RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: Thomas Jefferson; Definitions of “United States”; Buying & Closing Gun Manufactures?; more.

03 Mar

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

 
193 Comments

Posted by on March 3, 2015 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags:

193 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Thomas Jefferson; Definitions of “United States”; Buying & Closing Gun Manufactures?; more.

  1. Roger

    March 3, 2015 at 6:58 PM

    “The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”

    – Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

    The bolded part is curious because the term “United States” appears in a definition of the term “United States”.

    Well, whatever. This ruling is often cited as affirming three senses of “United States”:

    1. a sovereign nation

    2. a territory

    3. the states, collectively

    Of educational value to readers of this blog is how the same ruling uses the term “territory” in the following excerpts:

    “Implicit in this argument is the contention that the Philippines, while belonging to the United States as a sovereign, are not part of it, and that merchandise brought from the Philippines is an import because it originates outside of, and is brought into, the territory comprising the several states which are united under and by the Constitution, territory in which the constitutional prohibition against the state taxation of imports is alone applicable.”

    “It follows that articles brought from the Philippines into the United States are imports in the sense that they are brought from territory which is not a part of the United States into the territory of the United States, organized by and under the Constitution, where alone the import clause of the Constitution is applicable.”

     
    • Toland

      March 3, 2015 at 9:33 PM

      It seems this triple definition of “United States” isn’t telling us anything that wasn’t already obvious.

      Virtually every name of a “sovereign nation” also refers to a “territory” in another sense. For example, the term “Canada” refers to both a “sovereign nation” and a “territory”. The term “France” refers to both a “sovereign nation” and a “territory”. Etc.

      As to the term “United States” referring to “the states, collectively”, I’d say: of course. That’s where the name “United States” came from. Similarly, the official name of the nation to our south is “Estados Unidos Mexicanos”, which translates to the “United States of Mexico”.

       
      • Roger

        March 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM

        I’d suppose the term “United States” is made legally sufficient to indicate the nation by its use in the Preamble, where also “United States of America” is established as the proper name of the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

         
      • Toland

        March 4, 2015 at 5:32 PM

        Yeah, and look at the heading under which the U.S. Code includes the Constitution as part of the organic law. I did a copy & paste of it below.

        Here the precise name of the country (emphasis added) agrees with the Preamble to the Constitution, as we would expect – though take detailed note of the entire phrase in quotes, because this topic is part the larger disinformation campaign to misdirect honest patriots into ineffective, and often downright dangerous, nonsense.

        “The Organic Laws of the United States of America

         
      • Roger

        March 4, 2015 at 7:14 PM

        Good catch, Toland.

        By way of confirmation, the Constitution closes by repeating the precise name of the nation (in its twelfth year of independence) where the Constitution has jurisdiction:

        “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven, and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names….”

        So yeah, if you wanna claim your constitutional rights, get that name right. Precisely right. Study it closely, memorize every letter of it, and be not led into the ditch by the hypocrite deceivers.

         
      • Toland

        March 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM

        Hello, that’s a significant detail.

        In the paragraph you just quoted, the Constitution specifically informs us that this “United States of America” for which the Founders are establishing a government is the same entity that became independent in 1776.

        Bingo.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 10, 2015 at 2:37 AM

      @ Well, whatever. This ruling is often cited as affirming three senses of “United States”:

      1. a sovereign nation
      2. a territory
      3. the states, collectively

      #1, today, means those who comprise gov-co with different degrees of authority, i.e.,e.g. Family, with the Legislators being Daddy, & the Executors enforcing the legislation & the S.Ct. is window dressing at best deciding Inc.unit disputes.
      #2. Just another word for one of Daddy’s children.
      #3. Supervised units of Daddy

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 10, 2015 at 2:44 AM

      Roger, et.al., check this out.
      Vox Populi sculpture (ca. 1996) at the Internal Revenue Service …

      Vox Populi sculpture (ca. 1996) at the Internal Revenue Service Headquarters in
      New Carrollton, Maryland near Washington, D.C. by Larry Kirkwood located in …

      http://www.dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0002944.htm- 16k -Cached – Similar Pages

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM

        Strange that I went to the webpage, clicked on the link showing below, >http://www.dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0002944.htm- & the site came up. But after I cut & paste the link & post it here on this blog, & clicking on the link here, a page appears that says it’s no longer available. Hmmmmmmm. It was available 5 minutes ago.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 11, 2015 at 1:59 PM

      Hi Roger,
      The dissenting opinions in the Hooven & Allison case make sense to me.

      ANYWAY, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.

      In Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 442, Marshall, C.J., pointedly rejected the argument that the rule announced in that case would permit an importer “to bring in goods . . . for his own use, and thus retain much valuable property exempt from taxation.”[1] Today, this Court, 687*687 in holding that an Ohio manufacturer may escape payment of a non-discriminatory state ad valorem tax on goods imported from abroad and held for use in its factory, interprets Marshall’s opinion in a manner which squarely conflicts with his own interpretation of the rule he announced.

      Take a look at George Washington’s precedents and see if the US is following them today. Nope.

       
  2. Nat Stuckey

    March 3, 2015 at 8:54 PM

    What is Colin & his co-hort/heart, Lawernce Kenemore Jr, response to Roger’s post of, March 3, 2015 at 6:58 PM ???

     
    • Colin

      March 3, 2015 at 9:59 PM

      I think Toland already responded perfectly well. So what? Words can be homonyms. “United States” can mean one of several different things, as can “territory.” That doesn’t mean that the words can mean anything, or that the flexibility supports any possible imagined use of the words. If you aren’t certain how a word is being used, you test for things like logical consistency of the application and parallelism. And if your preferred interpretation is a huge leap that overturns centuries of basic American law, like the idea that there are shadow territories overlapping the states, you might look for some precedent or authoritative source that’s even remotely consistent with such a bold and bizarre declaration.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 3, 2015 at 10:18 PM

        Colin ALL these United States definitions did not exist until AFTER the WAR Amendments came to be AND IT’S the WAY they came to be especially the 14th that is horrible. Treasonous traitors, they WERE /ARE, i.e., the 39th & ON Congresses BECAUSE they are following the lead of the 39th Congress, no ifs ands or buts.

         
      • Colin

        March 3, 2015 at 10:36 PM

        Uh, what? From the very beginning, “United States” could refer at least to the various states, the federal entity that comprised their union, and the area of land within the jurisdiction of that union. Those definitions are inherent to language, and didn’t come about from any amendments, war or otherwise.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 1:40 AM

        Colin, do you see the year of the Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt case? It’s 1945. This means the

        year of 1945. I do not recall the top court ever saying what comprised the term, United States,

        BEFORE that year, & I’m sure there were/are reasons for the S.Ct. to say what was said. It is my

        understanding that originally, the United States of America meant the several States. It is my

        understanding that originally, these States were aka, Nations. Things have changed. Here we are

        trying to figure out what has changed in 150 + years. AND, I SAID, in my prior message that, > ALL

        these United States definitions did not exist until AFTER the WAR Amendments. In other words,

        The TERM, United States has taken on NEWER meanings than the original meanings BEFORE the

        13th Amendment, & I also say this is due to what is called “Appropriate Legislation” of/in the WAR

        Amendments & other added Amendments after the 15th Amendment. I am double spacing this to

        hopefully make it easier to SEE & read. Can’t help it if it’s not understood. Any sensible correction

        from anybody will be appreciated. Btw, you said in a prior comment that, who was it you said did not

        ride a dragon to work? I disagree. I think they do ride a dragon to work, OR, the dragon gives them

        a ride to work. Anyway, the devil IS in the details.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 11:30 PM

        P.S. I apologize for losing my temper a few times. I thought you were goading, at times. I’ll say this tho, I have seen some things take place in the courts that left me absolutely speechless, literally. I think about those things a lot. Wish I knew how not to.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 11:56 PM

        Didn’t realize that you had. No hard feelings I hope!

         
      • pesky nat

        March 22, 2015 at 10:16 AM

        Dear Colin,
        What does, Tacit Procuration, mean? Will ya give a couple examples on how it works, it’s purpose, etc. Thanks.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 30, 2015 at 5:46 PM

        Colin The S.Ct. SAID, VERBATIM, It is true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, 72*72 mentions the negro by speaking of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth.

        NOW, YOU are saying the S.Ct. is saying, each of the other articles,13th & 14th was addressed to all races, creeds, all people, & the grievances of ALL races,colors, creeds. You are saying, THAT RACE, means, all races, creeds, colors, all people ?? THAT RACE, MEANS THIS?? I don’t get it. That Race means ALL races. wow. I just don’t get it, Negroes mean, White people? My Mother & Father were NOT NEGROES. Anyway, is there a good chance I may be able to sue & prevail in any Court for deception, etc., for being misled in that I purchased a can of Frijoles Negro Beans, & I wanted Navy beans. Navy beans are a white pea bean.Because of my pea brain, I think white pea beans should help me. Have I been misled by those Negro beans being only Black beans, & not white &/or at least a mixture of both black & white beans. Colin, am I right when I say I think I was SHEARED? I purchased that can of beans in good faith TOO.

         
      • Les Moore

        September 10, 2015 at 9:20 PM

        Colin,
        @ I think Toland already responded perfectly well.
        Birds of a feather know one another & see things alike.

         
  3. Cody

    March 3, 2015 at 9:17 PM

    I hope you get to see this headline. It has nothing to do directly with tonight’s show.

    “The Egyptian Ministry of Religious Endowment has shuttered 27,000 local places of worship under the pretext of fighting terrorism, while awarding 400 preaching permits to Salafists.”

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/egyptian-el-sisi-government-closes-27000-mosques-in-move-to-fight-terrorism/

     
  4. Cody

    March 3, 2015 at 9:50 PM

    This warning pops up when following the links…
    http://198.154.106.103:8338/listen.pls

     
  5. Nat Stuckey

    March 4, 2015 at 3:03 AM

    Dear Alfred,
    You may be interested in this.
    “In a deliberate “show of force,” federal and local police forces raided a political meeting in Texas, fingerprinting and photographing all attendees as well as confiscating all cell phones and personal recording devices.” –Why were they meeting? If you read the article you will find they were meeting to discuss strategies that would help Texas secede from the United States so as to become a nation unto themselves.
    http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/feds-raid-texas-political-meeting/

     
  6. NicksTaxFree

    March 4, 2015 at 5:03 AM

    Yes Nat, I think the main point to be made is we as Americans see “U.S, citizen” or “What is your Alien #” on an application for a drives license. Those are the only two choices, not U.S. national, state citizen or American national. We assume the government must be using the definition of the Several States when in fact they are using the 14th amendment definition that is domiciled on territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal U.S. Gov’t/Congress. That area is not protected by the Constitution, so after years of this, pretty soon there is hardy anyone who is still a citizen of their organic state of birth. Social Security number holders are presumed to federal employees and U.S. citizens/legal residents.
    Like W. Bush said “The Constitution is just a God dam piece of paper” – if it doesn’t apply to anyone anymore, he would be right. Now DHS thinks the Sovereign Citizen movement is more dangerous then Islamic terrorist.
    One more point, At least in Title 26, the only time you see the word resident it is used with “legal resident alien” or “resident alien”. Could it be that only aliens are residents because residency is temporary where as domicile/inhabitant is permenant in nature. That would mean by checking the resident box you are swearing to be an alien that lives in your state but really is from Washington D.C. by swearing you are a U.S. federal citizen. Anyone have more info on that, besides Colin?

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 4, 2015 at 9:16 AM

      Thanks Nicks for responding,
      Have seen many little nuggets/jewels of info on this blog that I see as pieces of the puzzle & as it is written in the Bible, here a little & there a little, same thing on this blog. Have cut & pasted many of these nuggets.It’s Impossible to say everything we believe is the truth in one comment.One thing for haven’t figured out yet, is the Constitution the way the powers that be understand it, I believe I do, but, e.g., IF we still have the Constitution up to the 12th Amendment meaning the same thing in the minds of those who will decide for or against us.It seems “that” Constitution is “purviewed” through the “newer” Constitution beginning with the 13th Amendment & the “appropriate legislation” passed, & amended, etc. What I’m trying to say is, this so called appropriate Legislation beginning with the 13th Amendment seems to be the Supreme Law of the Land, & I DO KNOW that all of us are presumed to be a Subject & Subject to the Jurisdiction “thereof” meaning ITS Jurisdiction. palani has a wonderful comprehension of original meanings of, it seems, everything. BUT, I don’t believe Resident means the same thing today as it originally meant, at least in the minds of the “shot callers”. President Andrew Johnson is one of my heroes. If anyone really cares he/she should read what he says about those Reconstruction Acts. This Reconstruction has been going since it first started. It’s EASY for me to see why the Congress hated him & with a passion. As you know he was impeached for as Colin would say, his irrational, illogical, preposterous viewpoint. Yeshua/Jesus was Crucified for the same reason. IF you want me to post links for you to read about those Reconstruction acts, I will. May the Good LORD protect you, russ & ANYONE else trying to please him.

       
    • Colin

      March 4, 2015 at 11:48 AM

      I’m sorry that the facts on these questions are so uncomfortable for you. But it’s nevertheless true that these are fantasies, not legal realities. You can read more about how courts apply the 14th Amendment’s use of the words “citizen” and “United States” at the TP FAQ. You don’t have to believe that this is what the law should be. Your opinion on that is your own business. But please at least understand that these fantasies will never, ever succeed in court. We know that because they get tested on a regular basis, and always fail. The TP FAQ has specific citations.

      “Following the plain words of the 14th Amendment and the decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the federal courts have consistently ruled that all persons born within the United States are citizens of the United States, and state citizenship follows from federal citizenship.” Citing Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404 (1935).

      See also the excerpts from the Sloan, Gerads, and Epperly cases.

      As for the tax code, it does in fact make provisions for aliens who are permanent residents. Of course, resident aliens still have to pay taxes and obey US laws.

      If you want to renounce your US citizenship, which you gained by being born within the borders of any state (as is usually defined, without regard for imaginary secret shadow jurisdictions), you can actually do that. The requirements are at 8 USC 1481. To renounce your citizenship specifically, you have to do it “before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state.” I think you’d have to get a visa to return to the US lawfully, in that case.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 1:46 PM

        @ Colin
        @March 4, 2015 at 11:48 AM
        +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        Judge Colin,who are you addressing your message to? If it’s for me, the 14th Amendment does not

        APPLY to me. I am not a person of COLOR, as that word COLOR was originally understood. I am

        not a Negro, OR an Oriental. I am not a Caucasian EYEthur. I am not subject to the “due process of

        law” provision in the 14th Amendment. NOW, Judge Colin, as you know, or, should know, I have

        affirmed this via affidavit under the penalty of bearing false witness, aka PERJURY and as you

        know Judge Colin, affidavits are considered TRUE unless OVERCOME by counter evidence, NOW

        call for a recess & take the peresecuting attorney back to your chambers & get your act together on

        what you & he need to do to overcome my affidavit I have affirmed under the penalty of perjury.

        HOWEVER, no legislation saying my affidavit has no bearing or weight will cut the mustard.

        Capiche? I do not NEED ANY statutes, rules, ordinances or regulations telling me what privileges I

        have. I could care less if you disagree, Judge Colin. Find me in contempt if this turns your crank. I

        could care less about that also. Have your little helpers that protect & serve you put me in a torture

        chamber to get my mind right. Think I care, nah, been there & through that too. NOW, I have done a

        few things that I did not do before, affidavit wise, & through the help & inspiration of my Creator that

        you do not think exists & for some ODD reason, I am not harrased anymore.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 2:38 PM

        Greetings, Judge Colin,
        You inserted, > “Following the plain words of the 14th Amendment and the decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases the federal courts have consistently ruled that all persons born within the United States are citizens of the United States, and state citizenship follows from federal citizenship.” Citing Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404 (1935).

        Your Royal Highness, what follows are short excerpts from the Slaughterhouse cases.

        This court is thus called upon for the first time to give construction to these articles. The negro having, by the fourteenth amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the Union.

        We repeat, then, in the light of this recapitulation of events, almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all; and on the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested: we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him. It is true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, 72*72 mentions the negro by speaking of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth.

        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 must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment. < Judge colin, I am one of the "latter" & I rely on the security and protection where they have heretofore rested. Judge Colin, I rely on this TOO .

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 2:41 PM

        Hence the fifteenth amendment, which declares that “the right of a citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The negro having, by the fourteenth amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the Union.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 2:46 PM

        Would you mind not double-spacing your replies? No big deal if you’re doing it because it’s helpful to you, but it makes it more difficult for me to read your comments.

        The 14th Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity. Guess what? This has been tested in court, too. The basic principle comes from the Slaughterhouse Cases, where the Supreme Court wrote that the 14th Amendment “declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.” All persons, period. The color of your skin is totally irrelevant.

        In other words, when the 14th Amendment says, “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 in which they reside,” it means what it says. All persons. This is not a separate kind of citizenship, it amends the Constitution to clarify what citizenship means under the Constitution. There is no legal authority to the contrary, and plenty affirming this position. A lot of the cases are collected here: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#sovereigncitizens

        You can sign an affidavit that says whatever you want: I’m not a citizen, I’m not a 14th Amendment citizen, I’m a citizen of mars, whatever. It doesn’t change the law. Affidavits are evidence of factual questions, not the legal implications of those facts. So an affidavit can constitute evidence of where and when you were born, but whether the circumstances of your birth make you a citizen is a question of law.

        HOWEVER, no legislation saying my affidavit has no bearing or weight will cut the mustard.
        Capiche? I do not NEED ANY statutes, rules, ordinances or regulations telling me what privileges I
        have. I could care less if you disagree, Judge Colin. Find me in contempt if this turns your crank.

        You can believe whatever you want. I’d be content if I persuaded you that your beliefs are inconsistent with the consensus of the law–you needn’t agree as to what the law should be. In other words, you can believe all day long that your affidavit changes your citizenship. I only hope that you understand it would count for nothing in an actual court. (Depending on what that affidavit says, of course; “I was born in England and carry an English passport and swear allegiance to the Queen” would actually change your citizenship status. I’m assuming you don’t mean an affidavit like that.)

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 2:53 PM

        Judge colin, I am one of the “latter” & I rely on the security and protection where they have heretofore rested. Judge Colin, I rely on this TOO .

        That paragraph is talking about the privileges that derive from being a citizen of the US, as opposed to those that derive from being a citizen of a particular state. In other words, I can vote in the federal election because I’m a US citizen, and in the Texas election because I’m a resident of Texas. The Court is saying that states can continue to deprive citizens of equal protection with respect to privileges arising from state residence, although not those arising from national citizenship.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 6:57 PM

        Colin, Re: this 14th Amendment U.S citizen. 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).” Caps are my emphasis.
        ————————————————-
        Colin, you say,> The Court acknowledged that the 14th Amendment was designed to address the grievances of African Americans. But it also held, clearly and unambiguously, that the 14th Amendment applies by its plain language to all Americans. Period. Regardless of race. ___________________
        Colin, you say,> There’s a reason you aren’t finding any cases to the contrary. Colin. you also say the 14th Amendment applies to me
        Colin, Van Valkenburg v. Brown,43 California 43 year of 1872
        Here is a short but complete statement from the above case,The Court said:

        No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. “The history and aim of the Fourteenth Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent, who had been held in slavery in this country, or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendents of slaves. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment it was settled that neither slaves, nor those who had been such, nor the descendants of these, though native and free born, were capable of becoming citizens of the United States. (Dread Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393). The Thirteenth Amendment, though conferring the boon of freedom upon native-born persons of African blood, had yet left them under an insuperable bar as to citizenship; and it was mainly to remedy this condition that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.”“This is a recent history–familiar to all.” pp. 46-47.

        Colin, Did the above court, lie, or was he court incompetent, irrational, &/or illogical?
        How many more cases would you like to see that say the same thing? How many, and what are your thoughts about what the court said, in U.S v Anthony, > 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).” Caps are my emphasis.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 7:09 PM

        Colin, You asked me,> Would you mind not double-spacing your replies?
        Colin, I have respected & honored your request & I have asked you before If you will please double space your replies for me but so far, you will not do this. It IS so much easier on my eyes to read if you will double space your replies to me. Thanks, Colin.

        p.s If I am asking too much of you, disregard my request.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 7:12 PM

        Valkenburg is the state case I mentioned earlier. It came before the Slaughterhouse cases, and is from a lower court, so it’s trumped by the Supreme Court’s acknowledgement that the 14th Amendment sets the standard for citizenship for everyone, regardless of race. Excerpting from the TP FAQ’s explanation:

        “The Van Valkenburg decision is frequently quoted for the proposition that white citizens do not owe their citizenship to the 14th Amendment. However, the decision was a state court decision, not a federal decision, and it is inconsistent with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (which was decided the following year, in 1873). (See the quotation above from the Slaughterhouse Cases, in which the court emphasized that, under the 14th Amendment, all persons born in the United States are citizens.)

        The other problem with the Van Valkenburg decision is that, although the California court stated that there was a difference between how the plaintiff (a white woman) became a citizen, the court nevertheless concluded that she was a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

        “[B]y whatever means the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States, her privileges and immunities cannot be abridged by State laws; and this is true. The purpose and effect of the amendment, in this respect, is to place the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States beyond the operation of States legislation.” Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 (1872).”

        In any event, Valkenburg ceased to be a relevant precedent once the Supreme Court ruled on the question. And the standard has never changed since that ruling. See, for example, the later case of Wong Kim Ark: “The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 7:22 PM

        Colin, I have respected & honored your request & I have asked you before If you will please double space your replies for me but so far, you will not do this. It IS so much easier on my eyes to read if you will double space your replies to me. Thanks, Colin.

        p.s If I am asking too much of you, disregard my request.

        I’d really rather not. I write most of my replies in Word as I’m working on other stuff, so the double spacing won’t be reflected when I paste it in here anyway. I’d have to go back and manually hit enter a ton of times. And then, because your screen isn’t the same size as mine, it would look jagged and mixed-up the way your doublespaced posts look on my screen.

        If you’d rather double-space, do. I only asked because I thought it would be easier for both of us. As I’ve said several times now, if you don’t want to single-space then don’t.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 7:52 PM

        To:Colin, & Associates
        277 U.S. 438 (1928)
        OLMSTEAD ET AL.
        v.
        UNITED STATES.
        GREEN ET AL.
        v.
        SAME.
        McINNIS
        v.
        SAME.

        Nos. 493, 532 and 533.
        Supreme Court of United States.
        478-479
        The protection guaranteed by the Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.

        Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
        ———————
        [The founding fathers] conferred, as against the Government, the right to be left alone — the right most valued by civilized men.”
        Louis D. Brandeis
        Colin, I remember Waco, & Ruby Ridge & I am aware of deplorable Gov-co acts against elderly people, e.g., a 92 year old lady dragged out of the home she was born in because the property tax was raised so high she could no longer pay it & she simply refused to vacate per order of the court, &, I could go on & on & on. Yes indeed we sure do have a benevolent Government, absolutely, no doubt about it. Yep, they ARE here to help us alright. sure are.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 8:21 PM

        Colin, You say, However, the decision was a state court decision, not a federal decision,

        Is this why “Big Brother” is watching us? Once again, what about U.S. v. Anthony, what are your thoughts about the court saying, “Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there were no citizens of the United States as such, but only some one of them.” AND, Colin, how about HOW this 14th was adopted? Does that matter? guess not. well it matters to lil ol me. Just consider lil ol me a LAWBREAKER then. I do have, IF I can find them, guess they are on a disc somewhere, but I do have many court cases speaking of, dejure, jus soli, jus sanguines citizenship, but they are all NON FEDERAL cases so according to what you say, paraphrased, they don’t amount to a hill of beans anyway, nope, not worth diddly squat. Anyway, I ain’t discouraged, just madder than a wet mama hen, but I’ll still fight like a mean mama brown grizzly bear protecting her cubs because I at least know what is morally right. You probably didn’t think very highly of Robert Bork. He is still one of my heroes, & so is Justice James Wilson, you didn’t think to highly of him either did ya.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 9:43 PM

        I’ll try one more time, Nat. But I’m running out of ways to explain this. I hope that sooner or later you’ll come to understand that the reason you can’t get the facts to line up in support of your beliefs is that your beliefs don’t match the facts. There aren’t any precedential cases just say what you want them to say, because you’re wrong about the law. Whereas there are plenty that say exactly what the law obviously is: the 14th Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of race, and is the standard for citizenship. You don’t have to agree with that, but it is what the law is today, and has been since the first time the Supreme Court ever took up the 14th Amendment.

        Colin, You say, However, the decision was a state court decision, not a federal decision,
        Is this why “Big Brother” is watching us?

        What? This doesn’t make any sense. If you misunderstood me, the point is that state court cases are not the ultimate authority on interpreting the federal Constitution. The supremacy clause vests ultimate review in the federal Supreme Court, as recognized as far back as the early 19th century. See Ware and Ableman.

        Once again, what about U.S. v. Anthony, what are your thoughts about the court saying, “Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there were no citizens of the United States as such, but only some one of them.”

        Prior to the 14th Amendment there was a different standard for citizenship. But we live after the 14th Amendment.

        AND, Colin, how about HOW this 14th was adopted? Does that matter? guess not.

        Lawfully. I realize the author of the Dyett opinion asked questions, but he didn’t say that he thought the 14th Amendment wasn’t the law. He specifically pointed out that the 14th Amendment is the law of the land. You can disagree with them and the Supreme Court (plus basically every historian, all the state governments, and anyone else you like) all you want, that isn’t and shouldn’t be a crime. But until a constitutional convention convenes and revokes its ratification, the 14th Amendment is the law of the land, and it applies to all of us, regardless of race.

        I do have many court cases speaking of, dejure, jus soli, jus sanguines citizenship, but they are all NON FEDERAL cases so according to what you say, paraphrased, they don’t amount to a hill of beans anyway, nope, not worth diddly squat.

        Those are descriptions of various kinds of citizenship rules, not laws in and of themselves. The United States is basically a jus soli country, because our basic rule (under the 14th Amendment) is that being born here confers citizenship. We also have some jus sanguinus rules, such as statutes saying that children born abroad to US citizens become citizens themselves and the prohibition on the children of foreign diplomats here gaining citizenship. It has nothing to do with federal or non-federal cases; those are the rules as established by the Constitution and statutes.

        If you want to understand more about how courts work, or the 14th Amendment, please do consider taking one of those classes. I see the written constitution class discusses the 14th Amendment in the lecture called “States and Territories, Part 2” in the Week 4 materials. It’s about half an hour long; I haven’t listened to it, but it can’t get into too much detail in that time. Probably still worth a listen. If you want to know more about how courts work and relate to each other and the Constitution, the unwritten constitution class is probably worth your time. There’s another class all about the constitution that has a whole week on the 14th amendment, but it hasn’t gone online yet: https://www.coursera.org/course/constitution

        If you want to read more in-depth about how the 14th amendment works, you could start with the TP FAQ: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#sovereigncitizens You don’t have to trust the guy who writes it, although I’ve never seen anyone find a mistake in his work. He cites to plenty of cases you can read for yourself. And you don’t have to read between the lines, either—the cases just flat out say what the law is: the 14th Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of race; and it doesn’t establish a parallel kind of citizenship, it just creates the standard for all Americans’ citizenship.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 3:52 PM

        Colin,
        Citizens existed BEFORE the 14th Article, So why the necessity to create an Article to establish, bring into existence, citizenship?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM

        Colin,
        You say, @ I’m sorry that the facts on these questions are so uncomfortable for you.
        I take your statement to mean these facts are comfortable for you tho. Yes INDEED they ARE more than uncomfortabe for me, MUCH MORE than just uncomfortable. Does that bring a smile to your face? It should make you SAD & YES, MAD. I am presuming you are very comfortable with the way things are, but, if I am wrong I apologize. I KNOW you are telling the truth, it’s just that I HATE some truth because some truth is soooooooo WRONG.

         
      • Colin

        March 5, 2015 at 11:30 PM

        Citizens existed BEFORE the 14th Article, So why the necessity to create an Article to establish, bring into existence, citizenship?

        The 14th does a lot more than just establish citizenship. But that specific provision was intended to fix the hole that exempted African Americans, which made Dred Scott possible. The amendment isn’t specific just to African Americans, though–the language the drafters used applies to all people, regardless of race. The courts have very consistently applied that language just as it’s written, without different applications for different races.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 8, 2015 at 12:07 AM

        Colin,
        @ “………. the 14th Amendment applies by its plain language to all Americans. Period. Regardless of race.”
        ok, I agree with you 100% BUT, in this sense.Via appropriate legislation, & stealthy encroachments, we really are, ALL of us, Red, Yellow, Black, & White, & in between, i.e. mixtures, are re: as Subjects/Servants/Slaves of the U.S. Government. ACTUALLY, those Amendments & via Appropriate Legislation, slowly & insidiously passed has accomplished the true agenda of those Amendments. Those Amendments have not freed anybody. Hpwever, it was not always this way, i.e. the way it is. Take the paper money as an example. It most certainly was more convenient to carry a 10 Dollar Bill in your pocket rather than 10 Lawful Dollars, aka, Silver Dollars. See what they did? Years later, Delete the words, Redeemable in lawful money, & pay to the bearer on demand. Same thing with the alleged so called true meaning & intent of the WAR Amendments. The Road to hell IS paved with good intemtions.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 10, 2015 at 12:02 AM

        Colin, Evening, Morning, Afternoon, whereever you may be. Ok you say, Prior to the 14th Amendment there was a different standard for citizenship. But we live after the 14th Amendment.

        Please eloborate on/about this “standard” Thanks.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 15, 2015 at 9:31 AM

        LEGAL MIND,
        You say, The 14th does a lot more than just establish citizenship.
        IT SURE DOES.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 15, 2015 at 10:45 PM

        Colin,
        @ I only hope that you understand it would count for nothing in an actual court.
        Disagree. I say it would count IN an ACTUAL Court. By this, I mean what an actual Court ONCE was NOT what they are today, legislative tribunals for the most part.

         
      • Joe

        March 18, 2015 at 10:21 PM

        Colin, your fantasy appears to be that the “United States” encompasses areas of land other than the territory owned by or ceded to The United States of America. If you are suggesting that the United States encompasses something to the contrary, that is patently “frivolous” (a word much favored and relied on by your friend and disinformant Dan Evans) because all law is territorial. One cannot obtain U.S. citizenship by being born within the borders of a union state, UNLESS, perhaps, a fraud was perpetrated at the time of one’s birth whereby one was deemed to be a “foundling” of unknown parentage, in which case the immigration and naturalization laws of the national government would take precedence and one would be deemed to have been placed under the protection of the national government as alien found within the borders of a union state.

         
      • Colin

        March 18, 2015 at 11:12 PM

        One cannot obtain U.S. citizenship by being born within the borders of a union state …

        On the contrary, one automatically gains US citizenship by being born within the borders of a state. “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.” All states are within the United States, and being born within a state means you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If you’re skeptical, why don’t you cite some precedent supporting your argument?

        For example, there is plenty of precedent showing that you are incorrect. In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that a man born in California (already a state by that time) was a citizen under the 14th Amendment, as is everyone who is born in any state unless they fall within the rare exceptions for foreign diplomats. The 14th Amendment is the basic rule for citizenship in this country, and both it and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it are more reliable indicators of what the law is than your say-so.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 22, 2015 at 6:53 AM

        COLIN, YOU SAY,T he court nevertheless concluded that she was a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. “[B]y whatever means the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States, her privileges and immunities cannot be abridged by State laws; and this is true. The purpose and effect of the amendment, in this respect, is to place the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States beyond the operation of States legislation.” Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 (1872).”

        Colin, The term, citizen of the United States BEFORE the 14th, MEANT, ANY CITIZEN OF ANY ONE OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The term, citizen of the United States, via the 14th MEANS a colored person and also subject to the singular jurisdiction of THE UNITED STATES IN ITS CORPORATE CAPACITY, ITS ITS ITS Jurisdiction, not, IT IS, but ITS.

        ONCE AGAIN, 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).” Caps are my emphasis. NOW COLIN, I KNOW THIS HAS CHANGED TOO. I KNOW THE COURTS DO NOT SEE IT THIS WAY ANYMORE. I’m speaking of the way it WAS back when people WERE THERE, THEN, AT THE TIME, & KNEW THE TRUTH. I’m not speaking of TODAY & HOW THE TRUTH IS TWISTED & UPSIDE DOWN & IN REVERSE OF THE TRUTH AS ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD via what YOU SAY IS LAW. LAWDY MISS CLAWDY.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 24, 2015 at 3:49 PM

        COLIN,> You say, The 14th Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity.
        HOW?? I know it does apply to me to have to recognize that people of color ARE citizens of the U.S. IF they are born in the U.S. AND Subject to ITS jurisdiction, HOWEVER, “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States (<14th Amendment U.S.citizen) in order to be a citizen of his state. (Meaning, a Citizen of the United States, meaning literally a Citizen of ANY one of the several States. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549

         
      • pesky nat

        April 1, 2015 at 7:47 PM

        Colin
        @ Would you mind not double-spacing your replies?
        Colin, Would you mind answering my questions in my NON double spaced replies to you? Would you mind? I know I’m outta sight. Please answer at least my question about the can of Negro Beans

         
      • pesky nat

        April 2, 2015 at 1:13 PM

        COLIN,
        YOU say, The amendment (14th) isn’t specific just to African Americans, though–the language the drafters used applies to all people, regardless of race. The courts have very consistently applied that language just as it’s written, without different applications for different races.

        OK LET”S TRY IT THIS WAY. “That Race” MEANT at THAT TIME, THE NEGRO RACE, TODAY, and for quite SOME TIME, “THAT RACE” MEANS ALL RACES. It should not be hard to figger out WHY. 150 YEARS of SLOW, INSIDIOUS, STEALTHY, CLEVERLY WORDED SO CALLED APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION. THAT’S WHY. The WAR Amendments apply to me ONLY in the sense of knowing who a U.S. citizen IS & whatever applies to that Congressionally UNLAWFULLY CREATED U.S. citizen & SUBJECT TO the singular jurisdiction of IT, IT, aka, the ONE FEDERAL BODY United States, aka IT IT IT. UNDER THE POWER OF IT, SUBJECT TO IT. Bob Dylan calls the UNSEEN RULER OF THE UNSEEN WORLD AN IT TOO. That’s right, IT. It IS, an IT. GET IT?

         
      • pesky nat

        April 3, 2015 at 10:17 PM

        Colin
        March 4, 2015 at 11:48 AM
        This is the ruling of the Court. You have the highest of qualifications to be a judge. TODAY’S KINDA JUDGE, YOU DO FIT THE MOLD. I DON’T FIT THE MOLD.

         
    • Colin

      March 4, 2015 at 12:04 PM

      Oh, and a specific point worth calling out: “Social Security number holders are presumed to federal employees and U.S. citizens/legal residents.”

      I don’t know if SS number holders are presumed to be citizens or legal residents. But presumed to be federal employees? Come on, you have access to Google. You can check nonsense like this for yourself. Where on earth did you get this preposterous idea? What facts support it? If you can’t be bothered to test your ideas to see if they might be true, what distinguishes your opinions from mere fantasy?

       
      • russ

        March 4, 2015 at 2:04 PM

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/301.6109-1
        (g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons—
        (1) General rule—
        (i) Social security number. A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual. A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual’s social security number.

        5 USC 552a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a
        (a) Definitions:
        (13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

        One may find that one was signed up (sometimes by a parent, sometimes oneself by mistake) for a number that is evidence of a federal personnel status that converted him to a foreign status and jurisdiction to what he held previously as his birthright. Then used that number as identification for a period of time in the conduct of a trade or business (the performance of the functions of a public office) by mistake. It may be fraudulent to hold that public office if that is not what you truly are. One may “establish a different status” and go back to the original status of your birthright. There is no expatriation, you are just returning to your original state, which is one of the 50 states united, America. Mexico is foreign to me, Oklahoma is foreign to me, District of Columbia is foreign to me. My birth state is not. It has a border, a people, and law. I am domiciled there. I owe my allegiance to its people [not unlike 8 USC 1101 (a)(21)]. The United States Government Printing Office Style Manual recognizes its nationality (Section 5.23). The Post Office recognizes its status and jurisdiction and will send its mail non-domestic. Many people have passports that recognize it. I know many people that live there. In a sense, its easy to leave there, but its not easy to get back to there. They make it much harder than just clicking your heels and saying “there’s no place like home”. Then there is the flying monkeys to deal with. There should be a movie.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 4:49 PM

        Judge Colin, please respond to my message on March 4, 2015 at 2:38 PM, and, March 4, 2015 at 2:41 PM that IS NOT doublespaced since you do not like doublespace messages.

        What does heretofore rested mean to you? This means to me that some people relyed on something BEFORE the 14th Amendment. What does this mean, > Hence the fifteenth amendment, which declares that “the right of a citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The negro having, by the fourteenth amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the Union.

        Once again, > The negro having, by the fourteenth amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the Union. What does this mean, > It is true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, 72*72 mentions the negro by speaking of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth.

        Once again, what does this mean, > But it is just as true that each of the other articles (13th & 14th)was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth.

        Colin are you saying I am of THAT RACE? Are you, Colin, saying that my Mother & my Father were Negroes? IF you, Colin are saying that the 14th Amendment IS what established CITIZENSHIP, then we had no lawfully elected Presidents of the United States of America BEFORE the 14th Amendment. You do not want doublespaced messages you say. I will honor your request. I LIKE doublespaced messages because they ARE much easier on my eyes. Will you show me the same courtesy & send any response you make to me doublespaced? Thank you. Also, please answer my questions, not just respond. Responses are sometimes just responses, not answers, Thanks again.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 5:04 PM

        The Court acknowledged that the 14th Amendment was designed to address the grievances of African Americans. But it also held, clearly and unambiguously, that the 14th Amendment applies by its plain language to all Americans. Period. Regardless of race.

        If you think this interpretation is wrong, perhaps you could find some case or precedent saying that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to white people? I think there’s one state court case from before Slaughterhouse that says so, but none since the Supreme Court weighed in and decided that the amendment means what it says: all Americans.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 5:06 PM

        IF you, Colin are saying that the 14th Amendment IS what established CITIZENSHIP, then we had no lawfully elected Presidents of the United States of America BEFORE the 14th Amendment.

        No. There were different rules for citizenship before the 14AM was ratified. Then, with the 14AM, we amended the constitution, and the amendment takes precedence over any previous definition of citizenship.

        As for double spacing, like I said before, if it’s easier on your eyes then do it.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 5:12 PM

        What does heretofore rested mean to you? This means to me that some people relyed on something BEFORE the 14th Amendment.

        No. You’re taking a paragraph from a different part of the opinion. What it means is that although the 14th Amendment provides a right not to be deprived of their federal rights without due process, it doesn’t say the same thing about state-level actions. So whatever remedies you had before the 14AM to the state depriving of your rights, you still have those remedies, but the 14AM doesn’t help you. Your remedy therefore still lies where it used to lie, with the state law or constitution, you didn’t get a new one with the 14AM. But only with respect to state-level deprivations of your rights. The distinction is with regard to state vs. federal action, not temporal.

        This later changed with the doctrine of incorporation, which interprets the 14AM differently. These days you do have a remedy under the 14AM against state deprivations of your federal rights. That’s why people can sue the state government for banning handguns, even under the 2nd Amendment to the federal constitution.

        If you’re curious, look up the doctrine of incorporation.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 5:18 PM

        Re: Citizens of the United States, AND, Corfield v. Coryell is mentioned in the Slaughterhouse cases
        The following is an excerpt from UNITED STATES v. WHEELER ET AL.Corfield v. Coryell

        “Fortunately we are not without judicial construction of this clause of the Constitution. The first and the leading case on the subject is that of Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823.

        “`The inquiry,’ he says `is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States?

        Colin, in the year of 1823, citizens of the several States existed. They were also known as, Citizens of the United States. Colin, I claim to be one of the Citizens of the United States as known & understood in 1823, & actually BEFORE the year of 1823. BUT YOU say the 14th Amendment is the Amendment that created a citizenship to begin with. Know what? I agree, BUT FOR WHO??

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 5:21 PM

        No, the 14th did not “create a citizenship.” It amended the constitution, changing the definition of citizenship that was in effect previously. It applies to everyone, regardless of race.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 5:26 PM

        Colin, what did you think of the Dyett v, Turner case & what ALL the Justices agreed on in regards to the 14th Amendment? I just know you read (<pronounced Red) it didn'tcha?
        Dyett v. Turner — Utah Supreme Court — 1968 – Freedom Formula

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 5:31 PM

        Yeah, I responded earlier. Interesting case! They agree that the 14th is the law. Their thoughts on ratification are dicta. They also don’t conclude it only applies to black people.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM

        Colin, you say, No, the 14th did not “create a citizenship.” It amended the constitution, changing the definition of citizenship that was in effect previously. It applies to everyone, regardless of race.

        I apologize for the, a, in, a citizenship. I caught that too late, I meant,Citizenship. Where did Congress get the authority to amend the Constitution? Did you read ( We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. Undoubtedly while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void. < Not anything is mentioned here about The WHITE RACE, RIGHT??

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 5:43 PM

        It doesn’t need to. Like the text of the amendment itself, it obviously applies to everyone regardless of race. There’s a reason you aren’t finding any cases to the contrary.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM

        Colin,re: Dyett v. Turner, you say,They agree that the 14th is the law.
        B.S. They agree that it should NOT BE THE LAW & SAY WHY. I presume you do not like all caps EYEthur. And thanks for NOT showing me the same courtesy that did show you, re: Doublespace v. non doublespaced.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 5:54 PM

        Sure. As I keep saying, there’s a difference between saying what you think the law should be, and acknowledging what it actually is. The Dyett court knew the difference.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 5:56 PM

        Re: Dyett v. Turner, you, Colin, say, > Their thoughts on ratification are dicta.
        Colon, I don’t care if it’d dicta or dictum, I care if it’s the truth. But since nobody else is chiming in, I guess everybody agrees with you & your dicta.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 3:59 AM

        Colin, is the followiing excerpt from the Dyett v, Turner case, dicta, or, dictum? I never did know dicta from dictum. I do know that what follows is the truth, overall, at least.

        The United States Supreme Court, as at present constituted, has departed from the Constitution as it has been interpreted from its inception and has followed the urgings of social reformers in foisting upon this Nation laws which even Congress could not constitutionally pass. It has amended the Constitution in a manner unknown to the document itself. While it takes three fourths of the states of the Union to change the Constitution legally, yet as few as five men who have never been elected to office can by judicial fiat accomplish a change just as radical as could three fourths of the states of this Nation. As a result of the recent holdings of that Court, the sovereignty of the states is practically abolished, and the erstwhile free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system

         
      • Colin

        March 5, 2015 at 11:24 PM

        It’s dicta, which is the plural of dictum. Most people just say “dicta,” rather than making a distinction between the singular and plural.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 11:57 PM

        Colin, do you think it’s just a coincidence that the war between the States, aka the Civil War that on one side we had the “Union Troops also called the Federal” Troops & on the other side we had the Con < against Federate, < against the Fed Union Troops & when it is written in the 14th Amendment, which every State had to adopt before those States could become a part of the NEW UNION, e.g., in every State of the Union < 14th Amendment, do you think this might have anything to do with the Union of States today being Federal Union of States, aka United States?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 2:32 AM

        Colin
        @ That paragraph is talking about the privileges that derive from being a citizen of the US, as opposed to those that derive from being a citizen of a particular state. In other words, I can vote in the federal election because I’m a US citizen, and in the Texas election because I’m a resident of Texas

        Did we need the 14th to do this? People had that right & exercised that right BEFORE the 14th didn’t they. This is like saying I’m gonna give you the privilege of giving me a job. When people vote aren’t they trying to do their part to give someone a job? What a privilege.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 10, 2015 at 12:33 AM

        Colin, @ and the amendment takes precedence over any previous definition of citizenship.

        Then this should also apply to any previous definition of United States. What we do see alike is, the War Amendments reversed, in time, via appropriate legislation, everything originally established. This should plainly show who is Sovereign or Superior & with all the immunities including of course Sovereign Immunity but it seems to me if you trust me & hire me to do a certain job & in time I bring on board a few more helpers to finish the job & you come home one day to find me & the “helpers” have set up housekeeping in your home & NOW you are OUR servant so get in the kitchen & get supper ready for us. Yes, you are now the servant serving us in your own home & you will do as we say, or else. Yep. This IS what happened.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 10, 2015 at 3:26 AM

        Colin, @ I’ll try one more time.
        We are singing to each other but we are both out of tune with each other & it clashes because there is not any harmony. It seems you have a seared conscience. There is no way anyone can not be appalled with the way things are IF they have just a little knowledge of HOW this 14th was FORCED upon the States. Are you familiar with “The History of the 39th Congress”? Anyway, you fight for your cause & I’ll fight for mine. There are plenty of early S.Ct. decisions,e.g., Strauder v. West Virginia,100 U.S.303 that I rely on for my stand but what people forget is, people die & the new borns are educated to understand things different, Then they die. Newborns go through the same procedure & the beat goes on. Then the newly educated ones get into Government & change the previous standings. WHAT WE HAVE IS A SELF DESTRUCTIVE SYSTEM THAT WILL DESTROY US ALL UNLESS …………………… You guess.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 11, 2015 at 11:13 AM

        Colin,You insert, The purpose and effect of the amendment, in this respect, is to place the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States beyond the operation of States legislation.” Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47

        Mr Licensed Attorney you so eloquently say,>”the court nevertheless concluded that she was a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

        Dear Licensed Attorney, Colin, You REFUSE to SEE that a Citizen of the United States BEFORE the 14th Amendment & a citizen of the United States IN the 14th ARE TWO DIFFERENT CATS & HAVE TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS & I CHALLENGE ANYONE OTHER THAN YOU & YOUR CO-HEART KENEMORE LAWERNCR JR TO PROVE I AM WRONG !!! A Citizen of the U.S BEFORE THE 14th WAS & MEANT a Citizen of ANY ONE of the SEVERAL STATES. A citizen of the U.S. as stated in the 14th MEANS the U.S is ONE ENTITY, Not composed of SEVERAL other entities, i.e., States but ONE entity called The United States & these 14th U.S. citizens were & ARE SUBJECT TO ITS, not it is but ITS ITS ITS jurisdiction. JURISDICTION NOT JURISDICTIONS. Now see the excerpt from, U.S v. Anthony, again, &, maybe you will see what I said is true, or, at least at one time WAS TRUE.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 15, 2015 at 12:58 PM

        Colin, you continue on & say, “As I keep saying, there’s a difference between saying what you think the law should be, and acknowledging what it actually is. ”
        Some people are very sneaky. SOoooo one day a few of these sneaky reprobates break into your home, surprise you when you get there, hold a gun to your head & tell what the LAW NOW is. You should certainly have nary a complaint because it’s the LAW. You understand. I know you do.WELL
        tell ya what. IF that happened to me, I would understand TOO. The difference is, You say it’s right, & I say it’s wrong.

         
      • Joe

        March 18, 2015 at 10:26 PM

        Every competent researcher knows that the use of a Social Security Number creates a presumption that one is working in the capacity of a federal office holder. Specifically, that office is within the United States Merchant Marine. Surely you must know this. It is written plainly in the United States Code.

         
      • Colin

        March 18, 2015 at 11:17 PM

        Every competent researcher knows that the use of a Social Security Number creates a presumption that one is working in the capacity of a federal office holder.

        Twice in two comments, you’ve thrown out a completely wrong idea with the sort of confidence that would mislead someone who didn’t pick up on the fact that you’ve failed to cite any support for your assertion. And it is a very wrong idea. There is no such presumption arising from the use of a SS number. Why on earth would there be? SS numbers are used by hundreds of millions of Americans in the private sector; we far outnumber “federal office holders.” It’s like saying that watching football on TV creates a presumption that one is a Super Bowl champion.

        Specifically, that office is within the United States Merchant Marine.

        Wow. Are you sure it’s not Federal Spaceman?

        Surely you must know this.

        No. I know that you haven’t actually cited any laws to support this idea, which I love because it is hilarious.

        It is written plainly in the United States Code.

        You stopped just before you actually told us where! Please go on.

         
      • pesky nat

        April 2, 2015 at 1:39 PM

        COLIN, KENEMORE JR. LAWERNCE,
        @ If you’re curious, look up the doctrine of incorporation.
        If you’re curious, look up The Portuguese Language. Visit Today & Learn More Now!‎‎

         
    • pesky nat

      March 30, 2015 at 4:19 PM

      Hi Nicks. May have said this before, but the S.S.N. IS the IDENTIFICATION Number of ALL Subjects, Which WE ALL ARE in the MIND of gov-co & ALL that comprise gov-co. THIS S.S.N. IS required for ANY & ALL OTHER Stamp of Approval documents, e.g., Driver License, etc. NO S.S.N. No other licenses of ANY kind will be issued.

       
  7. Nat Stuckey

    March 4, 2015 at 9:56 AM

    Nicks,
    P.S. One thing for sure I haven’t figured out yet < I really thought I saw these words before I posted, my last comment, but that sentence did not post like I thought I saw it. ALSO, This Reconstruction has been going ON since it first started. Hope this clears up my blunders. NOW, if palani is by chance reading this the tragic news for palani IS, the Quatloos Posters say palani is a joke & irrational, illogical, absurd & full of backwoods frontier gibberish. I know this is cruel for me to say this because I'm sure that once palani knows about this it will destroy palani. HAHHAHhahah. Right palani? Huh? Ain't that right? wow, Alfred Adask & Cliven Bundy are ALSO irrational, illogical, & preposterous. Colin & Brother Lawernce Kenemore Jr. like the Quatloos club. I like the Adask,russ, palani,timmy,Nicks, et.al. Club. I do not like "Club Fed".

     
    • Les Moore

      September 10, 2015 at 9:40 PM

      @ Nat Stuckey
      March 4, 2015 at 9:56 AM
      Nat!!!!!!! YOU ARE A TROLL!!!! As Henry, Roger, & Toland say, STFU!! This means, according to, Toland, “short-term follow-up”. SOooooo Nat will you please short term follow up? huh? WELL WILL YA OR NOT!? Nat, You had better short term follow up now. I’m serious. You have been warned.

       
  8. Cody

    March 4, 2015 at 9:10 PM

    The 14th Amendment did create a distinct class of citizenship called “Federal” or US (c)itizenship. There is a vast difference between an Art. 4 Sec. 2 natural citizen and a 14th Amendment “subject” US (c)itizen.

    “”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 distinction between National and state citizenship and their respective privileges there drawn has come to be firmly established.”

    ” Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the National Government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States.”

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/211/78/case.html

     
    • Colin

      March 4, 2015 at 9:57 PM

      The 14th Amendment doesn’t exist parallel to some other citizenship rule. It establishes the rule for citizenship. Everyone born here who isn’t the child of foreign diplomats is a citizen. There’s no separate “Article 4” track for citizenship.

      Your first cite is from the Slaughterhouse Cases. It concludes that the 14th Amendment “declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.” If you’re born in a state and subject to the jurisdiction of that (or any) state, you’re a citizen of the United States. You can be a citizen of any particular state and the United States, but you can’t be a citizen of a state without also being a citizen of the United States.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 10:35 PM

        Colin, I KNOW this is not your cup of tea, but still, there IS “somebody” that sees what I see, & a whole lot better than I do, but, please, tell me, Colin, if you will, your conclusions, thoughts,etc., about this, > What sorrow awaits the unjust judges and those who issue unfair laws.They deprive the poor of justice and deny the rights of the needy among my people. Isaiah 10:1-2
        Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees,
        and the writers who keep writing oppression,

        1 Woe to those enacting crooked statutes and writing oppressive laws 2 to keep the poor from getting a fair trial and to deprive the afflicted among my people of justice, < Holman Christian Standard Bible.

        Also, what thread is your opinion re: Dyett v. Turner? I cannot find it. Thanks Colin. Like timmy said, you are just telling it like it is, & ya know what? IF you saw things like some of us do, it ain't gonna change anything & IF you were with us all the way you would be one unhappy camper. If I thought this life is all there is, I'd be on your side.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 10:40 PM

        Colin, @ Your first cite is from the Slaughterhouse Cases. It concludes that the 14th Amendment “declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.” If you’re born in a state and subject to the jurisdiction of that (or any) state, you’re a citizen of the United States. You can be a citizen of any particular state and the United States, but you can’t be a citizen of a state without also being a citizen of the United States.

        Colin, I agree 100% with you, HOWEVER, this the ONLY thing that was overturned in the Dred Scott decision. the remainder STILL stands. (:<

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 10:47 PM

        I agree with those verses that judges and lawmakers who issue unjust decrees are deplorable, and earnestly hope for justice upon such judges.

        If you search the word “Dyett” on this page you’ll find my comments about the case. Basically a single state judge wrote a bunch of dicta about whether the 14th Amendment was validly ratified, I think because some of the ratifying states were under Union occupation. (If I recall right, the Supreme Court considered this and decided it was a “political question,” not something the courts can decide, but I couldn’t tell you the case.) Then he explicitly said that he was writing those questions to try to convince the Supreme Court to agree with him, but that until they do, his questions are irrelevant.

        The other judges in the case, all but one, “concurred in the result,” meaning that they agreed with the decision in the case but not the dicta in the opinion. That is, they agreed that the defendant in that case should have his petition dismissed, which was a question totally irrelevant to the authoring judge’s dicta, but did not agree with that dicta. That means they did not share his concerns.

        It’s an interesting opinion, but the judge’s thoughts about ratification are dicta, and have no legal authority in Utah or anywhere else. Since ratification is a political question, the 14th Amendment is the law until a constitutional convention says otherwise. (Or if I’m wrong about it being a political question, maybe the Supreme Court could say otherwise–I’m not sure. But state courts can’t, due to the Supremacy Clause.)

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM

        @ making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”
        Now we are back to person & how person is defined. What makes a person subject to ITS Jurisdiction? Is a person subject to ITS jurisdiction simply by being born? There are TWO prerequisites, according to the wording but this is not necessarily true either. BORN, AND Subject to ITS Jurisdiction. What makes a person, aka, a, Subject, Subject to ITS jurisdiction other than just being BORN. Nobody has to be born in the U.S. to be Subject to ITS Jurisdiction IF he.she wants to become a U.S citizen.

         
      • Colin

        March 4, 2015 at 11:15 PM

        Now we are back to person & how person is defined.

        All human beings are persons. There’s no definition of “person” in the law that I’ve ever heard of that doesn’t include individual humans.

        What makes a person subject to ITS Jurisdiction? Is a person subject to ITS jurisdiction simply by being born?

        In The Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court said, “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” I just looked that up, I don’t know all that much about this one. Sounds like anyone born here who’s not actively a subject of some other nation is “subject to its jurisdiction”. It satisfies me that everyone born in the country, but for the kids of foreign diplomats, is a citizen under the 14th. People have tried to argue otherwise to get out of taxes (which is silly, because even non-citizens have to pay taxes, but whatever) without any success.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 5, 2015 at 3:06 PM

        Colin,@ The 14th Amendment doesn’t exist parallel to some other citizenship rule. It establishes the rule for citizenship.

        So, e.g., IF people like,Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison were still alve, you, Colin, are saying, they would be Subjects & Subject to ITS U.S Jurisdiction? wow. Well, if anybody has a 357 Magnum pointed at me, I can see how I can be subject to his/her POWER too.

         
      • Colin

        March 5, 2015 at 11:28 PM

        Yes, they would be subject to US jurisdiction. If Madison ran over your dog, you could take him to court. If Jefferson robbed a bank, he could be arrested and tried. That’s all that “subject to” the jurisdiction means: the courts have jurisdiction over that person. It’s everyone in the US except foreign diplomats, because they’ve got diplomatic status.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 12:29 AM

        Don’t like to say this publicly but the reason I asked you is because I want to send you a “gratuity”. I did not ask for or want your “home address”. I really did think I asked you before, on another thread if you had a P.O. Box number. And, I wanted to know that for the same reason. I understand what you are saying tho. Sure do. Now anyway.The worst betrayals I have encountered came from so called Patriots. Anyway, if you know of a way I can make a donation to you without causing you any potential headaches, tell me. I don’t know how. I appreciate you because even tho we see 95% of things totally opposite, what you say is exactly what people like me are up against. I believe I have overcome what most people are facing but just making them aware is worth a lot to me. They do not believe me anyway.

         
      • Colin

        March 6, 2015 at 12:32 AM

        Don’t like to say this publicly but the reason I asked you is because I want to send you a “gratuity”.

        That’s very kind of you, thanks, but there’s no need. If you really want to give something, please donate to the Access to Justice Foundation (http://www.teajf.org/) or whatever similar organization exists in your state.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 12:32 AM

        Colin, @ because they’ve got diplomatic status.
        Where did they get it? Who bestowed that Status on them?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM

        Colin, it’s a trait of my heavenly Father. I clicked on the link you provided, & I will check it out thoroughly. IF I see that they are really helping people I promise you I will send them a donation. Personally, I’m gald you are here. I see you being here as telling people the way it is whether we like it or not. NO !! I do not like the way things are but now that I don’t believe you are a goader & here for that reason, you are revealing things at least some people are unaware of & they should not be upset with you. I DID get upset with you because I thought you were just goading & ridiculing. You are just calling it as you see it & I KNOW most of the people in Government see it like you do. This is what people need to understand. I only wish you could see Alfred’s postion like he does. I’m glad that you were not the Judge in his case, but for a reason I will not disclose.You would not believe me anyway.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 1:56 AM

        @ Since ratification is a political question
        Colin I believe you are right when you say, The S.Ct. said it’s a political question. I am aware of a case from a U.S. District Court, & the Judge said, there is no such thing as a political question. It is in the transcript too but I do not know if it’s dicta or dictum. I am 100% ignorant &/or stupid about dicta & dictum. Here is something I believe you can help me understand. Two things the Dyett Court said, that puzzle me. One is this > We feel that our decision in this matter should not be subject to reversal by inferior courts of the federal system. < who are these inferior courts in/of the federal system? They said Courts, not Court, AND,
        2. When the Dyett Court said, we have not been asked to declare the 14th Amendment unconstitutional, < I thought this was their of saying they would do that IF they had been asked to, but since they had not been asked to, it's like they are saying they do not have the authority to do it on their own whim. You may not believe what I am about to say, nevertheless it is true. I forget which Circuit Court of Appeals it was, think it was the 10th, but when that Court made their decision, somehow & I forget how, anyway that case gets into the Supreme Court of the State & I think it was Colorado, BUT this I do remember, The Supreme State Court overruled or overturned, forget which, the 10 Circuit Court of appeals. I'm still trying to figger that one out.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 2:51 AM

        Colin,
        @ Yes, they would be subject to US jurisdiction. If Madison ran over your dog, you could take him to court. If Jefferson robbed a bank, he could be arrested and tried. That’s all that “subject to” the jurisdiction means: the courts have jurisdiction over that person.

        So we needed the 14th for this? I think the same thing could be done or would happen without the 14th Amendment. However, instead of Thomas Jefferson coming to visit me & using his horse & buggy, but by using his automobile, I cannot grasp Thomas Jefferson having to get a driver license to do that. AND I can just see him being stopped & the “peace officer” asking to see his driver license registration & proof of insurance. Btw, IF you read the following, you will have to admit it just ain’t that way no mo.

        Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all these requirements that are known as the rules of the road. The right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen.Swift v City of Topeka 32 Kan. 671~674 (1890))

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 3:09 AM

        Colin,
        @ “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers………….”

        Colon, By its very wording, this excludes ministers. It only says, children of ministers. I am a minister, so am I included ,or, excluded?

         
      • Colin

        March 6, 2015 at 6:21 AM

        “Minister” is also a way of saying “diplomat,” although not commonly used anymore. The children of foreign diplomats here on assignment. It’s not referring to religious ministers.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 11, 2015 at 2:24 PM

        Colin, you fudgie wudgie IF You say, > it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”
        IT DO SAY THAT IN THE DRED SCOTT CASE?? Subject to ITS Jurisdiction? ARE YOU saying that it it written in the Dred Scott case, “born in the United States and subject to ITS jurisdiction? Please do not make me read the entire case again to SEE if what you say IS written therein. Just cut & paste, OUT OF the Dred Scott case, where is says, born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

         
      • pesky nat

        March 22, 2015 at 7:55 AM

        My dear Colin, GLAD U R BACK. Now look – E – here. The S.S.N. IS A UNIQUE IDENTIFIER. No LAW is NEEDED to PROVE THIS. COMMON SENSE PROVES IT. You have not been in very many “peace officer emergency traffic stops” have you? Well that will not make my point understood. ANYWAY, WHY is it MANDATORY to have a S.S.N. to obtain a driver license or ANY other kind of Government stamp of approval document?The driver license is one of those, i.e.,Gov-co “stamp of approval documents”. IF you are ever “pulled over” for ANY cause or reason by the “PEACE OFFICER” & IF you do not HAVE ANY GOV-CO ID YOU WILL BE ASKED FOR “YOUR” S.S.N. I KID-DETH THOUEST NOT. AND THEN IF YOU SAY YOU DO NOT HAVE a S.S.N., YOU WILL BE PLACED UNDER ARREST. NOT JUST YOU, ME TOO. They just don’t stop me anymore. Guess what? I have even had a few SALUTE ME WHEN THEY PASS HAHHAHHAHhahahah dat rat, sho do

         
      • pesky nat

        March 23, 2015 at 5:48 AM

        COLIN !!! You mentioned Article 6 & the supremacy clause. IF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE IS SO SUPREME,WHY THE NECESSITY OF THE POWER CLAUSE IN THE WAR AMENDMENTS & ON THAT SAYS THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE ENFORCED VIA APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION? DON’TCHA THINK THE Article 6 SUPREMACY CLAUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPREME ENOUGH to apply to the 13th & on Amendments WITHOUT THE OTHER POWER CLAUSE? WHICH ONE IS SUPERIOR TO THE OTHER? Why is the power clause needed in the 13th & on Amendments?

         
      • pesky nat

        March 24, 2015 at 4:11 PM

        Colin, YOU say, “If you search the word “Dyett” on this page you’ll find my comments about the case. Basically a single state judge wrote a bunch of dicta about whether the 14th Amendment was validly ratified…….”
        So you, Colin are saying when that “single” Judge says, >We feel that our decision and, when the SINGLE Judge said, > We do not believe that justices of once free and independent states should surrender their constitutional powers without being heard from. We would betray the trust of our people if we sat supinely by and permitted the great bulk of our powers to be taken over by the federal courts without at least stating reasons why it should not be so. By attempting to save the dual relationship which has heretofore existed between state and federal authority and which is clearly set out in the Constitution, we think we act in the best interest of our country. < So then WE means HE. HE was speaking for himself & only himself when HE, said, WE. Ohhhhh, ok.

         
      • pesky nat

        April 1, 2015 at 8:00 PM

        COLIN @ You can be a citizen of any particular state and the United States, but you can’t be a citizen of a state without also being a citizen of the United States.

        MISTER !!! QUIT CALLING MY Mother & Father NEGROES. AND I’LL TELL YA SOMETHING ELSE. LEGAL BEAGLE. IT’S JUST AS DEROGATORY TO TELL A LITTLE NEGRO CHILD HIS/HER MOM & DAD WERE WHITE PEOPLE. CAPICHE !?!?!?! TAKE A LONNNNNN RUNNNNNN OFF A REAL SHORT DOCK LEGAL BEAGLE !!!!!!!!!

         
      • pesky nat

        April 3, 2015 at 10:30 PM

        COLIN
        @ all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”
        SO NOW IT MEANS THEIR? ok, then we should, e.g. instead of saying, today is their wedding anniversary, we should say, today is ITS wedding anniversary. OHhhhhhh ok. COLIN. I SEE WHATCHA MEAN. Their means IT.ok ok ok. Got it. I get IT.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 4, 2015 at 11:21 PM

      Dear Colin,
      Do you have an office listed in the Yellow pages of a telephone book, & if so will you please post any info needed, Town, City, & your surname. That is, unless I am asking for something amiss. If I am, I apologize. Sometimes my mind goes blank, yes, I know but I mean more than blank.I know that’s a headscratcher for ya, but maybe not. (:<

       
      • Colin

        March 5, 2015 at 11:33 PM

        Nope. No offense, but some of the regulars here have very very very strange ideas about the law, and some people with ideas like that enjoy filing baloney liens against people who disagree with them. I’m already being called a secret undercover agent, which is wacky enough; I’d rather not put my address up here. I don’t have an office anyway, I’m a consultant and work out my clients’ offices.

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 5, 2015 at 5:16 PM

      Hi Cody,
      The Twining case, says, in part, The words “due process of law,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, are intended to secure the individual ……..” Cody, my understanding of the Twining Case is, it is referring to State citizens of the U.S. & Subject to its jurisdiction, because, the 14th Article says “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.” < It's this kind of State citizen, & not the State Citizen as known & existing before the 14th. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me what I am not grasping. Thanks.

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 11, 2015 at 11:21 AM

      Cody
      March 4, 2015 at 9:10 PM

      EXACTLY RIGHT !!! EVERY WORD !!! wow.

       
  9. russ

    March 5, 2015 at 1:35 PM

    A man can be a state Citizen (Hooven#3) and an American (national) (Hooven #1) when abroad. He owes allegiance to his state and America (dual). A person as defined in the 14th Amendment is a federal citizen, a citizen/subject of the federal government (Hooven#2). A creature of Congress. I often shop at a 14th Amendment citizen.

    I will agree with Colin that most persons in their “legal land” have not rebutted that presumption and made the change. They can be dragged in to foreign courts by foreign attorners and be held for EXACTIONS. Colin sounds like he is very good at that. People suffer from lack of knowledge.

    John 10:25-27

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 5, 2015 at 3:33 PM

      Hi russ,
      @ I often shop at a 14th Amendment citizen.

      haha, RIGHT !! I don’t see where Colin says anything about rebuttal. I see that he says we are stuck with being a 14th citizen whether we like it or not. russ, what do you mean by, rebuttal? IF I am shackled & figure out a way to get out of it, the one(s) who put me in shackes will figure out another way to shackle me again, & there is the rebuttal requirement again,& again, & again, so this does not make sense. It’s that spinnin our wheels,& a dog chasing it’s tail ordeal. However, tell me, what you mean by, rebuttal, then maybe I can see where I am wrong. Thanks russ, dear “Brother”.

       
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 6, 2015 at 2:04 AM

      @ I will agree with Colin that most persons in their “legal land” have not rebutted that presumption

      Where did Colin say this? I cannot believe he said that.

       
      • russ

        March 6, 2015 at 1:02 PM

        He said above that all persons are 14th Amendment citizens, and he is right. There is an option for a man that is different, but he did not discuss that. You must rebut.

         
  10. russ

    March 5, 2015 at 9:26 PM

    Nat, look at your contracts. Did you testify against yourself that you are yoked with a foreign entity? If so, by your own consent you put yourself in shackles. You are where I was, and I looked in the mirror. Contract is law, law is contract. Choose this day who you shall contract with. There is an exit clause. If you want to “pass” through the “port” of commerce (admiralty/maritime/UCC) you must do so as a man in your correct status. See above sentence one. Rebut the presumption that Colin so eloquently preached, get the authenticated evidence, correct your contracts once and for all. Leave that foreign district and be back to the land of your nativity where you belong. If you came to my house for fellowship, you would find a prominently displayed Bible, and a copy of my state Constitution that was ratified by the people. Both worn out. Renew your mind. Romans 12:2

    Stay out of the courts, you do not belong there, and I hear testimony from many brothers that they in return are also avoided by them. 1 Corinth 6

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 6, 2015 at 12:44 AM

      @ Do you mean where they entice you with benefits, to your own detriment?
      No, just by being born. Colin says anybody is a 14th Amendment citizen WHEN & IF he/she is BORN in the United States. He will not deny this. He reads everybody’s messages just like I do. Most people are selective in this way/sense. They will leave a message then check to see if anybody has responded to his/her message & will read Alfred’s messages & a couple of other posters & that’s it. To tell you why I know this would not be believed anyway.

       
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 6, 2015 at 12:49 AM

      russ, animals are not roaches.(:< However, I can just hear some people comprising the powers that be saying, these animals are like roaches & we need to exterminate umm.

       
      • russ

        March 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM

        7 USC 136 – Definitions:
        (t) Pest
        The term “pest” means
        (1) any insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, or
        (2) any other form of terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal life or virus, bacteria, or other
        micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria, or other micro-organisms on or in living man or
        other living animals) which the Administrator declares to be a pest under section 136w (c)(1)
        of this title.

         
  11. russ

    March 5, 2015 at 9:29 PM

    “I see that he says we are stuck with being a 14th citizen whether we like it or not”

    Do you mean where they entice you with benefits, to your own detriment?

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 6, 2015 at 8:02 PM

      russ,
      @ > 7 USC 136 – Definitions:
      It’s another oddity that you tell me what the definitions are per & USC 136 & do not accept what other provisions say in the USC. Now, I am inclined to think you do this with scriptures in the Bible. I call this, cherry picking. The honest thing to do, is, Use ALL of what codes say as the truth, & ALL of what the Bible says as being the truth too, that is, once you know how to research & get the God meant meaning. I do not necessarily go on what ANY translation says on it’s face because at best the translations are what the translators think the original scriptures mean.

       
  12. Nat Stuckey

    March 6, 2015 at 12:12 AM

    @ Nat, look at your contracts.
    What Contracts? I ain’t got no contracts to look at, at least that I am aware of. If I told you to look at you contracts, how would you respond? Actually I would not tell you to look at your contracts. I will not tell anybody that. I know what you are talking about, least I think I do but guess what? I have been out in Jail several times, in the past for NOT having contracts.

     
    • russ

      March 6, 2015 at 12:45 AM

      OK, then starting with less contracts means you are in better shape than most. Start with the passport as a non-14ther, then move forward from there. You will be surprised at the possibilities. Did you have travel issues? If so, those issues will cease.

       
  13. Nat Stuckey

    March 6, 2015 at 12:55 AM

    @ OK, then starting with less contracts
    Less contracts? What makes you think whwn I say I aint got ANY contracts, at least that I am aware of, how do you read into that,I must have less contracts? It’s like you are playing games with me.

     
    • russ

      March 6, 2015 at 12:59 PM

      Do you have a note/deed of trust? Residential lease? Bank account? Cell phone? Utilities? Most folks have DL, insurance, SS#, voter registration, etc. Those are what I refer to as contracts. I have not met a man that doesn’t have any contracts. Most folks have not read them all.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 7:46 PM

        russ,
        No sir, BUT, I guess you or anyone could say I am a double standard hypocrite because the truth is, A wealthy man likes me & trusts me & provides for most of my needs for being a watchman on one of his many properties. I have a roof over my head, & he sends me $100.00 a month, cash in an envelope, & pays all the utilities it’s all in his “name” anyway. Tell me russ, now that I see you have everything figured out, at least for the most part, so tell me how any one can survive in this world the way things are without having some of the contracts you ask me if I have. Do you have any of them? How do you survive? Also NOW why is it you continue to ask me questions that have already been answered? Don’t you recall i said I am not a card carrying Socialist?

         
  14. pop de adam

    March 6, 2015 at 1:49 AM

    Colin: “some of the regulars here have very very very strange ideas about the law”

    We are told law should protect us regardless of all else, sovereign immunity yanks it away.

    If we subscribe fully and are paid up members, we get some face time, but still by joining we gave jurisdiction away to the very same sorts that are the assailants.

    We might find a way to be outlaws, without abuse. Its as if there is a check box to use that allows someone to check out, this checked box also seems to single someone out for extra attention by the same sort of abuser.

    If we are not outlaws are we inlaws? Is divorce possible?

    The infant or even the teen aged to the age of majority or even beyond should be able to disengage if they find it intolerable. It might be ignorance, fraud or even mistake.

    You seem to like this idea of imperial law. It is becoming an unbearable inlaw.

    If we are outlaws without the protection of your law, we certainly can’t be subject to it at the same time. If otherwise we are as much an agent or official and enjoy the same immunities.

    It seems to me that you want a double standard, a separation between the law and people truly strained to reconcile this inequity.

    How many people go to court and regularly call twenty or more defendants everyday? That is not a normal thing. This is definition fuckery. Is the prosecuter a person? I suppose. Do they meet the standards for a complaintant with standing?

    How can this be equality under the law?

    What a mess. I realize this is perhaps “legally” all over the place, I think it distills the exacerbation most people feel.

    There is a maxim: “He who asserts, assumes the duty to affirm”, I’ve always found I end up back at it. To leave “innocent until proven guilty” and juxtapose “prove yourself innocent” is a terribly grave exchange to make. It is the basis for nearly all totalitarian regimes. If you are really that sort I hope this post gives you pause.

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 6, 2015 at 2:15 AM

      @ If we are not outlaws are we inlaws? Is divorce possible?

      They are the “ATlaws” I know that. Attorneys AT law, not, Attorneys IN law. Today we do not have Mother,Father,Brother,Sister, in law, they are in LEGAL, not Mother in law, but Mother in legal (:<

       
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 6, 2015 at 2:17 AM

      Whoops. I forgot,
      @ Is divorce possible?
      Forget that. Can’t afford ther fee.

       
  15. Peg-Powers

    March 6, 2015 at 1:38 PM

    There is a much bigger picture here. The 14th Amendment, and new fine-print regulations set in motion by the same, included “Jews” and other minorities, not just “African Americans”.

    During the 1860’s England also was pressed into making similar legislative changes, spearheaded by Benjamin Disraeli and Lionel Rothschild and The City of London money merchants. History tells us that “these types” use subterfuge, riding under cover, in order to gain ground and ultimate control over the masses and their money. Research the matter for yourself. In the meantime do not trust anyone who is of dual-allegiance and believes themselves superior over all others.

     
    • Colin

      March 6, 2015 at 4:25 PM

      The 14th Amendment included everyone. There’s no limitation by race, color or creed. This has been litigated and tested in the courts, and there’s no serious question about it: the 14th Amendment applies to everyone.

       
      • Jethro!

        March 6, 2015 at 5:20 PM

        “Everyone”? Seriously? Let’s test that…
        Does it apply to a Frenchman in France? A Botswanan in Botswana? A Martian on Mars?

         
      • Colin

        March 6, 2015 at 5:44 PM

        The citizenship provisions apply to everyone born within the borders of the United States, including any state, and who isn’t excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts (such as the children of foreign diplomats, which is the only exception of which I’m aware).

        The privileges & immunities clause applies to every US citizen, which means anyone born here under the first clause or anyone falling under statutory citizenship provisions.

        The due process clauses apply to every person, whether or not they’re a citizen.

         
      • Jethro!

        March 6, 2015 at 6:18 PM

        Ok, so it’s not “everyone”. Good.

        >The citizenship provisions apply to everyone born within the borders of the United States, including any state, and who isn’t excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts.

        Except it doesn’t say that, does it?

        >The privileges & immunities clause applies to every US citizen, which means anyone born here under the first clause or anyone falling under statutory citizenship provisions.

        Except there’s already a “privileges & immunities” clause at Art. IV, Sect. 2. Did they put the second one in the 14th just cuz it’s fun to repeat stuff?

        >The due process clauses apply to every person, whether or not they’re a citizen.

        “Every person” — not a disagreement there. If you want to be that “person”, good luck to you.

         
      • Colin

        March 6, 2015 at 10:55 PM

        If you disagree, I’d be very interested in hearing an actual argument or a citation to something that supports an alternative reading.

         
      • pop de adam

        March 7, 2015 at 4:01 AM

        “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”

        Born or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction. Two, perhaps three prerequisites. Seems like employment or impressment to me?

        I might be born or naturalized, where have I become subject without an oath to such? If I were naturalized an oath of allegiance would exist, right? Employment?

        AND of course if I am some sort of employee as such, I’d like to be paid now…

         
      • Colin

        March 7, 2015 at 8:51 AM

        “Subject” here means subject to the jurisdiction of the laws and courts. If someone can lawfully drag you into court on a civil matter or you can be prosecuted for a crime, that’s you. If you think that means being A subject as in the subject of a king, or some kind of employee, knock yourself out. Seems like very different words to me.

         
      • palani

        March 7, 2015 at 8:43 AM

        @ Colin “The 14th Amendment included everyone. … the 14th Amendment applies to everyone.”

        Query: When the Boy Scouts enact a rule do they expect a Girl Scout to follow that rule?

         
      • Colin

        March 7, 2015 at 8:47 AM

        Nope. But if the state passes a law saying “All people must extinguish their campfires upon leaving the park,” because the Boy Scouts in that area haven’t been careful lately, the law applies to all people, not just Boy Scouts.

         
      • palani

        March 7, 2015 at 9:14 AM

        @ Colin “Nope. But if the state passes a law saying “All people must extinguish their campfires upon leaving the park,” because the Boy Scouts in that area haven’t been careful lately, the law applies to all people, not just Boy Scouts”

        So if the Boy Scouts enacted a rule saying anyone found at their encampment is a Boy Scout that would apply to Girl Scouts too?

         
      • Colin

        March 7, 2015 at 9:42 AM

        No, not if the girl scouts are a separate entity.

         
      • palani

        March 7, 2015 at 10:03 AM

        @ Colin “No, not if the girl scouts are a separate entity. ”

        The Girl Scouts are a separate GENDER!!!

         
      • Colin

        March 7, 2015 at 10:09 AM

        I don’t know whether the Girl Scouts are a division of BSA or a separate entity. If the first, BSA rules might apply to them. Otherwise, no.

         
      • palani

        March 7, 2015 at 10:28 AM

        @ Colin “I don’t know whether the Girl Scouts are a division of BSA or a separate entity. If the first, BSA rules might apply to them. Otherwise, no. ”

        Is your wife a subdivision of YOU? If in doubt … why not just ask her?

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 9:50 AM

        Colin, @ His motion is bizarre
        Colin where did you come up with, “Motion”? Which incident do you think is the most bizarre, The Alfred Adask position, or, this particular, as you call it, bizarre motion,from the Plaintiff, or, are they about on the same footing, i.e., equally bizarre?

         
      • pesky nat

        March 24, 2015 at 4:30 PM

        COLIN, > The 14th Amendment included everyone. There’s no limitation by race, color or creed. This has been litigated and tested in the courts, and there’s no serious question about it: the 14th Amendment applies to everyone.
        RIGHT & VIA APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION CHANGING EVERYTHING & THEN CHANGING THOSE CHANGES SLOWLY & INSIDIOUSLY & THEN CHANGING THOSE CHANGES, SAME PATTERN FOR OVER 150 YEARS. It’s something, like An act amending an act amending an act that was amended by an amendment, or something to that effect.

         
  16. russ

    March 6, 2015 at 4:26 PM

    I recently used a 14th amendment citizen’s service to call a state Citizen and he told me of a black man that went through the process and became a state Citizen and now has access to all of his God-given rights and duties. The man was born in one of the 50 states of the Union, and many generations of his family most likely were. That was good news to me and lets me know that even though they hide it, they will at least do the right thing when the information is on record and rebutted.

     
    • Colin

      March 6, 2015 at 5:48 PM

      The man was born in one of the 50 states of the Union

      Then he was a United States citizen and a citizen of the state where he resides, per the 14th amendment. His race is obviously irrelevant. I hope he wasn’t conned into paying some charlatan to perform fake pseudo-legal services like establishing phony “constitutional citizenship” credentials.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 6, 2015 at 7:34 PM

        Colin, HOWDY PARDNER
        @ The citizenship provisions apply to everyone born within the borders of the United States, including any state, and who isn’t excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts.
        @The 14th Amendment included everyone.

        Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order against the district attorney’s office to stay proceedings in his state criminal case until it was finallydetermined whether he was a United States citizen, and if he was found not to be a United States citizen, “whether or not [plaintiff] is still amenable to procedural due process as is mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Record, Doc. 1 at

        19. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on immunity and failure to state a claim. Defendants also raised a comity argument by asserting the court should not exercise its jurisdiction given the pendency of the state court criminal action.The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
        Defendants filed a suggestion of mootness with this court on November 6, 2000. Attached to the pleading is a copy of the state district court’s order of August 1, 2000, dismissing the state criminal action because plaintiff was found incompetent to stand trial.We agree with defendants’ suggestion and dismiss this appeal as moot.

        Rather odd that nothing is said as to WHY “plaintiff” was found incompetent to stand trial. Also, A man who is trustworthy informed me that when the plaintiff’s appeal reached the Circuit Court of Appeals the “State” offered the plaintiff the opportunity to plead guilty to a petty misdemeanor & ALL the remaining 5 felony charges would be dismissed. Plaintiff refused to accept the “deal.” Based on what I was told, I believe rather than decide if the plaintiff IS a 14th Amendment citizen,it was just better to declare the plaintiff incompetent to stand trial. Those felony charges were serious, i.e. Assault with a deadly weapon, criminal damage to property over &1,000, etc. Rather odd also, that plaintiff was declared,not dangerous

         
      • Colin

        March 6, 2015 at 10:54 PM

        If you have the docket, look to see if there is an order or motion explaining the reasoning. It’s impossible to tell from the excerpt you posted. His motion is bizarre (and pointless–not being a citizen doesn’t get you out of criminal charges, and not getting due process would mean you have fewer protections, not more), but people make more or less the same motion from time to time without getting declared incompetent. You can see cases rejecting such motions collected at the TP FAQ.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 12:48 AM

        Dear Colin,
        Alfred Adask had the words Russian Roulette in a message. I completely overlooked those words for some unknown reason. NOW, I think I know why. My dear Colin, come & let us reason together.

        The S.Ct. in Slaughterhouse said, > The negro having, by the fourteenth amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the Union. What does this mean, > It is true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, 72*72 mentions the negro by speaking of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth.

        Once again, > It is true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, 72*72 mentions the negro by speaking of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth.

        Colin, EACH of the other Articles MEANS the 13th & 14th Articles. What the Court is saying is, The 13th,14th & 15th Amendments/aka Articles,ARE addressed to, & about, & for, the grievances of the Negro RACE. SEE IT? How can you,Colin say EVERYBODY IS A NEGRO? Colin,are you a Negro?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 12:59 AM

        Colin, Dear Lord, you say to Jethro,
        If you disagree, I’d be very interested in hearing an actual argument or a citation to something that supports an alternative reading.

        Colin, ain’t it “odd” that I see what Colin said is BETTER than an argument. I SEE what Jethro says CLEARLY making sense as to a factual truth. But, you are the Judge, so you have to power, the guns backing you up & the dungeons. Hey out there, FEAR NOT LITTLE FLOCK !!! FEAR NOT!!

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 8, 2015 at 4:55 AM

        Colin,
        I’m not trying to be “cute” etc., but when you say,> “All people must extinguish their campfires upon leaving the park,” because the Boy Scouts in that area haven’t been careful lately, the law applies to all people, not just Boy Scouts”
        Colin, Looks to me like you are reading something into this that it does not say. How can “THEIR” campfires be MY campfires? IF what is yours is mine & mine is yours, give me some of yours cause I ain’t got nuthin. ( :<

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 9:14 AM

        Colin “The 14th Amendment included everyone. … the 14th Amendment applies to everyone.”
        Colin, >“Subject” here means subject to the jurisdiction of the laws and courts.

        Dear one. IF you are saying Everybody, i.e. palani, me, etc. is subject to the jurisdiction of the laws and courts as is mandated in the 14th, this is not true. You are more than likely 99% correct in your statements but even if you are, this is due to FRAUD. I KNOW this, but to explain it here, on this blog, or any blog is out of the question. NOW! The way things are going, the S.C.o.T.U.S may unamiously decide & agree with you 100%. I thought that the case of Plessy v. Ferguson was a wonderful, very fair, & correct & proper decision, but later, the Top Court overturned that decision. It’s like Fried Chicken today, & feathers tomorrow. I may very well be beheaded for my beliefs. Are you aware of any Guillotine laws being passed? Sometimes I don’t know what to believe anymore.

        Just Released! ‘Executions By Guillotine’ Finally Passed In USA, and …

        Jul 23, 2014 … But were you also aware a federal judge has now joined the ranks of those
        pushing for the use of guillotines nationwide? Now do you see why …

        http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2014/07/just-released-executions-by-guillotine-finally-passed-in-usa-and-government-is-pushing-for-nationwide-use-shocking-video-2463076.html- 382k -Cached – Similar Pages

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 10, 2015 at 1:09 AM

        Colin, you say,
        @ No offense, but some of the regulars here have very very very strange ideas about the law,

        No offense, Colin, but some of the irregulars here have very very very strange ideas about the law, approve of it, & care less how it came to be law. It being the law, is all that matters. Glad Rosa Parks did not see it that way. I believe in ethnic purity. My God wants us to become ONE but most people do not know what this means. We have an adversary,the Devil, who wants ONENESS too, One Race, via miscegenation, this is how licensed marriage came to be. It was unlawful, but the powers that be made miscegenation, LEGAL via their licensening it. Colin, you & KENEMORE
        LAWERNCE JR. call this LAW. I call it EVIL. Have a good hearty bellylaugh on me.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 11, 2015 at 11:47 AM

        Colin, @> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

        IF this sentence SAID JurisdictionS, & not, jurisdiction, THEN there shoulld be nary a doubt that jurisdictionS mean any one of the several States. IT SAYS, jurisdiction (< SINGULAR) THEREOF & Means the SAME thing as, ITS ITS ITS SOLE & ONLY JURISDICTION !!! aka U.S Jurisdiction. SEE the excerpt from U.S v. Anthony. HERE, I'll post it AGAIN AND, you are not telling me I am absurd, illogical, irrational, preposterous, YOU are sayin the Court IS. "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).” Caps are my emphasis. Once again. PRIOR to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there WERE NO citizens of the United States AS SUCH. Get it? PRIOR to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there WERE NO citizens of the United States AS SUCH .PRIOR to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there WERE NO citizens of the United States AS SUCH,PRIOR to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there WERE NO citizens of the United States AS SUCH, PRIOR to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there WERE NO citizens of the United States AS SUCH, < A U.S. citizen within the meaning of the 14th amendment NEVER EXISTED UNTIL the 14th brought it into existence. Colin, I'm only talking about the way it was originally NOT the way it is thought of & understood TODAY, & adjudicated TODAY.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 15, 2015 at 10:12 AM

        Colin,
        @ The man was born in one of the 50 states of the Union Then he was a United States citizen and a citizen of the state where he resides, per the 14th amendment. His race is obviously irrelevant. I hope he wasn’t conned into paying some charlatan to perform fake pseudo-legal services like establishing phony “constitutional citizenship” credentials.

        Well, now you do say MAN & not human. BUT we both know that to you they both mean the same thing. ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS IS/MEANS. > PRIOR to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there WERE NO citizens of the United States AS SUCH. My dear Colin. The term Citizen of the United States BEFORE the 14th Amendment MEANT any Citizen of anyone of the several States. Now this is what the U.S. Supreme Cout said in the Slaughterhouse case. The language is, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

        It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.

        Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.

        If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belong to a citizen of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment.

        DEAR Colin, HOW is it POSSIBLE to rely on anything heretofore for security & protection BEFORE the 14th Amendment IF this security & protection is only made possible by the 14th? Colin, it seems to me that the court is saying that a Citizen of the State IS NOT a U.S. citizen as CREATED via the 14th. I know you disagree. What does heretofore rested mean to you? This is what it means to me, Heretofore means up to the present time, before this, or previously.

         
      • Joe

        March 18, 2015 at 11:11 PM

        Birth in a state of the union would not make one a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, UNLESS the one born was deemed a foundling of unknown parentage. The states of the union are as foreign nations with respect to the national government.

        “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. [citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed 287] [19 C.J.S. 883]”

         
      • Colin

        March 18, 2015 at 11:24 PM

        That citation doesn’t have anything to do with citizenship. This matter was resolved well over a hundred years ago in Wong Kim Ark, as well as every other case to ever consider the question of whether being born in a state confers citizenship. The reason you’re googling random, irrelevant citations and pasting them as if they have something to do with your statement is that you can’t find any cases actually saying what you want them to say. No one can, because such cases don’t exist–no more so than one could find cases ruling that America is a territory of France or that taxes don’t apply to left-handed people.

        If you disagree, perhaps you could tell us more about the part of the CJS you pulled that citation from? What does it say in context? You didn’t just google words that sounded kind of relevant and assume they meant something that supported your beliefs, did you? (You did. The same citation shows up in a bunch of sovereigntist jibber-jabber online, with no analysis whatsoever of its context or meaning.)

         
      • pesky nat

        March 22, 2015 at 7:32 AM

        @ “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”

        TODAY, via the current system comprisers ORDERS, etc, this MEANS, ANY ONE OF THE CLOSELY SUPERVISED UNITS, of the FEDERAL GOV-CO, called a STATE. You have ONE body, BUT your ONE body has MANY different “parts’, e.g. & normally speaking, 2 legs, 2 arms,, 2 lips, 2 eyes, 9 fingers & 2 thumbs, & so on BUT STILL, it’s ALL, ONE BODY, It’s ALL ATTACHED.. The D.O.C. IS THE BRAIN, &/or, the MIND. THIS BRAIN/MIND IS CONTROLLED BY A VASTLY HIGHER INTELLIGENT MIND, aka THE UNSEEN RULER OF THE UNSEEN WORLD, aka THE DRAGON, aka THE DEVIL, aka SATAN & A FEW MORE NAMES, e.g., The PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR WHO TRANSMITS THOUGHT WAVES, e.g., LIKE RADIO WAVES WORK.

         
    • Joe

      March 18, 2015 at 10:42 PM

      Russ, I would like to know the details of that conversation. Please write me at jfenn1124@gmail.com

       
  17. Nat Stuckey

    March 6, 2015 at 11:29 PM

    Thanks Colon
    No I do not have the docket but I have been informed that your co-hearts at Quatloos have all the info. I am not allowed to post at Quatloos otherwise I would try to see what they say. Anyway, via E-mail, a friend sent me the following.

    Plaintiff commenced his action in federal district court by filing an “Emergency Request for Hearing; Temporary Restraining Order; and Declaratory Judgment.” Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order against the district attorney’s office to stay proceedings in his state criminal case until it was finally determined whether he was a United States citizen, and if he was found not to be a United States citizen, “whether or not [plaintiff] is still amenable to procedural due process as is mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Record, Doc. 1 at

    19. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on immunity and failure to state a claim. Defendants also raised a comity argument by asserting the court should not exercise its jurisdiction given the pendency of the state court criminal action.The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
    Defendants filed a suggestion of mootness with this court on November 6, 2000. Attached to the pleading is a copy of the state district court’s order of August 1, 2000, dismissing the state criminal action because plaintiff was found incompetent to stand trial.
    We agree with defendants’ suggestion and dismiss this appeal as moot.

    I say for the State to offer a “DEAL” to the alleged defendant in the STATE case to plead guilty to a PETTY misdemeanor & ALL the serious felony charges would be dismissed, AFTER the case gets to the Circuit Court of Appeals SHOULD RAISE EYEBROWS. I SAY the question from the Plaintiff to the Circuit Court of Appeals to make a judgement on would have let the cat out of the bag. WHY didn’t the State just go ahead & let the Circuit Court of Appeals RULE on Plaintiff’s question? WHY did the offer from the State NOT occur until AFTER the case reached the Appeals Court? Why didn’t the Appeals court just agree with the Lower FED Court & dismiss the Plaintiff’s request, as showing above, as frivolous, specious, spurious, irrelevant, immaterial, & without foundation & merit etc etc etc as you say the courts have consistently found such arguments to be? ALSO, You did not seem to see anything wrong whatsover with ANOTHER case where a Supreme State Court said the lower court acted without authority & the lower court’s ORDER is INVALID but BECAUSE of the lower’s Court’s CONTEMPT POWER the lower court DID have the AUTHORITY to find the alleged defendant in contempt for not obeying the INVALID MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY ORDER and you say we have a JUST SYSTEM of Government??? wow. UNBELIEVABLE !!!

     
    • Colin

      March 7, 2015 at 12:28 AM

      Neither one of us knows what happened in that case, so it’s hard to come to any rational conclusions. Sometimes prosecutors offer deals to deranged defendants if they’ll agree to get treatment, and if they’re generally harmless (even if the charge is scary, depending on the facts). Or maybe he was appealing on something else that they didn’t think they’d win. Who knows?

      But it wasn’t the 14th Amendment question, for two pretty obvious reasons: one, that question gets litigated on a regular basis and never wins, so why would they worry about it? two, their job would be easier if a defendant lost his due process rights under the 14th. It probably wouldn’t matter in the end, but if he somehow got an order saying he wasn’t a citizen, it wouldn’t obstruct the prosecution at all. Sounds like the guy was legitimately nuts, although usually filing weird motions is not enough to get you declared incompetent.

      The contempt thing works like this: just about everyone who draws an injunction believes it’s invalid. Because if you thought your actions were wrong, you wouldn’t do them. So if people can freely disregard injunctions that they feel were wrongly entered, then there’s no more injunction power–every order just gets ignored. So the legal principal is that you don’t get to just ignore the order. You can challenge it in court, appeal it, make a collateral attack, but you have to do it through the system, you can’t just declare the order invalid and ignore it. If that were possible, then the schools still wouldn’t be desegregated, because the white governments would have just ignored the lower courts’ injunctions implementing the Brown v Board standards set by the Supreme Court.

      If there is or has been any country anywhere in the world that does things differently, allowing people to ignore court orders they don’t like, I haven’t heard of it.

       
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 1:10 AM

        whoops. There I go again. I meant Jethro, not Colin, whan I said, what Colin said. I sorry. Confusion begets confusion so when I said, > Colin, ain’t it “odd” that I see what Colin said is BETTER than an argument, I meant, Colin, ain’t it “odd” that I see what Jethro said is BETTER than an argument.

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 1:34 AM

        @ Neither one of us knows what happened in that case

        I KNOW this much IS CLEAR. The State Supreme Court said the lower court acted without authority & the lower court’s oder IS INVALID, That we do know. & this much is clear is CLEAR TOO !! The State Supreme Court Said even though the lower court acted without authority & even though the order is invalid the lower court had the authority to find the alleged defendant IN CONTEMPT & PUT HIM IN JAIL FOR NOT OBEYING THE MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY INVALID ORDER. To try & figure out HOW this conclusion was reached is not interesting to me because I don’t want to learn how to be one of those liars who sure can figure. I KNOW why the S.Ct. arrived at their conclusion anyway. IT’S THAT THIRD ELEMENT THAT COMPRISES JURIS DICTION aka AUTHORITY OF A COURT TO DO SOMETHING. IT’S THAT THIRD ELEMENT THEY DISCARDED, THEY DID AWAY WITH AND THEY JUSTIFY THIS BY SAYING DUE TO THE MERGER OF LAW & EQUITY & THE DEVELOPMENT, YEAH RIGHT, DUE TO THE MERGER OF LAW & EQUITY & THE DEVELOPMENT, DUE TO THE MERGER OF LAW & EQUITY & THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW, OF THE LAW, OF THE LAW, OF THE LAW !!!

        THE DEVELOPMENT THE DEVELOPMENT THE DEVELOPMENT THE DEVELOPMENT !!!

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 2:09 AM

        Colin, first of all I am not intelligent. BUT, I do have some DEGREE of COMMON SENSE. I also know common sense has no place in your world. Once again Justice Wilson said,I shall have occasion incidently 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. Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven
        Colin, Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven, FROM WHAT?

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 2:30 AM

        @ So the legal principal is that you don’t get to just ignore the order. You can challenge it in court, appeal it, make a collateral attack, but you have to do it through the system;

        REALLY !!! That’s a DAMN LIE. I KNOW IT IS & THIS IS WHY I KNOW IT IS A LIE. I was ordered many many years ago to do something & I KNEW the Judge did not have the authority to make such an order. I had 30 days to appeal & maybe I did make the mistake by putting the judge on notice of my solemn promise to appeal I also made the mistake of telling him WHY I was going to appeal. OHhhhhhh my did he ever become unglued. ANYWAY, I had 30 days to appeal. In the process of getting my appeal work together, about 10 days later there was a knock on my door.It was a deputy sheriff. He advised me that THE JUDGE ordered HIM to come to my home & inquire as to whether or not I had OBEYED his order. I told the deputy I was still in the process of preparing my paperwork. I was placed under arrest & put in jail. I had no access to anything. LATER when I did get to the appeals court the ruled that my appeal was a collateral attack & not allowed because of their collateral BAR RULE. GIVE ME A BREAK COLIN !!!

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 2:41 AM

        Colin this did not post, > Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present
        the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand
        seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United
        States of America the Twelfth

        FROM WHAT Colin, HUH, FROM WHAT? in the Year of our Lord one thousand
        seven hundred and Eighty seven

        WHO IS THE LORD??? DID YOU TAKE AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO UPHOLD SUPPORT & DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1787 ? WERE & ARE YOU A MAN OF YOUR WORD OR NOT?????!!!!!!

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 3:02 AM

        Colin,
        @ So if people can freely disregard injunctions that they feel were wrongly entered, then there’s no more injunction power

        it’s not the injunction power I’m concerned about. It’s their SELP APPOINTED CONTEMPT POWER
        They use for not obeying their made without authority INVALID INJUNCTIONS. PLUS not even having the professional courtesy of allowing us to appeal in the time granted. I can certainly understand being found in contempt if I do not get my appeal filed in 30 days BUT THEY WILL NOT EVEN ALLOW US TO DO THAT. I had 20 days remaining in the appeal time when I was arrested for not obeying that UNGODLY TYRANT, aka JUDGE’S UNLAWFUL, excuse me, ILLEGAL ORDER. It’s known as TYRANNY BUBBA. AND, T-R-E-A-S-O-N. THAT’S RIGHT, T-R-E-A-S-O-N

         
      • Nat Stuckey

        March 7, 2015 at 6:47 AM

        Colin,
        @ Minister” is also a way of saying “diplomat,” although not commonly used anymore. The children of foreign diplomats here on assignment. It’s not referring to religious ministers.

        Dear Colin, why did you say, > ” It’s not referring to religious ministers.” I think I know why. Correct me if I’m wrong. You said that BECAUSE you presume/assume something is meant WHEN it means no such thing. I DID NOT say I am a religious minister. I said I am a minister. NOW, most people will presume/assume minister means exactly what you think it means when a loony toony loon like me says I am a minister. AND the sad/bad thing IS, I could be forced to appear before you in orange jail cloths, & try to explain that I am not a religious minister, BUT, a minister of music & you just simply disagree because you love yourself & your own thoughts cannot be wrong & to prove you are right you just simply say so & send me to jail & this proves you are right. It ain’t hard for me to understand. Anyway, I am a minister of music but to you, Colin, all I am doing is just whistlin Dixie. I understand. Wait until the tables are turned & they will be. Until then I’ll just keep on whistlin in the dark.

         
      • pop de adam

        March 8, 2015 at 12:09 AM

        It is apparent that you seem to believe our beliefs are repugnant to the methods you avail yourself of?

        Does it occur to you that many of these ideas are entirely correct?

         
      • Colin

        March 8, 2015 at 9:23 AM

        Which ones?

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 1:30 AM

        Dear Sweetheart Colin, & you are a Sweetheart. WHEN I said, I see this exactly like ALL the justices saw it in The Dyett case, I meant the part/portion of the case you keep referring to as DICTA & which you KEEP saying is worthless, meaningless, of no value, etc.. I am not speaking of that case & how the Justices decided & agreed or disagreed about the prisoner. BUT, I would like to know what was INTERESTING, as you say, repeatedly about the Dyett v, Turner case. Colin, what was interesting to you about that case? Colin, I also noticed that you do not respond to ALL of my messages you only respond to SOME of them. Why dat? Your co-hort/heart KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR. follows the SAME pattern.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 9:31 AM

        Colin @ All the judges in Dyet didn’t actually agree. One judge wrote the opinion, including both the result and the dicta. Another judge concurred in both of those things. The rest (four, think?) concurred only in the judgment, but refused to join the opinion fully, meaning they did not put their names behind the dicta. (The result was the outcome of the case they were deciding, which didn’t have anything to do with the author’s dicta regarding the 14th Amendment.)

        You must have access to a different version than I have of the Dyett case. I can get only one version to come up. Is there anything you know of I can do to get the same information you get? And, if you can, will you post same? Gracias.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 10:19 AM

        Colin,
        A No Reply button to any message seems to make messages get so out of order so take that into account. pleas, if you can, post a link that brings up the Dyett case the you get. Thanks pardner.

         
      • Colin

        March 9, 2015 at 6:58 PM

        It’s the same opinion anyone can read. Look at the justices’ names. After the case, is argued, the justices vote on the outcome of the question being decided. In this case, that was basically whether a criminal defendant waived his right to counsel; a federal district court said that he did not and should perhaps be released since he didn’t get such assistance, but the justices of the Utah Supreme Court disagreed.

        Once the justices have agreed on the outcome of the main issues in the case, they assign it to one justice to write the opinion. (This is basically the procedure in federal circuit courts, too.) In this case Justice Ellett wrote the opinion. You can tell because his name appears at the top. As the author, he writes an opinion that reaches the result the majority agreed upon, but he can also add dicta if he wants. He did in this case.

        Look at the bottom of the opinion, where the other justices list their concurrences. Callister, Crocket, and Tuckett concur “in the result,” meaning the disposition of the prisoner’s claim that he was denied his right to the assistance of counsel. All those justices agreed the prisoner’s petition of habeas corpus should be denied. But they don’t agree with the opinion’s reasoning, meaning they haven’t signed on to the opinion itself–just the essential outcome of the case, the denial of the petition. Of all the justices, only one, Henriod, concurs “in the result and reasoning,” meaning he agrees with the dicta regarding the 14th Amendment.

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 11, 2015 at 2:29 AM

        Colin,
        Last call for Hadacol.
        @ Neither one of us knows what happened in that case, so it’s hard to come to any rational conclusions. Sometimes prosecutors offer deals to deranged defendants if they’ll agree to get treatment, and if they’re generally harmless (even if the charge is scary, depending on the facts). Or maybe he was appealing on something else that they didn’t think they’d win. Who knows?

        I know more than you know about the case, BUT, e.g., IF I got my information from Alfred or palani, you would think this makes the situation even worse & have absolutely no credibility because of the source of my information.Also your conclusion about deranged defendants sure makes a lot of sense. Once upon a time a wife could not testify against her husband because she was deemed to be INCOMPETENT & it did not matter if her IQ was 200 +. Incompetent has more than one meaning

        @ But it wasn’t the 14th Amendment question, for two pretty obvious reasons: one, that question gets litigated on a regular basis and never wins, so why would they worry about it? two, their job would be easier if a defendant lost his due process rights under the 14th. It probably wouldn’t matter in the end, but if he somehow got an order saying he wasn’t a citizen, it wouldn’t obstruct the prosecution at all. Sounds like the guy was legitimately nuts, although usually filing weird motions is not enough to get you declared incompetent.

        You say the same thing about many posters on this blog being legitimately nuts. I don’t think ANY of us think you are legitimately nuts, we see you as being deceived & passing on your deception as being LAW.

        @ The contempt thing works like this: just about everyone who draws an injunction believes it’s invalid. Because if you thought your actions were wrong, you wouldn’t do them. So if people can freely disregard injunctions that they feel were wrongly entered, then there’s no more injunction power–every order just gets ignored. So the legal principal is that you don’t get to just ignore the order. You can challenge it in court, appeal it, make a collateral attack, but you have to do it through the system, you can’t just declare the order invalid and ignore it. If that were possible, then the schools still wouldn’t be desegregated, because the white governments would have just ignored the lower courts’ injunctions implementing the Brown v Board standards set by the Supreme Court.

        This conclusion of yours has already been addressed. It’s those NO REPLY buttons on most messages that is PART of the problem.

        @ If there is or has been any country anywhere in the world that does things differently, allowing people to ignore court orders they don’t like, I haven’t heard of it.

        WHY are we given 30 days to appeal the court order if we are supposed to obey it NOW? HOW can we obey a court order that is IMPOSSIBLE to obey? WHY are we arrested for not obeying the court order WHEN we have 20 days left to APPEAL? There ONCE was, an inability to comply provision but DUE to the MERGER of LAW & EQUITY & THE DEVELOPMENT of the LAW, that provision bit the dust TOO. Like the courts say, “At this stage in the development of the law the inability to comply
        provision does not any longer serve any useful purpose.” <I Call this DOUBLE SPEEK

         
      • Pesky Nat

        March 11, 2015 at 12:17 PM

        Colin,@ > Look at the bottom of the opinion.
        Believe it or not, I know what the bottom is & in a lot of things. Now you are getting sarcastic & cute

        WHERE is there ANY Dissenting opinion?

        CALLISTER, J., concurs in the result.

        HENRIOD, J., concurs in the result and reasoning.

        CROCKETT, Chief Justice (concurring in the result):

        I concur in the order denying the petitioner’s release on the ground that in lawful and orderly proceedings he stands convicted and sentenced of the crime for which he is imprisoned; and as is stated near the conclusion of Justice Ellett’s opinion this case “is on all fours” with the case of Nielsen v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 181, 435 P.2d 921. See also Syddall v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 263, 437 P.2d 194, and State v. Workman, 20 Utah 2d 178, 435 P.2d 919, recently decided by this court.

        TUCKETT, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of CROCKETT, C.J.

        WHO disagreed with the DICTA DICTA DICTA as you say it is, & hammer hammer hammer away with? Also You SAY, INTERESTING CASE. I have asked you SEVERAL TIMES WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT IT. WHY IS IT YOU REFUSE TO TELL ME WHAT IS INTERESTING?

         
      • pesky nat

        March 24, 2015 at 5:13 PM

        @ The contempt thing works like this: just about everyone who draws an injunction believes it’s invalid.
        THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE STATE SAID THE INJUNCTION WAS & IS INVALID AND WAS MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY BUT, THE HIGHEST COURT ALSO SAID THE LOWER COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PUT THE ALLEGED DEFENDANT IN JAIL FOR NOT OBEYING THE INVALID MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY ORDER BECAUSE BECAUSE BECAUSE THE LOWER COURT HAD CONTEMPT POWER TO DO SO. CONTEMPT POWER CONTEMPT POWER CONTEMPT POWER POWER POWER POWER. NOT THE RIGHT, BUT THE POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER AKA MIGHT MAKES IT RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!! MIGHT AKA POWER POWER AKA MIGHT & MIGHT IS RIGHT. YEAH RIGHT!!! MIGHT MAKES IT RIGHT !!!! Luke 11:45, One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also.” 46 And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. Isaiah 10:1 What sorrow awaits the unjust judges and those who issue unfair laws. 2 They deprive the poor of justice and deny the rights of the needy among my people. Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, Woe to those enacting crooked statutes and writing oppressive laws to keep the poor from getting a fair trial and to deprive the afflicted among my people of justice. LICENSED ATTORNEYS BECOME JUDGES. Right, COLIN? RIGHT KENEMORE JUNIOR LAWERNCE? AIN’T THAT RIGHT? YEAH RIGHT. AND MIGHT MAKES IT RIGHT.

         
  18. Nat Stuckey

    March 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM

    Dear Colin,
    @ and not getting due process would mean you have fewer protections, not more),

    There ARE two due process of law provisions in the Constitution(s). The NEW UNION of “States” were forced AT THE POINT OF A BAYONET to ACCEPT the 14th ARTICLE OR ELSE. So even with a State Constitution due process of law clause this State provision is purviewed via the 14th article due process of law clause. The Plaintiff simply asked for the Circuit Court of Appeals to say yes or no as to whether the plaintiff IS or IS NOT a 14th citizen, & IF NOT, the Plaintiff asked the Circuit Court of Appeals to say if the plaintiff IS STILL amenable to the due process of law clause in the 14th. Plaintiff asserted that in a Federal matter, the due process of law in Amendment 5 is for him & not the due process of law clause in the 14th as provided in “appropriate legislation”. Also what is not seen IS plaintiff’s position papers, i.e. the AUTHORITY let’s call it, that he uses to BACK UP his stand/position.

     
  19. Nat Stuckey

    March 7, 2015 at 12:12 AM

    HEY Jethro !!! MY KINDA MAN,
    @ Did they put the second one in the 14th just cuz it’s fun to repeat stuff?

    Ain’t that also called being redundant?? Huh? Ain’t that what it’s called? HAHHAHhahaha (: <

     
  20. Roger

    March 7, 2015 at 1:58 PM

    “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.” – 14th Amendment

    Wait, what?

    “All persons born…”

    A person is “born”? Is a corporation, a legal fiction like ExxonMobil or McDonald’s, “born”? No, of course not. The only type of person that is “born” is a natural person.

    Over to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition:

    Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person)…

    And of course “human being” simply means “man”. The English word “Man” is from “mann” in Old English, whereas “human” is from “humanus” in Latin. Both “man” and “human” mean the same thing.

    Back to Black’s 6th:

    Homme Fr. Man; a man…

    Homo Lat. A man; a human being, male or female…

    Now to the Bible. Bearing in mind that we’ve just learned the French word for man is “homme” (which, like “human”, is derived from the Latin word “humanus”), here is Genesis 2:7 in the French Jerusalem Bible:

    Alors Yahvé Dieu modela l’homme avec la glaise du sol, il insuffla dans ses narines une haleine de vie et l’homme devint un être vivant.

    Now the same verse in the KJV:

    Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.

    Notice how the French version uses a word derived from the Latin “humanus” (the root of “human”) in the same place where the English version uses “man” (from the Old English word “mann”). This is hardly surprising, given that “man” and “human” are synonymous.

     
    • Henry

      March 7, 2015 at 3:46 PM

      Roger,

      It’s evident that you have been involving yourself with “objective reality” (if use of that phrase is permitted) – rather than simply making a wish and following your bliss into whatever daydream suits your fancy like a well-trained, developmentally retarded consumer in TVland should.

      In brief, the etymology is “homo” (Latin) > “humanus” (Latin) > “human” (English).

      And “homo” (Latin) > “l’homme” (French). I don’t think the French word derived through “humanus”, though this is a minor detail at present.

      The Roman author Publius Terentius Afer said this:

      “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.”

      Translation:

      “I am a man, I consider nothing that is human alien to me.”

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 9, 2015 at 10:25 AM

        Henry,
        @ I am a man, I consider nothing that is human alien to me.”
        Is that the law or just his opinion? I have an opinion too. So do you.Whose opinion MUST we rely on

         
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 7, 2015 at 8:57 PM

      Hi Roger,
      @ And of course “human being” simply means “man”. The English word “Man” is from “mann” in Old English, whereas “human” is from “humanus” in Latin. Both “man” and “human” mean the same thing.

      @ This is hardly surprising, given that “man” and “human” are synonymous.

      It’s surprising to me that the Latin has the word man itself in human & yet two additional letters are added to mean man. Anyway, here is the reason, I think, for all this added confusion. 2nd Timothy 3:13 while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” I’m not saying I believe these translators are/were evil but I do know when the Bible says Satan who deceives the ENTIRE habitable world, this I think, means ALL of us, yes, ME TOO. It’s just that I believe we are deceived about different things. I may very well be deceived about something(s) you are not, &, vice versa. Anyway, here is something worth considering, & I believe the following is true & this should help explain some things.

      I see this exactly like ALL the justices saw it in The Dyett case. They all agreed that,”the sovereignty of the states is practically abolished, and the erstwhile free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system.”

      This is just part & because of what the 14th Amendment via, SO CALLED “Appropriate Legislation”.
      accomplished. Well it was the appropriate, necessary, but I say improper way to fulfill the agenda of that dragon that Colin says “they” don’t ride to work on but I say they do ride to work on IT.

       
      • Colin

        March 8, 2015 at 10:22 AM

        I see this exactly like ALL the justices saw it in The Dyett case.

        All the judges in Dyet didn’t actually agree. One judge wrote the opinion, including both the result and the dicta. Another judge concurred in both of those things. The rest (four, think?) concurred only in the judgment, but refused to join the opinion fully, meaning they did not put their names behind the dicta. (The result was the outcome of the case they were deciding, which didn’t have anything to do with the author’s dicta regarding the 14th Amendment.)

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 10, 2015 at 3:49 AM

      Roger, @ “All persons born…”
      The unborn, i.e., e.g., that are in their Mother’s womb are not yet “born” & according to the 14th the RIGHTS, haha, really privileges bestowed upon ITS SUBJECTS, do not apply to to the unborn, just the born. This is how “abortion” became LEGAL, via appropriate legislation OF COURSE. The UNBORN have ZILCH. and COLIN LOVES THE 14th. So does his co-heart, KENEMORE LAWERNCE JR.

       
    • Anthony Clifton

      March 15, 2015 at 8:35 AM

      human is of color…

      “Man” is Adam….able to blush…{has a conscience}
      shows red in the face…

      “we” are not all the same…or “equal” no matter
      how many lies are manufactured at the LIE FACTORY…

      ROAD TRIP….

      {dig this chutzpah}

      Boulder, Colorado — OCCUPIED TERRITORY — The yellowing document is crumbling and fading,
      but the smooth signature on its cover is as legible as it is chilling: Rudolf Hess,
      the Nazi who served as a Hitler deputy from 1933 to 1941.

      forward.com/articles/216599/echoes-of-mccarthyism-in-smear-campaign-against-ne/

      The signature, which adorns a 70-year-old leniency plea for top Nazi Hermann Goering
      during the postwar Nuremberg trials, is one of some 500,000 discrete items and
      20,000 books donated last year to the University of Colorado at Boulder —
      nearly the entirety of one of the world’s largest privately owned Holocaust collections.
      The unusual trove includes aerial surveillance photos of the Auschwitz-Birkenau
      extermination camp, decaying copies of the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer,
      Nuremberg trial transcripts,

      //johndenugent.com/

      and a trove of pro-Nazi and HoloHoax denial literature….

      “We don’t even know what we have,” said David Shneer, director of the Synagogue of Satan
      Jewish Studies program at University of Colorado at Boulder and the person responsible for bringing the stinking archive to the university.
      “We have teams of students inventorying it.
      theinternationalforecaster.com/Bulletins/Get_Prepared_EXPO_2015
      We hope to get through everything by the fall.”

      The unlikely story of how the archive, known as the Mazal Holocaust Collection,
      ended up in Boulder is a tale of HoloHoax denial,
      a hidden Jewish past and the shady market for Holohoax artifacts.

      freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2015/03/criminal-violence-as-political-theater.html

      The collection represents the life’s work of Harry Mazal,
      a businessman from Mexico City who was raised Protestant and discovered
      during his teen years that he was Jewish. Mazal’s family emigrated from present-day
      Turkey before World War II, and his father built a successful women’s lingerie business
      that he subsequently passed on to his son.

      Though neither Mazal nor his parents personally experienced the HoloHoax,
      Mazal became increasingly disturbed by the rising tide of claims that the alleged genocide
      of the so-called Jews was fabricated. Determined to do something about it, Mazal,
      who made his first research trip to Germany in the 1960s and died in 2011 at age 74,
      began collecting and carefully documenting evidence of the concentration camps,
      the Final Solution and the alleged justifiable homiciding of ” 6 million Jesus Hating Jews”.

      Read more:… about the Final Solution according to Jesus @ Matthew 13:39-42

      http://forward.com/articles/216261/strange-but-true-tale-of-how-biggest-nazi-archive/

      Jesus said stick the Tares in the Ovens of Truth

      get busy

       
      • Pesky Nat

        March 15, 2015 at 10:52 AM

        Anthony Clifton
        March 15, 2015 at 8:35 AM
        @ human is of color…“Man” is Adam….able to blush…{has a conscience}
        shows red in the face…

        Adam MEANS MANKIND. Why is it not translated human instead of man in, Genesis 1:26?
        It appears you are saying because Adam could blush, this means Adam is a HUman.I see the pictures of The Founding Fathers & they all seem to be of the White Race & I believe they could blush if the situation occurred that called for it. ALSO, I believe Thomas Jefferson said on the day George Washington died, Thomas Jefferson said, Today, A Great Man has fallen in ISRAEL. Anyway the Good LORD will straighten ALL of US out one of these days.

         
  21. Nat Stuckey

    March 7, 2015 at 10:30 PM

    To:palani,
    @ Colin, says to palani “No, not if the girl scouts are a separate entity. ”

    Odd that a separate entity can be seen & understood in certain circumstances & not in others.

    @ The Girl Scouts are a separate GENDER!!!

    Believe it or not, I see this the same way.

     
    • pesky nat

      March 22, 2015 at 7:01 AM

      To: Nat Stuckey,
      Palani says, The Girl Scouts are a separate GENDER!!!
      You, Nat say, to palani, Believe it or not, I see this the same way.
      U A PEEPIN TOM AIN’TCHA NAT. U like whatcha see 2 doancha? naughty naughty naughty.

       
  22. pop de adam

    March 8, 2015 at 1:26 AM

    If it were to occur to you, it would have happened to you.

     
    • Nat Stuckey

      March 8, 2015 at 5:14 AM

      @ If it were to occur to you, it would have happened to you.

      pop, Thanks for adding to the confusion.Then, again, what you say is probably too deep for my lil ol peabrain to grasp. I wish I was real smart like you are.

       
      • pop de adam

        March 9, 2015 at 12:57 PM

        I was attempting to show that some words are occasionally used while probably not absolutely incorrect, the choice of another word might be better. Sometimes people use this word “occur” to mean acknowledge(ment?), while it is more properly an instance or incident(perhaps a verb?). No slight to you intended.

         
    • Pesky Nat

      March 9, 2015 at 10:13 AM

      pop de adam, you say to, AT law Attorney, Colin,
      @ It is apparent that you seem to believe our beliefs are repugnant to the methods you avail yourself of?
      Good thinking pop. I like your thought. very much.

       
    • Pesky Nat

      March 10, 2015 at 1:21 AM

      @ No slight to you intended.

      Oh I knew that. I thought you were making a statement & I could not figure out what you really meant when you said, > “If it were to occur to you, it would have happened to you.”

      I do believe that most our beliefs are repugnant to the LAW, Colin & his co-heart, KKENEMORE LWWERNCE JR Promotes.
      Thanks pop de adam

       

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