 7:26 AM

      @Anyone who believes they know what the definition of a person is should read chapter XVI of Hobbes Leviathan. A free version is found here

      Apparently ALL the signers of ALL the Organic documents,The Law of the Land of our original U.S.of A. never read (red)chapter XVI of Hobbes Leviathan.

       
      • palani

        November 12, 2012 at 8:39 AM

        “Apparently ALL the signers of ALL the Organic documents,The Law of the Land of our original U.S.of A. never read (red)chapter XVI of Hobbes Leviathan.”

        Don

        My arrival on earth (when nothing first looked in a mirror and saw my reflection) occurred west of the Mississippi. Although there was some Spanish influence previously the organic law of this land is the Louisiana Purchase (a compact between France and the United States of America). This compact is an ACTION (two parties agreeing) and creates a PERSON. All PERSONs are fictional and tend to draw your attention away from the ACTION (or WORD or REPRESENTATION) that was the act of creation.

        The phrase “a natural PERSON” is intended to make you believe the ACTION, WORD or REPRESENTATION originated from flesh and blood. Adjectives ALWAYS tend to reduce the population. “Natural” is an adjective that reduces the population of “PERSON” being discussed but the distinction confuses rather than clarifies. The use of this particular word leads you to believe that you are discussing something found in nature; i.e., natural. In fact there is nothing natural about PERSONs. This is a concept entirely found in the mind of man.

        No matter what adjective is used to reduce the population of the TYPE of PERSON you are still using the concept of PERSON that does not include anything REAL or NATURAL but rather something OBSERVED (a word or action) or STATED (representation).

        Governments have always used these concepts. They might have no right to mess with flesh and blood people but they seem to like the idea of rewarding good actions and punishing bad. To them it is the action that is punished and not the man or woman who created the action.

         
      • Adask

        November 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM

        Perhaps the author of Hobbs’ Leviathan never read The Organic Law of The United States of America.

        Part of the point to this discussion is that our Founding Fathers created a new form of government (not a mere “republic” but the “republican form of government”) that was virtually unprecedented. The last time anyone saw a society where each individual was presumed to be directly under God and therefore something like what we currently call a “sovereign” was during the era of “Judges” in the Old Testament.

        The government proposed by our Founders is dramatically different from any other government known to exist in the past 2,000 years. As such, it may be a mistake to presume that the definitions and principles on which our organic government was based would, should or even could match the definitions and principles of all the other worldly governments for the past 2,000 years.

        So what if the Founders’ definition of “person” was not consistent with Chapter XVI of Hobbs’ Leviathan. Was Hobbs God? Were his words divinely inspired? Or were his words merely his opinion? If our Founders had an alternative opinion, which opinion should control you and me, today? What if I have my own definition and opinion of the meaning of the word “person”? If my definition differs from that of the Founders or of Hobbs, does that prove that my definition is necessarily wrong? Couldn’t I enter into a contract with any one of you wherein we both agreed to define the word “person” to mean “space alien” or some such? My definition of “person” might not work in all contexts, but it could apply in some contexts.

        Similarly, the definition of “person” provided by Hobbs’ Leviathan might work just fine in virtually every context–except within the context of “The United States of America”.

        It’s not true that “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” It’s also true that “it all depends on WHERE the meaning of ‘is’ is being applied.” Context matters. Within any particular context we can agree that any word means anything. Congress does it all the time. They include a section on definitions for each Title and even Chapter and even individual Section of the United States Code. A word that means one thing in the context of one law can mean something entirely different in the context of another law.

        My point is that definitions are all helpful, but, so far as I know, no earthly definition is “universal” and eternal. No definition from one context proves anything about the validity of a definition used in another context.

         
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 6:30 PM

      @A person is representation.
      Of WHAT ?? You cannot “represent ” yourself because you are yourself. “The representations examples you gave a long time ago were correct,e.g. Moses “representing” “God.” Every other example you gave was correct & proper too. I know Anon4fun disagrees with me saying you cannot represent yourself but I also told him we are not going to agree on everything. We are not robots.

       
      • palani

        November 12, 2012 at 8:48 AM

        “A person is representation.
        Of WHAT ”

        A representative is an agent. A judge is an agent. A prosecutor is an agent. In a courtroom you will find nothing but agents. There are no principals present … EVER. If you showed up and represented yourself as the defendant then you are an agent in a room of agents. You gave up any advantage you might have had as a principle by agreeing to be at the same level as everyone else.

        For myself I prefer to deal with principals. For agents “I am the eagle on the flagstaff”. There is nothing in the courtroom higher in elevation save ONE.

         
      • palani

        November 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM

        “Perhaps the author of Hobbs’ Leviathan never read The Organic Law of The United States of America.”

        He wouldn’t have had the opportunity. He passed away in 1679.

        I rely upon his chapter on the topic of “person” because it is the most rational. It is also the only definition I have found in which man/woman are not grouped with corporation. As asses are not yoked with oxen neither are real entities grouped with artificial. The adjective “natural” (as in natural person) attempts to blur the concept of “person” so that more people will view themselves as just another corporate entity.

        As to whether government is different in the U.S. of A. than anywhere else in the world … we rely upon the same Roman maxims as well as some additional maxims constructed during the common law era to navigate the rocks and shoals of relations between men. In an ideal world we would all be self-governing and be ideal States by so doing. External governments consisting of representative “agents” exist the benefit of a few special people. The U.S. of A. is no different from any other external government and fails the test of being able to limit their controls to those who truly need these controls; i.e., those who cannot govern themselves … the special ones.

        JÛS is soup.

        JÛS is “that which is conformable to the laws, right, law, justice”.

        You might say “JÛS” in a restaurant while I might say “JÛS” in a court of law. Will one of us get soup? Context is everything.

         
    • Don

      November 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM

      @To them it is the action that is punished and not the man or woman who created the action.

      So my “action” of excersing my unalienable right to the “enjoyment” of my unalienable right to travel via MY automobile & many other “unalienable right “actions” were sent to jail,not me huh?
      oh,ok. My actions have feelings & emotions,not me,huh? oh.

       
      • palani

        November 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

        “So my “action” of excersing my unalienable right to the “enjoyment” of my unalienable right to travel via MY automobile & many other “unalienable right “actions” were sent to jail,not me huh?
        oh,ok. My actions have feelings & emotions,not me,huh? oh.”

        I wasn’t there so really can’t say. I expect you failed to agree. Do all your “rights” bundled together trump your duty to respond honorably and reasonably?

         
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 3:14 PM

      Palani,You say you only deal with “principals.”

      Like in principalities and powers?

      I have a notion your place of abode is NOW in The State of Iowa. I thought before,it was in,The State of Louisiana. My first impression of you, was, you were a female, but Jose’ referred to you as a male. I was acquainted with an IT one time by the name of BUTCH. So,you never know. But, I do know that you ain’t gonna tell. Keep um guessing.

       
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 3:20 PM

      palani
      November 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM

      @ I wasn’t there so really can’t say.

      Most people would say: I wasn’t there so I don’t know.The reason they don’t know though,is because they are not all there. That’s the reason why I am here, IS because, well you know why.

      IT’S THE MEDICATION.

       
  22. Harry

    November 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM

    My understanding is that there are two types of persons – i.e. natural and artificial.

    Therefore, the word “person” cannot be synonymous with “man” because there is no such thing as an “artificial” man while there are “artificial persons.”. Yes, a “person” is a man or woman CONSIDERED [i.e. presumed] according to the rank he holds in society but that consideration or presumpsion depend on upon the rights and duties ascribed to him.

    It is the rights, duties, capacities and in-capacities which DETERMINE a PERSON to a given CLASS of persons. So, an individual man or woman would have to know the rights, duties, capacities and in-capacitie ascribed to them in order to know into what class of persons they fall.

    Most state constitutions declare that all MEN are BORN equally free and independent. One of the definitions of the word “independent” is “self-governing.” So how does a man or woman born free and self-governing become a “peson” born SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the United States federal government?

    “Citizens” are MEMBERS of a POLITICAL COMMUNITY [“community in the civil law means corporation or body politic] who, IN their ASSOCIATED capacity, have established or SUBMITTED THEMSELVES to the DOMINION {“dominion” means “absolute ownership”] of a government FOR the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.” Black’s 6th

    Amendment 14 citizens are “PERSONS” born SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the US federal government. How did these “persons” become “subjects?”

    I would think one would have to be born in territory under the exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United States federal government in order to be subject to its jurisdiction for citizenship purposes.

    “The citizen cannot complain, BECAUSE he has VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED HIMSELF to such a form of government. …. he OWES ALLEGIANCE to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties.” 115 U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) A post Amendment 14 Supreme Court case.

    In regard buying property with Fed Notes and to only being able to convey or sell to another what we ourselves hold, please considere the following.

    At http://www.balticbankinggroup.com/bbgdicionary/Title.htm we read:

    “To convey a title the seller must himself have a title to the property which is the subject of the transfer. BUT, to this GENERAL RULE there are EXCEPTIONS. 1. The lawful coin of the United States will pass the property along with the [acutal] possession. 2. A negotiable instrument endorsed in blank is transferable by any person holding it, so as by its delivery to give a good title “to any person honestly acquiring it.”

    At http://www.investorwords.com/2733/lawful_money.html we read:

    lawful money. Definition – Any money (coin or paper) that is issued directly by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System – this includes gold and silver coin, Notes, Bonds, etc.

    At http//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citizen we read:

    citizen. 1. an inhabitant of a city or town; especially one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman. 2a – a member of a state 2b – a native or naturalized PERSON who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it 3. a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state

    It appears a man or woman can live, move and have their being as a freeman and an inhabitant without being a “member” of a state or body politic and as such would not owes allegiance to the government since allegiance is a political obligation.

    SUBJECT. One who owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. … Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. Websters The term [i.e. “subject”] is little used in THIS SENSE in countries enjoying a REPUBLICAN FORM of government. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th edition.

    We have a “democracy” within a “republic” today and it looks like we must declare in which of these two forms of governemnt we wish to stand.

    ALLEGIANCE. Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection. … Allegiance is a comparatively modern corruption of ligeance, which is derived from liege meaning absolute or unqualified. It signified originaly liege FIELTY, 1. ABSOLUTE AND UNQUALIFIED FEALTY

    In Ferguson v. Mason (1884) we read: Regarding allodial land ownership, the court quoted the constitution and added its own commentary: “That is to say, the owner of land in this state holds the same of no superior. He has absolute dominion over it, owing no rent, service, or FEALTY to any, on account THEREOF. His OBLIGATION OF FEALTY to the government is an obligation ARISING out of his citizenship, and is no greater or different because he is a proprietor also.

    So it appears that the feudal system is still in effect in America, at least it is for some class of citizens who have an obligation of FEALTY to the government. I would guess citizens of the Amendment 14 type are the persons who owe this allegance or fealty to the governemnt.

    So what is your “status?” Where do you stand. What is you estate? What are the conditions and circumstance in which you stand with regard to your property? How can we obtain answers to these questions?

    In American Law, natural allegience is the allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and also from naturalized citizens, and which allegiancecannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law. It is said to be due to the king in his political, not his personal capacity; quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 663, 18 Sup.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890

    And so, in the United States “it [i.e. natural allegience] is a politic obligation” depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492; and it “binds the citizen to the observance of all laws” of his own sovereign. Adams v. People, 1 N.Y. 173

    “Protection draws subjection; subjection protection.” Maxim of Law

    “Under our system the PEOPLE, who are there [England] called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not BOUND to give way to a sentiment of loyalty [allegiance] to the person of a monarch. The citizen HERE [state citizen I assume] knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which THE LAW SECURES to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, has ESTABLISHED his RIGHT TO PROPERTY, there is no reason why deference to any person, NATURAL or ARTIFICIAL, not even the United States, should prevent him from USING the means which THE LAW GIVES him for the PROTECTION and enforcement of that right [to property]. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 208-9 (1882)

    Who are the “persons” in view in Amendment 14?

    “The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well know, was to confer upon the colored race the rigth of citizenship.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 692

    “… he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State…” “One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States.” McConel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

    “A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” Kitchens v. Steele, 112 R.Supp 383

    “… rights of national citizenship as DISTINCT from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship” Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83; 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

    Are these court cases still valid? Do we have a choice as to which class of citizenship we wish to enjoy, can we remain unassociated and live as free inhabitants? Is US citizenship exclusively for the colored race? Are “white citizens” a different class of citizens [i.e. state citizens] from “citizens of the United States?”

    Questions, questions and more questions.

    .

     
  23. Anon4fun

    November 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM

    palani: “A person is not flesh and blood.”

    This only means the 14th Amendment refers to something other than Leviathan’s persons. The 14th Amendment’s persons are born. Nothing that is not flesh and blood is born. Writing legislation in standard American legalese, rather than using definitions by Hobbes, is not evidence of an attempt to deceive.

     
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

      HEE-HAW

       
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 6:18 PM

      @Nothing that is not flesh and blood is born.

      Most people who read this statement do not see the “not.” They see it like this:Nothing that is flesh and blood is born. This even makes it knottier.But,nuttier foaks like me do not seem to not notice the KNOTS.It matters not,either way.

       
    • palani

      November 12, 2012 at 9:00 AM

      “This only means the 14th Amendment refers to something other than Leviathan’s persons. The 14th Amendment’s persons are born. Nothing that is not flesh and blood is born.”

      Legislative license.

       
  24. Mike Scott

    November 12, 2012 at 1:25 AM

    @Anon4fun

    >> Mike Scott: “A trust created by the Social Security Administration.”

    >> Do you have actual evidence that such a trust was ever “born” in the United States? If so, please cite it here. Also, who was the mother?

    >> Born. Act of being delivered or expelled from mother’s body, whether or not placenta has been separated or cord cut. (Black’s 6th)

    I know that when the legal profession wants to re-define some word in common English usage in some bizarre way in its’ ongoing continuous attempt to rape “We the People,” such definition usually finds its way to Black’s Law Dictionary, but I know of no rule that says that they cannot use English words in their more commonly defined meaning when they so choose…

    My Oxford Universal Dictionary published February, 1933, gives several definitions, the first two are… 1) To be brought forth as offspring; 2) To come into existence.

    I received from my parents, one old, yellowed, original certified “birth certificate” in the name of “Mike Scott”.

    Later I believed I should have several extra spare copies, so I requested another “birth certificate” and it came with the name printed “MIKE SCOTT”… also after my son was “born” I was mailed a “birth certificate” with the name printed “JACK SCOTT.”

    I now know, of course, that the ALL-CAPS name is NOT my name, nor his name.

    Those last two documents are Certified, and would be considered by any gov-co court as Evidence of “birth.”

    I wonder how they would react to being presented with the first one… ?

    “STATE OF FLORIDA” is a corporation, owned by the corporation “UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, which is owned by the “INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.”

    “UNITED STATES” means the 10-mile-square District of Columbia and the territories that it owns. As Alfred has pointed out, “this state” means a territory of the UNITED STATES.

    If a trust was created by the Social Security Administration, rest assured that it is deemed to have happened in the District of Columbia, even if some branch office of theirs had something to do with its’ creation.

    Something born under definition (2) above, might not necessarily have a “mother.”

    Also, if you want, jump over to the article titled

    “Does your ID Identify You–Or the “state” You “Identify With”?

    and find my comment there, near the bottom; I’m not going to copy the whole thing over here… the procedure I describe therein, I HAVE DONE, and the Social Security Administration has not raised an objection – now they are time-barred, so now they can’t.

     
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 3:07 PM

      Hi Mike,

      Yes! Black Robes & Black’s Law dictionary do go hand N hand very well. The COLOR, like in “color of law” if nothing else should tell us something, we should be aware of. SURE, there some true definitions but this is to build CONfidence in the remaining definitions for the unaware of’s. I know you, Mike know this. I always try to say things for the unaware.There are newcomers. I am aware also, that there are other “observers” & commentators that have forgotten more than I’ll ever know about most subject matter. Thank you for your post, Mike. אני אוהבת אותך

       
  25. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 4:47 PM

    @In a courtroom you will find nothing but agents.
    @“I am the eagle on the flagstaff”.
    @ONE.
    @I rely upon his chapter on the topic of “person” because it is the most rational.
    Where are all the “Subjects?”
    The Eagle is a.k.a. A Scavenger.
    Then, the Courtroom will be empty except for “You.”
    Rational & Irrational doesn’t mix together very well.
    I’m glad the Supreme Judge of the Universe is not a respecter of “persons” e.g. If I am rich & you are poor & I have injured you, he will see to it that I suffer the consequences. He is not a respecter of “persons” in that sense.

     
    • palani

      November 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM

      Where are all the “Subjects?” … ?????????
      The Eagle is a.k.a. A Scavenger. ….. It is still above the flag.
      Then, the Courtroom will be empty except for “You.” ………… ????????????
      Rational & Irrational doesn’t mix together very well………. ???????????

      Don

      TAKE YOUR MEDICATION

       
      • Don

        November 13, 2012 at 6:28 PM

        Rational & Irrational doesn’t mix together very well………. ???????????

        I should have known better than to send this to you,i.e. rational & Irrational doesn’t mix together very well because I should have known it would only confuse you,i.e. not make ANY sense,to you.
        אני אוהבת אותך

         
      • Don

        November 13, 2012 at 9:43 PM

        @TAKE YOUR MEDICATION

        I don’t believe in taking “Drugs.” If you had said, Don, be a good little boy now & take your Melatonin, I would have said,ok, thanks. I do take Melatonin, but I do so, too many times too late. I am a SLAVE to this Alfred Adask website. Slavery is not overwith.אני אוהבת אותך

         
  26. mAximo

    November 17, 2012 at 4:57 AM

    There IS a distinct difference between “the States” & “the People”
    in that prior to E Pluribus Unum, the former existed whereas the
    latter did not. That’s why it seemed to me that the Preamble to
    the Consitution started off with a constructive fraud. It puts
    the cart before the horse, but even if one overlooks that minor
    oversight, then “the People” are the grantors of the trust. The
    Preamble is also clear that the trust is “for the United States
    of America” – consisting of many “Peoples” rather than a unitary
    “People” that only came about after the “U.S.” was created as the
    fiduciary. Otherwise, one might even argue that it’s not the U.S.
    who’s the fiduciary, but the People, i.e. the pre-14th “citizens
    of the U.S.” who granted the trust, if one’s going to accept the
    presumptive oversight.

     
  27. Anon4fun

    November 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM

    “We the People”

    A singular entity. There is no reference to a plural “Peoples” of the United States in any founding document of this country. The People of the United States (not necessarily in those exact words) is always singular. That I know of, at least. If I’m wrong, someone can specifically cite where to find an exception, and we’ll see how relevant it is.

    “in Order to . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

    This explicit statement of purpose makes the People the beneficiaries of the Constitution.

    “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    The use of the word “for” here does not imply “for the benefit of.” Out of context, it could be a way of saying that. However, since the beneficiary has already been identified as the party known as the People, and the People are not the United States of America, logic requires us to interpret “for” in another of the available senses.

    for – used as a function word to indicate the object or recipient of a perception, desire, or activity (Merriam-Webster)

    This definition will do. The Constitution was ordained and established “for,” meaning “with the object or recipient being,” the United States of America. See also what Benjamin Curtis, Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote in 1857:

    ‘Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution can have been no other than citizens of the United States under the Confederation. By the Articles of Confederation, a Government was organized, the style whereof was “The United States of America.” This Government was in existence when the Constitution was framed and proposed for adoption, and was to be superseded by the new Government of the United States of America, organized under the Constitution. When, therefore, the Constitution speaks of citizenship of the United States existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it must necessarily refer to citizenship under the Government which existed prior to and at the time of such adoption.’

     
    • Adask

      November 17, 2012 at 2:06 PM

      “People” is an ambiguous term in that we might speak of “Americans” as “one people”–even though that “people” is composed of 310 million individual men and women. I suspect that “people” always refers to a specific classification based on some political, social or geographical affinity. For example, we could have the “people of Dallas,” or the “people of Texas,” or the “people of The United States of America” or the “people of the world”. One man or millions of men might simultaneously be a member (or members) of each of those “people”/(groups?).

      The reason I’m considering the meaning of “people” is that I am very wary of your definition of “people” as “A singular entity”. For me, “a singular entity” sound very much like a “collective” and I am absolutely opposed to being considered as a member of a “collective”. I am convinced that under a “republican form of government,” “We the People” are sovereigns (plural) in the capacity of individual men and women who are each made in God’s image, each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and each therefore an individual sovereign. If we combined the populations of all 50 States of the Union (which each have their own “republican form of government”), we’d have 310 million, individual sovereigns.

      However, in a democracy, “We the People” are also sovereign (singular) in the capacity of a singular collective. The “collective” is the one and only sovereign. We the People who comprise the collective are just cogs in the wheel. As constituents in a democracy, we have no God-given, unalienable Righs; we are not individual sovereigns; whatever rights we have are man-made and “civil”; our primary right as members of the democracy is the right to vote. The will of the singular sovereign–the “collective”–is deemed to be expressed by virtue of the votes of the majority in any election. I refuse to be part of any collective since I believe that joining a singular collective effectively cancels my standing as an individual sovereign. (It may well be that taking a voter’s registration card is deemed evidence of being a member of the democracy and thus merely a faceless “cog” rather than an individual “sovereign”.)

      Therefore, I am extremely wary of accepting your definition of “people” as a “singular entity” because that definition sounds too much like a collective.

      For me, the “We” in “We the People” makes clear that that “People” are plural. I have no doubt that as a members of “We the People,” you and I are each still recognized as individual men made in God’s image who are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and therefore each sovereign. However, I’m wary that “The People” might signify “singular entity”. The word “people” (all by itself) might be singular. I will not normally accept the presumption that I am a member of a “singular entity” if that entity might be deemed a collective since I believe that by doing so, I agree to act in the capacity of a non-sovereign.

      I don’t see “We the People” as a “singular entity”. I see it merely as a classification that describes millions of individual men and women. Remember that the Preamble to the national Constitution does not simply refer to “We the People”–it refers to “We the People of the United States“. I think that’s an unfortunate word choice. It would’ve been much more easily understood if they’d written “We the People of The United States of America” (which classification actually existed at the time the Constitution was proposed and then ratified. I have no doubt that “We the People of the United States” was intended to mean “We the People of the [several] United States” and/or “We the People of The United States of America”. In any case, “We the People of the United States”–as originally written–was not intended to describe or create a “singular entity”. That “People” were several millions operating in their individual capacities as “sovereigns” rather than as mere cogs in a singular entity.

      Lastly, can you specify the case cite for the A.D. 1857 quote you attributed to Justice Curtis? Did Justice Curtis speak for the majority or is his comment part of a dissent?

       
    • mAximo

      December 1, 2012 at 2:03 AM

      The Unum refers to One Nation, so it’s natural to presume that it has One
      People, and in that sense singular, but still seemed presumptive at the
      very least, until it occurred to me that the Preamble was likely written
      after the 9th State ratified the Constitution to create the One People.

       
  28. palani

    November 17, 2012 at 11:00 AM

    “it must necessarily refer to citizenship under the Government which existed prior to and at the time of such adoption”

    In the beginning … everyone started as inhabitants. But then this is an office as well. I doubt if any inhabitants were colored so rightly this office could only be occupied by white people. Indians and colored folk were excluded from government and could not even testify. [Not bigoted … just pointing out the situation at the time of the countries founding]

    The office of inhabitant was not equal to that of citizen. In Pennsylvania the proof of citizenship was paying taxes (provided you were born there) (and were white).

     
  29. Anon4fun

    November 17, 2012 at 11:30 AM

    palani: “Indians and colored folk were excluded from government and could not even testify.”

    Can you cite a source for this statement? I prefer to stay close to sources, just so no one gets the impression that anyone is making things up as needed for propaganda purposes.

    The previously quoted commentary by Benjamin Curtis, Justice of the Supreme court, continues:

    To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of either of the States under the Confederation at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.

    (end quote)

     
  30. palani

    November 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM

    “Can you cite a source for this statement?”

    http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm under the heading CITIZEN, PERSONS
    “In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.”

    Further on
    “All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.”

    There are case cites above so I will rely upon you to do your own due diligence. Make no mistake though. The Several States might have people of an off-white color as citizens but they would still not qualify as citizens of the United States. The principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis still are in effect, the one pertaining to rights of the soil (place of birth) and the other to family. These principles hold true for colored as well as white.

     
  31. Cody

    November 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM

    At one time during my early years of trying to unravel the fur-ball we call governemnt domination, a learned man told me that “white” referred to a status at common law that meant “free.” Therefore to be “white” was not necessarily Caucasian but a free man and not a slave or subject.
    He had a US Supreme Court case that he cited. I have forgotten the name of the case, though.
    I do recall that the Declaration of Independence does say “all men are created equal.” So, because the word “women” was excluded does that mean they are not “equal”? That would miss the point entirely. What is worth noting is that US citizenship is some kind of 4th nation citizenship. Anyone who has travelled to Mexico knows there is not parity of rights for a “US citizen.” Try getting some due process down there and see how fast that gets you out of jail. I won’t be free.

     
    • mAximo

      December 1, 2012 at 2:30 AM

      So it seems that because States had the right to limit citizenship on
      account of race, that the US could only confer US citizenship on the
      set of people that all States agreed upon to be State citizens. Women
      are created equal among themselves, but were not created equal to men.
      Thus, it was lawful not to grant them the right to vote, nor require
      them to serve in the military. If you go to Mexico as a member of the
      Apaches, you might enjoy treatment superior not only to US citizens,
      but Mexican citizens as well, due to treaty rights that they might
      have there.

       
  32. Cody

    November 17, 2012 at 3:20 PM

    *It won’t be free…

     
  33. palani

    November 17, 2012 at 3:25 PM

    “to be “white” was not necessarily Caucasian but a free man and not a slave or subject”

    I agree. White should not be taken as skin pigmentation but rather a status that is available to any man woman or child. However the references to slave status or aborigines (red man) tends to imply skin color is more important than status.

    I would like to see that supreme court cite if anyone knows of it.

     
  34. Anon4fun

    November 17, 2012 at 3:45 PM

    Adask:

    {The reason I’m considering the meaning of “people” is that I am very wary of your definition of “people” as “A singular entity”. For me, “a singular entity” sound very much like a “collective” and I am absolutely opposed to being considered as a member of a “collective”.}

    Very well, but this is not about your preferences. Nor is it about my definitions. This is about the intended meaning of the authors of the documents in question. The word “People” has a singular form. This is simply a fact of grammar, of which we can hardly assume the founders were ignorant.

    {I am convinced that under a “republican form of government,” “We the People” are sovereigns (plural) in the capacity of individual men and women who are each made in God’s image, each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and each therefore an individual sovereign.}

    The Declaration of Independence, the same documents that recognizes man’s God-given rights, refers to Americans as “one people.” Recognizing this as a collective designation simply means one knows how to read English. It has nothing to do with wanting to join a “collective” (and whatever tendencies this implies).

    In the same document: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” This “Right of the People” is a collective right. It is a singular property of a singular entity. Again, not because I prefer it this way. It is simply what the text says.

    The grammatically singular entity known as “We the People” is who makes the laws in this country. This is a fundamental characteristic of sovereignty, which is not contradicted by the individual man having a higher level of sovereignty in that certain of his rights are unalienable by “We the People.” It is not an either-or situation.

    The Creator has the highest sovereignty. There is a hierarchy of sovereignty, otherwise no man or institution could claim it without causing a conflict with God.

    {Lastly, can you specify the case cite for the A.D. 1857 quote you attributed to Justice Curtis? Did Justice Curtis speak for the majority or is his comment part of a dissent?}

    There is no case cite for the quote from Benjamin Curtis. I reference it merely as competent opinion from a judge on the Supreme Court, subject to refutation by something more authoritative (which no one is likely to produce). It was part of his commentary included in the obiter dictum issued by the Supreme Court after they denied their own jurisdiction to rule on the matter in question (Dred Scott v. Sandford). If he was confident enough to say, on the record, that the descendants of African slaves were, at the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation “not only citizens of [the] States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens,” I’m inclined to take his word on it, pending something more substantial (which ain’t gonna happen).

     
  35. Cody

    November 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM

    Is it possible that “We the People” refers to a collective within the aggregate population? I.e. those that actually fought for or supported the separation of the colonies from Britain so that they could attain the status of “Free and Independent States.”

    If so, then “We the People” may constitutite a very small portion of the population. I suspect this may be the case. It is probably why there is only a very small portion of the population that can articulate what “Freedom” is.

    There is no need to argue whether or not we are now either slaves dreaming of freedom or free men escaping enslavement. It makes the would be slavemasters nervous that we are even discussing the very mention of Liberty apart from their system. Their false indignation proves we are on the right path. Even if we are not precisely correct about every term.

    It’s a good thing we are not translating Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic into American English. We have a hard enough time understanding how to translate “legalese” into English. So, how many Greeks, Hebrews and Aramaics were Caucasian? There is a Sumerian symbol for “Liberty.” Are those guys a bunch of “Dead White men” too?

     
  36. palani

    November 17, 2012 at 5:11 PM

    A precedence has been set regarding the Declaration of Independence. As there were late signers permitted on the original of this document then anyone who today chooses to have their name appended to the Declaration of Independence may do so. All it takes is a legal notice in the paper. If signers of the Declaration of Independence may be regarded as “We the People” then this is all it takes.

     
  37. Anon4fun

    November 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM

    Cody >>Is it possible that “We the People” refers to a collective within the aggregate population?

    Since those who signed the Declaration and the Constitution did so in the capacity of representatives of the States, we don’t have to speculate about this. The “we” that refers to “one people” and “a free people” in the Declaration, and “the People” in the Constitution, could only refer to the State citizens whom the signers represented.

     
  38. Cody

    November 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

    Anon,
    Then the question remains, if the signers did so in the capacity of the representatives of the States, did they do so with the consent of the People they represented or with the consent of the aggregate population of eligible electors of their states.

    It is often quoted these days that only three percent of the population of the former colonies actually participated in or supported separation from Britain. Bearing that in mind, I’m trying to keep my questions and specualtion within the definitions of Al’s “state vs. State” definitions.(I do think Al is correct in his diagnosis of the governmental paradigm). I also think there is a derivative of the two. Kind of like in the Matrix.

    We tend to think of certain ideas being mutually exclusive of one another. Maybe they are not. Is it possible for a “free” man to act in different capacities or “offices” depending upon the need? Is it possible that we can unintentionally allow the one to dominate the other at the expense of one or the other? I’d be willing to say that for now, we will be forced to live in one world while we dream about the other. Remember the children of Israel while they were following Moses? There were times they exulted in their freedom but despised its very blessing. Much worse they despised the Blesser. Or is that the Blessor?

    By the way; wherer are all the votes for this article?

     
  39. Anon4fun

    November 17, 2012 at 8:12 PM

    Cody:

    This is a difficult question, because there are varieties of consent involved in elective government. Firstly, consent is an individual property, whereas the election of State representatives is a group action. So we’re already talking apples and oranges. Who caused John Hancock to be the representative of Massachusetts? No one in their individual capacity, therefore it was not a function of individual sovereignty. Rather, this entity known as “the people” was responsible through the collective legal mechanisms that give it the appearance of life. Possibly only a minority of men and women in Massachusetts wanted what John Hancock did as the instrument of the will of its people.

    Maybe this is imperfect, but it’s a big improvement over the no-vote “trust us, we’re the wealthy and/or powerful” systems that preceded it.

    Adask:

    {I agree. But who were the authors of the Constitution?}

    The signers were the authors.

    Just like when you are the only signer of a government document. Those are your words in the most important sense: by adoption, in that your intent controls their meaning.

    {As I tried to explain in my previous response, “people” might be singular, but by adding the word “We” to “the People,” they clearly implied the existence of a plural “people”}

    Not so clearly, I think.

    The “People” is a corporate entity, a corporate body. The “We” are the living beings who constitute it. The plurality of the “We” does not control the singularity of the “People.”

    Also, as already cited, other uses of “people” occur in both the Declaration and the Constitution to indicate singularity. There are multiple confirmations on this one.

    {You imply that even after editing a magazine for 12 years, I still don’t know how to read English. You may be right.}

    What? I ask that you be very slow to read such meanings into my posts. I prefer to not walk on eggshells. Thank you.

    For some reason, possibly my own limitations in reading English, I don’t get the relevance of the 1828 definition of “collective.” Your modern Merriam-Webster Dictionary is sufficient for these purposes. Let’s just go with definition 1: “denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole.” That is what I mean by saying the founders considered “the People” to be a collective entity, or “party” in the legal sense. So I ask that you put aside whatever concerns you may have about definition 3b, as it is not the least bit relevant here.

     
  40. Cody

    December 10, 2012 at 12:35 AM

    “The 14th Amendment, it is observed by Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, removed the doubt whether there could be a citizenship of the United States independent of citizenship of the state, by recognizing or creating and defining the former. ‘It is quite clear, then,’ he proceeds to say (p. 74), ‘that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.’ The description of the privileges and immunities of state citizenship, given by Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230, is then quoted, approved, and said to include ‘those rights which are fundamental,’ to embrace ‘nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted,’ and ‘to be the class of rights which the state governments were created to establish and secure.’ This part of the opinion then concludes with the holding that the rights relied upon in the case are those which belong to the citizens of states, as such, and are under the sole care and protection of the state governments. The conclusion is preceded by the important declaration that the civil rights theretofore appertaining to citizenship of the states [211 U.S. 78, 95] and under the protection of the states were not given the security of national protection by this clause of the 14th Amendment.”

    Twining vs. New Jersey 1908, 211 US 78

    http://www.constitution.org/ussc/211-078a.htm

     
    • Adask

      December 10, 2012 at 1:04 AM

      This implies that if the governments of the States of the Union were disabled, there might be no governmental entity responsible for protecting our most “fundamental” rights.

      I have argued much the same conclusion insofar as I’ve argued that 1) Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of the federal Constitution declares in part that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”; 2) by removing gold (A.D. 1933) and then silver (A.D. 1964-1968) from domestic circulation, the National government rendered the governments of the States of the Union insolvent and unable to continue to function; 3) in the absence of the former governments of the States of the Union, those constitutional governments were supplanted by administrative agencies of the newly-presumed “territories” of TX, CA, NY, etc..

      Do you see any governmental entity that still protects our most “fundamental” rights? I do not. That’s not proof that my conclusion about States of the Union being supplanted by administrative territories are correct. But is evidence that my conclusion might be correct.

       
      • Cody

        December 12, 2012 at 12:38 AM

        According to the Arizona Constitution, it’s the responsibility of the people to ensure governments are doing their job.

        “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”Art 2 Sect. 2

        Then again it must “depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.”

         
  41. Teresa Nolivo

    February 11, 2013 at 9:36 PM

    FIRST OF ALL I OBJECT TO THIS AMENDMENT! I DO NOT COMPLY! IF OUR RIGHTS WERE GIVEN TO US BY GOD AND WE WERE BORN WITH THEM AND THEY CANNOT BE SOLD, GIVEN AWAY, TAKEN AWAY, THEN THEY CANNOT BE CONTRACTED AWAY!

    THIS POST WAR AMENDMENT IS NONE AND VOID. ITS IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS.. SO THAT AMENDMENT HAS ONLY ONE PURPOSE AND THAT IS TO GIVE OUR GOVERNMENT SOMETHING TO READ WHILE ON DOWN TIME. WE DON’T PAY THEM TO SLACK. ANY LAW THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ISN’T A LAW. IT IS YOUR DUTY AS AN AMERICAN TO DISOBEY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. DO NOT FAIL YOUR COUNTRY. I THINK I HEARD THIS SOME PLACE BEFORE A THING THAT SAYS WE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS GOVERNMENT AND UNMAKE IT AND MAKE A NEW ONE TO OUR LIKING..ABE SAID THAT JUST IN DIFFERENT WORDS.

    I LOVE THIS BLOG…. I HAVE SHARED IT WITH EVERYONE

     
    • Adask

      February 12, 2013 at 12:16 AM

      Thank you. I appreciate your support.

       
  42. Adrian

    June 24, 2013 at 12:29 PM

    The 14th is part of the Constitution.We the Earthlinks are not part of that paper. Remember the Law of the Land: from dust to dust. We live on the Land as a matter of natural right.In order to express this right we must fight all our enemies. Survival of the fittest. Come back to reality,get out of illusion!

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s