RSS

Is Citizenship a Privilege or a Right? Do Citizens have Rights or Duties?

29 Jun

Privilege1On a hunch, I did a search of Supreme Court cases on Findlaw.com looking for the phase “privilege of citizenship”. Findlaw indicated that there are 716 cases where that phrase occurs.

That’s pretty good evidence that citizenship is a privilege.

 

•  I did another search of Supreme Court cases on Findlaw.com looking for the phrase “right of citizenship”. Findlaw indicated there are 1,540 cases where that phrase occurs.

That’s pretty good evidence that citizenship is a right.

•  So what is citizenship—a privilege or a right?

I don’t know the answer to that question and I certainly don’t plan to read 2,256 Supreme Court cases to find out.

Apparently, the answer is “both”.

Sometimes, citizenship is a privilege; sometimes it’s a right.

In theory, it might even be possible that sometimes, citizenship is both a privilege and a right.

It’s also conceivable that some forms of citizenship (“citizen of the United States”?) are a privilege while other forms (“citizen of The State of Texas”?) are a right.

Determining whether a particular kind of citizenship is a right or a privilege is important since, so far as I know, “rights” are always good, beneficial and unencumbered.  “Privileges,” on the other hand, can be a mixed blessing because it’s my understanding that “privileges” include obligations.

For example, the modern license to drive is deemed a “privilege” (rather than a right) because that license includes the obligation to obey the rules of the road, be subject to the traffic laws and traffic cops and pay a fee to have your vehicle registered and insured every year.  Modern driving is not a “right” but a “privilege”.  That “privilege” includes the obligation to signal whenever you turn right or left, fasten your seatbelt when driving, and submit to a sobriety test if the police think you’re inebriated.

Everyone wants the “right” to drive.  Very few want the “privilege” to drive because that privilege includes onerous obligations.

 

•  Similarly, the “right” to be a citizen may be a great blessing, while the “privilege” of citizenship could include the obligation to register for the draft and pay income taxes.

Rights are blessing.  Privileges can be a chore.

I strongly suspect that rights are associated with the beneficiaries of a trust, while “privileges” are associated with the trustees/fiduciaries of a trust.

 

•  I’m very wary of “privileges”. I strongly suspect that government habitually provides us with opportunities to voluntarily sign up for seeming harmless and desirable “privileges” that we mistake for “rights”.  Whenever we voluntarily sign up for the privileges of driving, voting, fishing, welfare, practicing law or practicing medicine or piloting an airplane, I suspect that we unwittingly also voluntarily subject ourselves to onerous rules, regulations and obligations that we did not expect or understand.

I don’t yet have any answers to reliably explain the difference between “rights” and “privileges”.  However, I’m hoping that:

1)  This brief article will sensitize some of its readers to the potential difference between “rights” and “privileges”; and,

2)  Some of this article’s readers will already have some reliable insight into the distinction between rights and privileges that they’ll share in the comments below.

 

 
82 Comments

Posted by on June 29, 2015 in Privileges, Rights

 

Tags: ,

82 responses to “Is Citizenship a Privilege or a Right? Do Citizens have Rights or Duties?

  1. Zeke Layman

    June 29, 2015 at 2:18 AM

    I would say legislatively it’s a privilege and judicially it is a right. If you are in the common law court, it would be a right, if in an inferior court it would be a privilege. An inferior court does not have jurisdiction over a citizen as subject matter, but it is always presumes it, and that presumption is the privilege.

    I think the privilege is the commerce, congress can regulate commerce, and the right is Liberty. Liberty is protected by the Judicial Power of the United States (Article III), which “shall extend to all cases Law and Equity…”

    The people can decide if they want their Citizenship to be a right or a privilege, but they have to show it through action, not words. Stop an inferior court from assuming subject matter jurisdiction, and you’ve successfully exercised your Citizenship Right.

     
  2. colleendd

    June 29, 2015 at 2:22 AM

    Al, Al, Al!,
    Are you that dense? Come on- with ALL that you’ve written over the years Have YOU yourself NOT gotten a clue to what’s REALLY GOING ON? It can be pretty insulting or just plain stupid to EVEN QUESTION at this point. Really, think about what your writing!

     
    • Carlos Zetta

      June 29, 2015 at 3:29 AM

      What the heck does she mean? I think everything Zeke said is pretty much right on.

       
    • Russell Arms

      June 29, 2015 at 9:53 AM

      colleendd
      June 29, 2015 at 2:22 AM
      Al, Al, Al!,
      @ Are you that dense? Come on- with ALL that you’ve written over the years Have YOU yourself NOT gotten a clue to what’s REALLY GOING ON? It can be pretty insulting or just plain stupid to EVEN QUESTION at this point. Really, think about what your writing!

      colleendd colleendd colleendd!!
      I thought about what Al wrote & it makes sense to me. What did Al write that in your opinion did not make sense to you, or, what is wrong with what Al wrote? Be specific. I am thinking that you see something(s) in what Al wrote that I do not or did not see.

       
    • Allen Curtis

      July 14, 2015 at 12:20 PM

      @ colleendd
      @June 29, 2015 at 2:22 AM
      @Al, Al, Al!,
      @Are you that dense? Come on- with ALL that you’ve written over the years Have YOU yourself NOT gotten a clue to what’s REALLY GOING ON? It can be pretty insulting or just plain stupid to EVEN QUESTION at this point. Really, think about what your writing!

      COLLEENDD COLLEENDD COLLEENDD,
      I do hope Al will check your IP address out so he will see that you are not one of “US”. :-) D

       
  3. Henry

    June 29, 2015 at 2:44 AM

    Well, at least as late as the “Constitution of the State of Texas” from 1861, which predates Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, citizenship was a right (for some). State citizenship doesn’t appear to be mentioned in any Texas constitution after this one. Notice that citizenship here pertains to a “State of Texas”, which could be important:

    Article 3, Section 1. That all persons who were citizens of the State of Texas on the second day of March, eighteen hundred and sixty-one; all persons born after that time, of parents, citizens of this State; all persons born in this State of parents residing in and entitled to acquire the rights of citizenship; all citizens of either of the Confederate States of America, or of any State which may hereafter be admitted into union with the Confederate States of America, on terms of equality with them, immigrating to and permanently residing in this State; all persons naturalized by the Constitution and laws of the Confederate States of America and of this State, and permanently residing therein, (Indians not taxed, negroes and their descendants excepted,) shall be citizens of the State of Texas.

     
    • Toland

      June 29, 2015 at 3:11 AM

      State citizenship doesn’t appear to be mentioned in any Texas constitution after this one.

      I’m not sure what you meant to say here, because state citizenship is mentioned all over the place in later Texas constitutions.

       
    • Bertha Kitt

      June 30, 2015 at 4:59 PM

      Henry
      @ > June 29, 2015 at 2:44 AM
      “This State” is mentioned 4 times in the 2nd paragraph, but, State is a proper noun. I will be willing to bet that today, & for at least a few years, when “this state” is written in any legislation,etc., it will be a common noun. But Harvard & Yale Law Grads & 60- IQ Peace Officers don’t know or see or care that there is a difference in meaning of a proper v. a common noun. Then again, maybe not. There was a time it meant something different.

       
      • TJ

        June 30, 2015 at 7:04 PM

        yes and there was a time when word smithing and semantics meant “strict construction”… now it’s which way the wind is blowing and which PAC is the highest bidder… can you spell TREASON?

         
  4. Carlos Zetta

    June 29, 2015 at 3:20 AM

    Well, the way I understand it is, if we are born in any state of the union, we were born free UNTIL, our mother, the “informant” and “donor” of her baby, YOU, (check what it says below your mother’s signature on your birth certificate and see if it says “donor” or “informant”), signs the birth certificate, at which time, she just “donated” her baby, YOU, (as the donor/informant), to the State. They allow you to raise “their” new little “baby subject/slave” AS LONG AS YOU DO IT “correctly,” (i.e. their way), which is why you see so many kids literally being stolen from their parents arms today by Child so called “Protective” Services. The State does not consider these parents to be raising “their,” (the State’s), kids correctly. Take Home Schooling, for example. They are taking kids away from their parents just because they are home schooling them – they will find any excuse to do this in order to make sure they are “properly indoctrinated” – oops, I mean educated.

    Germany actually admits that they do not want kids to be taught anything other than the “school doctrine,” which, of course, is also “coincidentally,” the State doctrine, (indoctrination), and they do not allow home schooling at all. Also, remember Justina? They made her a ward of the court, which means that they were then LEGALLY allowed to do medical experiments on her, (I’m sure you saw how “well” that worked out for Justina). There is a law in MA which says that all kids who are made wards of the court/or state can be experiment upon. Nice, huh? Sounds like something straight out of Nazi Germany. So before your mother unknowingly “donated” you to the State, you WERE a citizen of the state of the Union you were born in, with full natural, unalienable, and Constitutional Rights. You were actually FREE. However, the moment you signed your first W4 on your first job, AND then reinforced that with a SS no, and when you “swore under penalty of perjury” that you are a “US CITIZEN, you lost all of your Constitutional and natural Rights, because your new parents, the federal government, (see parens patriae doctrine), look at you as their “subject/slave” – NOT as a living man or woman, and they have no interest in you being free. Their interest in you is how much you can work and how much in taxes you can also “donate” to support their “causes,” (I won’t even go there).

    Whoever CREATES a thing has the right to control it. God created living men and women, and even the government knows that they have NO RIGHTS or Jurisdiction over living men and women, so, not to be outdone by God, who created living men and women, (because they want to be ‘AS GODs’ – who else said that – hmmm?), they “created” the ALL CAPITAL letter name, (Strawman), which they DO have jurisdiction over, (since they “created” it), and deceived YOU into believing that you ARE *IT*.

    And if you ACT as if you ARE *IT,* (by consenting and assenting to all their demands), you will be treated as an “IT,” a “thing” (Res-ident, Rez means “thing”). And that is how they got control of
    YOU, the living man or woman, who, until you UN-do these erroneous presumptions on the part of the government that You are IT, (your Strawman), you are subject to every jot and title of their every whim, and you have NO RIGHTS. Do “things” have Rights? I also think this is probably the reason for one of their favorite terms I learned about on this website, “Humans and OTHER animals.”

    Animals do not have Constitutional or Natural Rights, so if they can convince us that we came from monkeys, then we are on the same level with animals in THEIR MINDS ONLY, and this could just be another way for them to deny us our Rights. Actually, they have NO right to deny us our rights or anything else, AS LONG AS we have “come out from among US CITIZENS,” and we do not harm anyone or their property, (to presume that they do have these rights over us is to “play God”), but they claim that we “volunteered” to become the LEGAL FICTION/SLAVE/SUBJECT that THEY created, HOWEVER, there is a problem with that…..

    Unilateral contracts, where only one party signs a contract, and that party only signed because they have been told that it is “mandatory,” (otherwise, they would NOT have signed it), and they also were not told when they signed these documents, (like the SS-5 form, for example), that it was NOT mandatory, but voluntary, and they did not give full disclosure either, these things make the contract VOID-ABLE, but, in order to actually VOID them, every individual living man and woman must go through a process, and one of the first steps is to get your DOMICILE out of DC by making an affidavit saying all kinds of things, which I will not list here, and notifying every party/government agency, where you signed your name without also putting, “Without prejudice, All Rights Reserved UCC1-308, rescinding your signatures on these documents in order to get back the status of the natural and FREE living person you were when you were born, and before your mom unknowingly “donated” you to the State. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You must make sure that you go back to being a citizen of the state of the UNION in which you were born, (and that does not mean the CORPORATE FICTIONAL STATE in which you were born, which would be impossible anyway, because there are no hospitals in fictional “States” with no meets and bounds such as in CORPORATE STATES. The Corporate States are just as much fiction as your Strabewman is.

    Well, I could go on and on, but I am led to stop now.

    Disclosure: I am not an attorney, and this is not to be interpreted as any type of legal advice whatsoever. I reserve all of my Rights without prejudice, UCC1-308. This is with the copyright.

     
    • Allen Curtis

      July 14, 2015 at 2:17 PM

      Carlos Zetta,
      Re: > Well, the way I understand it is, if we are born in any state of the union, we were born free UNTIL, our mother, the “informant” and “donor” of her baby, YOU, (check what it says below your mother’s signature on your birth certificate and see if it says “donor” or “informant”), signs the birth certificate, at which time, she just “donated” her baby, YOU, (as the donor/informant), to the State.

      My dear Carlos, et.al., The “Powers that Be” STILL are indoctrinated to believe that YOU, I, & EVERYONE ELSE HAS A S.S. Number, and IF we do not tell them/him.her what it is, when it is demanded from him/her, then in that event, he/she thinks we are HIDING something & THEN, that is where the FUN begins. Experience IS the only way we can KNOW some things, SOooooo good luck, my friend.

       
      • Mark Twang

        July 22, 2015 at 10:33 AM

        @ Experience IS the only way we can KNOW some things, SOooooo good luck, my friend.

        I AGREE !! We NEED to HEAR from People like Kent Hovind, & Alfred, & OTHERS who have “BEEN THERE & THROUGH THAT” !! Front line on the ground Boots experience, first hand knowledge, of the TRUTH about what it’s REALLY LIKE !! The stroke of a pen can wipe you & me out !! I KNOW !! I too have been there there & through that !! It’s hard to understand HOW I am still alive. Sometimes I wonder IF I AM !! But, NOW knowing what death really is, I’m still alive, STILL, at times I STILL WONDER about it !! Mental TORTURE DOES TAKE ITS TOLL !!!

         
  5. Carlos Zetta

    June 29, 2015 at 3:39 AM

    PS. I think Adask is correct that, as living men and women we have Rights. As ens legis Strawmen, we only have privileges. That’s the bottom line.

     
  6. TJ

    June 29, 2015 at 6:48 AM

    US citizen-ship is a benefit… those who immigrant can only ever be a US citizen.

    We who have relatives who fought against the British in the Revolutionary War and were granted American Citizenship under the Treaty of Paris 1783 and the Foreign Immune Sovereign Act…have Rights; we have been tricked by word smithing and semantic deceit BY…. FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT…. take back your Rights if you qualify.

    Politicians, judges etc. all have immunity based on FISA, as foreign agents of the Washington, D.C. “see”… they are foreign agents registered with the Department of State-director of Special Consular Affairs…. IMPEACH them…take away their immunities

     
  7. gary

    June 29, 2015 at 10:07 AM

    As you have pointed out many times in the past, Alfred, it is probably a matter of VENUE, As the United States (c.1871, District of Columbia) and The United States of America (c.1777, Articles of Confederation) are two ENTIRELY SEPERATE VENUES, as foreign to one another as France and Brazil, it would appear that one (‘person’) has dual citizenship, until, as Carlos points out, via “registration”, one gives up, whether voluntarily, knowingly, or not, the ‘rights’ inherent in being an ‘American native’, for the privileges of being a ‘US citizen/slave’…….which actually brings up an interesting question ( haven’t looked at it this way before): since dual citizenship is ‘legal’ in the United States (District of Columbia), is it possible to actually ‘keep’ the dual citizenship and manage both, or does the ‘privilege’ of being a ‘US citizen/slave’ cancel out the ‘freedom’ of being an American National?……..”inquiring minds want to know”……interesting question….though, like you, I am NOT going to having anything to do with the ‘United States’……

     
  8. Harry

    June 29, 2015 at 10:32 AM

    Citizenship. The status of being a citizen and MAY INCLUDE (a) Membership in a political society, implying a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of society.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd edition

    It appears that there is a “citizenship” that may not include membership in a political society that still provides such non-political non-member citizen with civil rights that are not connected with the organization or the administration of government. These non-member “civil rights” are distinct from the civil rights [i.e. government ascribed privileges] afforded to members of the political society;i.e. those civil rights that have their origin in the government and pertain to the administration of that government and its citizen/subjects.

    As otherwise defined “civil rights” are rights appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship IN a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in civil action. Citizenship is also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, and by various acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition Rights – civil rights

    Duty of allegiance. Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government [supposedly] gives. Natural allegiance in American law is the allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and also from naturalized citizens, and which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law. 2 Kent, Comm. 43-49

    “Permission of government declared by law?” What law makes such declaration? How does one go about acquiring this permission of government if they wish remove their obligation of allegiance?

    In the United States [allegiance] is a political obligation depending, not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it binds the citizen to the observance of all laws of his own sovereign; See: ALLEGIANCE in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th. edition p 99

    Protection draws subjection, subjection protection. Maxim

    Can a citizen of the United State or a state voluntarily give up the government protection in consideration of their being freed from subjection to that government and obedience to all the laws of the sovereign?

    This duty or obligation of fidelity and obedience to government appears to only relates to the citizen who is also a member in a political society. The other inhabitant non-member type citizenship is apparently not CONNECTED with the organization and administration of government and as a result there would be no allegiance/protection relationship between the inhabitant citizen and the organized government. There would be no political obligation of allegiance in consideration for government protection if I am reading this aright. However, this non-member would have natural rights. See: civil rights in Black’s 4th under RIGHTS

    Citizens are MEMBERS of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or SUBMITTED themselves to the DOMINION [i.e. ownership] of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition

    The citizen cannot complain, because he has VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED himself to such a form of government …he OWES ALLEGIANCE to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres MUST PAY THE PENALTIES. 115 U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

    What are the penalties in view here?

    TAX. To impose a tax; to enact or declare that a pecuniary CONTRIBUTION shall be made by the persons liable, for the support of government. An annual compensation paid to government for annual protection and for current support of government. In a general sense, any CONTRIBUTION imposed by government upon individuals, for the use and service of the state, whether under the name of toll, TRIBUTE, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name. And, in its essential characteristics is not a debt. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition

    Taxes are not a debt. They are a contribution. Forced contributions.

    CONTRIBUTION. Right of one who has discharged a COMMON liability to RECOVER of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he OUGHT to pay or bear. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition

    Members ought to contribute their fair share (aliquot portion) of the joint tax obligation to the government that has discharged the common liability of its members/citizens/subjects.

    TRIBUTE. A CONTRIBUTION which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his SUBJECTS to sustain the expenses of the state. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition

    “The hand of the diligent shall bear rule, but the slothful shall be under TRIBUTE.” Prov. 12:24

    It appears that a slothful subject/member/citizen cannot just withdraw his allegiance to his sovereign and refuse to pay his fair share of the joint membership TRIBUTE tax obligation to his sovereign government because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government and he has enjoyed the protection and promotion of his individual rights/privileges under that government..

    Is it not written that if one is converted while a servant that he is to continue to be a good servant, but if he can be free to choose that rather than servitude? Is there a lawful way in which a man in voluntary servitude may become free of his obligation of fidelity to government?

    God’s people who were in voluntary servitude in Egypt did not refuse to pay the tribute tax and serve their master Pharaoh. They did not just get up and leave. This was because they were obligated to remain subject to Pharaoh in consideration for the protection Pharaoh provided for them in saving them from starvation in their time of need. If they attempted to not contribute their fair share of the obligation they would be subject to the penalties for doing so.

    If you recall it was only when God decided His people had served enough time for their slothful behavior that He instructed Moses to tell Pharaoh to let His people go. Only when God had move Pharaoh to kick His people out did they actually leave. At that point they were not runaway servants any longer under obligation. They were kicked out and released from their obligation to pay tribute to Pharaoh.

    Will it be any different for God’s people today? Perhaps we need to figure out how to more and more come into the Kingdom of God and live a righteous life in His Kingdom. By doing so we may find that we are also more and more coming out of the worldly kingdom in which find ourselves. In short a lawful step into the Kingdom is also a lawful step out of the world as far as being a member “of” it is concerned. Can this be done in a lawful way?

    I do not know when God will come to the aid of His people in revealing to them the truth that will make them free from their present condition of voluntary servitude, but I know it will eventually come, and when it does it will be a sight to behold.

    I doubt I will live long enough to behold that sight, nevertheless, as instructed my daily prayer is always that His Kingdom comes in all of the earth as it presently is in Heaven. Until that happens it looks like I am obligated to be a good servant and render unto Caesar the things (tribute taxes) which be Caesar’s and to God the things which be God’s. However, if I may be lawfully free of any obligations to Caesar, I should choose freedom rather than voluntary servitude. Peace.

     
    • TJ

      June 29, 2015 at 4:20 PM

      Nothing is voluntary if you are compelled or it is based on FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, et.al.

       
  9. Russell Arms

    June 29, 2015 at 10:43 AM

    Adask,
    @ “I’m very wary of “privileges”. I strongly suspect that government habitually provides us with opportunities to voluntarily sign up for seeming harmless and desirable “privileges” that we mistake for “rights”. Whenever we voluntarily sign up for the privileges of driving, voting, fishing, welfare, practicing law or practicing medicine or piloting an airplane, I suspect that we unwittingly also voluntarily subject ourselves to onerous rules, regulations and obligations that we did not expect or understand.”

    I see this the same as you do. The Supreme Court of The U.S. in the Slaughter-House cases clearly says the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments were for, & addressed to the grievances of the Negro Race. BUT !! there is no doubt in my mind that as time passed, whoever partook of ANY “Government benefit” e.g., Social Security, became as you say, subject to onerous rules, regulations and obligations that we did not expect or understand.” IF I am asked, are you a Citizen of the United States, I ask, which one? How do we we know how something is spelled when it is spoken verbally? HOWEVER, due to indoctrination, the courts NOW say IF ANYONE born in the United States claims that he/she is not a citizen of the United States, the he/she is a man/woman without a Country. SOoooooo it’s still a rough row to hoe. Might does make right even if it’s wrong.

     
    • gary

      June 29, 2015 at 5:09 PM

      need to be careful about that “born in the United States” thing, as “born in the United States” means ‘born in the District of Columbia or territory controlled by the United States’, which is a VERY different place than ‘America’, or specifically The United States of America, defined in the Articles of Confederation:

      § 15.00. Information Required to Establish Legal Presence in the United States (U.S.) for Purpo…
      13 CA ADC § 15.00BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
      Barclays Official California Code of Regulations
      Title 13. Motor Vehicles
      Division 1. Department of Motor Vehicles
      Chapter 1. Department of Motor Vehicles
      Article 2. Driver Licenses and Identification Cards (Refs & Annos)
      13 CCR § 15.00
      § 15.00. Information Required to Establish Legal Presence in the United States (U.S.) for Purpose of Determining Eligibility for an Original Driver License or Identification Card.
      (a) U.S. citizens who apply for an original driver license or identification card shall submit one of the following documents that is legible and unaltered to establish proof of the person’s legal presence in the United States.
      (1) A certified copy of a United States birth certificate issued in or by a city, county, or state vital statistics department.
      (2) A U.S. Certificate of Birth Abroad (FS-545, DS-1350) or a Report of Birth Abroad of U.S. Citizen (FS-240).
      (3) A Proof of Indian Blood Degree issued by the federal government.
      (4) A Certified Birth Certificate issued from:
      (A) Puerto Rico, on or after January 13, 1941.
      (B) Guam, on or after April 10, 1899.
      (C) U.S. Virgin Islands, on or after January 17, 1917.
      (D) Northern Mariana Islands, after November 4, 1986.
      (E) American Samoa.

      The requirements for obtaining a California Drivers License clearly state that a valid Social Security Number is required, mandatory, for obtaining a California Drivers License:
      CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE
      “Social security number (SSN) requirement
      The Social Security Act allows any state to use the SSN to establish the identification of an individual. The California Vehicle Code requires the collection of the social security number.
      All applicants must submit to DMV their social security number. Evidence of your social security number is required only on applications for an original commercial driver license and any request to correct a SSN that is already on the driver record data base, regardless of the class. The SSN is considered confidential and will not appear on the photo license or be encoded on the magnetic stripe. Any documents that the department is authorized to release to the public will have the SSN masked. The SSN is electronically verified with Social Security Administration while you are in the DMV office for all DL/ID card transactions, if it has not already been verified”. (emphasis added)

      1653.5. (a) Every form prescribed by the department for use by an applicant for the issuance or renewal by the department of a driver’s license or identification card pursuant to Division 6 (commencing with Section 12500) shall contain a section for the applicant’s
      social security account number.
      (b) Every form prescribed by the department for use by an applicant for the issuance, renewal, or transfer of the registration or certificate of title to a vehicle shall contain a section for the applicant’s driver’s license or identification card number.
      (c) A person who submits to the department a form that, pursuant to subdivision (a), a section for the applicant’s social security account number, or pursuant to subdivision (b), the applicant’s driver’s license or identification card number, if any, shall furnish the appropriate number in the space provided.
      (d) The department shall not complete an application that does not include the applicant’s social security account number or driver’s license or identification card number as required under subdivision (c).

      The authority to issue Social Security Numbers (SSNs) is found in 20CFR §422.104. The section describing persons who are legally eligible to apply for an SSN states:

      Title 20: Employees’ Benefits
      PART 422-ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
      Subpart B- General Procedures

      § 422.104 Who can be assigned a social security number.

      (1) A United States citizen; or

      (2) An alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence….

      UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC):
      “UCC 9-307 (h). Location of United States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.”
      CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
      SECTION 9301- 9342
      9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

      CALIFORNIACOMMERCIALCODE
      SECTION 9101- 9110
      (77) “State” means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
      SECTION 9301- 9342
      9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
      SECTION 6101-6111
      (14) “United States” includes its territories and possessions and
      the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

      CALIFORNIA WATER CODE
      SECTION 13050-13051

      13050.

      (c) “Person” includes any city, county, district, the state, and
      the United States, to the extent authorized by federal law.

      (o) “Citizen or domiciliary” of the state includes a foreign
      corporation having substantial business contacts in the state or
      which is subject to service of process in this state.

      FISH AND GAME CODE
      SECTION 1-89.1
      1. This code shall be known as the Fish and Game Code.
      83. “State” means the State of California, unless applied to the
      different parts of the United States. In the latter case, it includes
      the District of Columbia and the territories.
      6017. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior [outside] limits of the [Sovereign] state of California and includes [only] all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States
      17018. “State” includes the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.
      [which don’t include the 50 sovereign states but do include federal areas within those states]]

      “Establishing a legal presence in the UNited States” means you are establishing you are a citizen of the District of Columbia, and it is easy to keep forgetting that the UNited States is NOT ‘The United States of America’, whenever you see it in a ‘law’ of the UNited States….it only applies to the MEMBERS of the UNited States Club, NOT to ‘Americans’ who are not in the club. I am NOT ‘in the club’, I am just a native on the land, as were my ancestors, and being ‘without country’ works just fine for me, as I can follow my conscience, rather than the ludicrous ‘laws’ made up by some ‘person’, ‘laws’ I had no part or say in, and 99% of time, heartily disagree with…..they are there to 1) enrich the corporation making up the ridiculous corporate rules the members have to follow, and 2) control those members so they all become little, mindless, worker bees, doing what they are told, when they are told, for the reason they are told, whether it a ‘normal’ person, or some cop or other para-military, mindless, non-thinking, obedient slave, doing the unthinkable ONLY because they were told it was ‘permissable’ because GovCo says it’s okay….

      I’ll take ‘anarchy’ first….conscience over orders……because I can…. : )

       
      • Russell Arms

        June 29, 2015 at 10:04 PM

        gary,
        @ need to be careful about that “born in the United States” thing, as “born in the United States” means ‘born in the District of Columbia or territory controlled by the United States’, which is a VERY different place than ‘America’, or specifically The United States of America, defined in the Articles of Confederation:

        gary, I SAID, IF I am asked, are you a Citizen of the United States, I ask, which one? <

        No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,……………………………………………."

        When I SAID, IF I am asked, are you a Citizen of the United States, in my mind, I mean, as United States is written in the above paragraph. WHY do you think I ask, WHICH ONE? gary, how many times have you been confronted by gov-co employees & asked questions, KNOWING you were at their mercy to do what they wanted to do with & to you at their whim? I see in the responses of many posters that they have MUCH knowledge, BUT, not much, IF ANY Boots on the ground first hand, FRONT LINE Experience. The way things ARE today, knowing a lot can getcha in a lot of HOT water. IF what YOU know doesn't "jive" with what they know, you will be said to be dangerous & a threat to the "peace & dignity" of the people & some people will just have to find out the HARD way what happens next. Once again gary, how many times have you been confronted by gov-co employees/agents, & asked questions, KNOWING you were at their mercy to do what they wanted to do with & to you at their whim?

         
      • Russell Arms

        June 30, 2015 at 8:17 AM

        gary,
        @ “need to be careful about that “born in the United States” thing, as “born in the United States” means ‘born in the District of Columbia or territory controlled by the United States’, which is a VERY different place than ‘America’, or specifically The United States of America, defined in the Articles of Confederation:”

        What YOU & I say, & what the adversary says, are two different things. The Adversary BELIEVES the U.S. MEANS what was once called STATESIDE, meaning ANY one of the States, E.G. !!! Texas, Arizona, Virginia, etc + Hawaii, Alaska, & ANY OTHER add on so called State.At last count, 50. I have not kept up with the changes, IF any.I don’t CARE what has been added. But I’ll put it this way. IF I knew where you lived,call it your place of Abode, Domicile, it makes no difference, BUT !! IF I knew, & IF I was a “Peace Officer” I would keep my eye on you & IF & when you got into “your” mode of conveyance, e.g., automobile, I would stop you, WHY? YOU WERE WEAVING. Anyway, I would ask for ID documents & IF you did not or could not provide me with EXACTLY what I would ask you for I would arrest you, I will “charge you will SEVERAL “INFRACTIONS” you WILL be denied access to make a phone call. You WILL NOT be taken before a magistrate, etc. UNTIL you provide a S.S.N. & THEN we will see what all your profound knowledge will accomplish. LOOK I believe you ARE RIGHT BUT !! The powers that be say YOU & I ARE WRONG.I have to row my boat alone I don’t know if you do or not. I f you have someone with you when I arrest you I will call a “Courtesy car” for your passenger, excuse me, your GUEST.

         
      • TJ

        June 30, 2015 at 9:13 AM

        Their Social Security Number

        I do not have a Social Security Number and any identifying numbers you have associated with my name are untrustworthy, a product of duress and/or ignorance on the part of the submitter of any information in your possession.

        If I did “own” one I would be able to control and restrict its use. Ownership implies exclusive control and the ability to control the uses of others.

        *** 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) says the Social Security Number belongs to the government, not me.

        Disclosure of Social Security Number (SSN)
        Act Dec. 31, 1974, P. L. 93-579, Section 7, 88 Stat. 1909, provides:

        (a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his [it is NEVER ‘his”-I added] social security account number.

        (2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to –

        (A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or

        (B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.

        (b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.

        I, John Henry Doe, nunc pro tunc, hereby make this rescission, termination, and waiver of limited liability insurance scheme benefits voluntarily, freely, and with reservation of all rights without prejudice, and state the following:

        At the time of application for limited liability insurance benefits and other benefits via an SS-5 form, I was not capable of contracting, having no knowledge of the terms and conditions, reciprocity requirements, undisclosed governing laws, principles and doctrines, or implied terms of such a contract, being unconscionable, in that it provides no equal exchange of consideration, and cannot be made valid without consideration.

        I hereby give notice that any and all property extracted from JOHN HENRY DOE by the SSA, its agents, principals, or co-business partners was/would be extracted under fraudulent pretenses, inducement by fraud, etc., and that John Henry Doe is the one who has authority to enforce a right to all such interpleaded property, as John Henry Doe is a secured party to JOHN HENRY DOE, and that all such property is not bail in fact under any Trading With the Enemy Act doctrine.

        I, John Henry Doe, nunc pro tunc, state for the record, that I am not a United States citizen, Fourteenth Amendment citizen, United Nations citizen, State of _______ citizen, nor any citizen at all, nor that I am an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, nor that I am a beneficiary of any compelled benefits scheme arising out of any contract, trust, or agreement with the United States, United Nations, United States of America, Washington D.C., or the State of _________, but that I am a de jure man on the land, first appearing as John Henry Doe on the ____ day of ________, _____, at _________ county, ______ state, and no witness has testified and no record exists that establish any fact that I have a fiduciary duty or liability for JOHN HENRY DOE. If “national citizenship” of John Henry Doe has been assumed or concluded by construction, mistake, or other means, this request for withdrawal constitutes a formal withdraw and Notice of Withdrawal of such status.

        _______________________________, without recourse, under agency
        John Henry Doe

        Dated: _______________

         
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 5, 2015 at 12:02 AM

        gary,
        @ need to be careful about that “born in the United States” thing, as “born in the United States” means ‘born in the District of Columbia or territory controlled by the United States’

        gary,what do you call the, “Continental United States”? Do you really believe anyone in the Legal system is going to agree with you? IF you feel you have to educate anyone on what “United States means” they do not understand very much. Rare is the one who knows WHAT needs to be done to “protect” himself & rarer still is the one who knows HOW to do it.

         
  10. David Baugh

    June 29, 2015 at 12:19 PM

    Al, my dear old Friend. As you know, beginning in 1991, I took a stand against the driver’s license/ registration regulatory revenue schemes of taxation here in Missouri, and though I won a few cases, and proved what I set out to prove, I ended up a political prisoner for 6 years of my life. This, combined with years of research and study qualifies me as somewhat of an expert in that area of law. In your article, you imply that “driving is a privilege” granted by the state which is 100% correct. It matters not whether you are a “Citizen” or “citizen” of the state; what matters is the specific activity you are engaged in, in use of a specific “motor vehicle” on the public roadways. Thus, your status as a citizen, or a non-citizen is wholly irrelevant to the driver’s license issue. A “motor vehicle” as defined in Title 18, Section 31 is that which is used exclusively for commerce or gain on the highways. A private automobile is merely a mechanical conveyance used as a “place travel device” by the owner or motorist. Unless one is engaged in some specific, occupational, business, commercial, or public driving activity, in use of a motor vehicle used exclusively for that purpose, he/she is not subject to the regulatory revenue scheme of taxation. In Missouri, the Driver’s License is merely the receipt for the payment of the “motor vehicle driver’s license [excise] tax.” The vehicle registration (license plate) is the receipt for the payment of the motor vehicle tax. Missouri statutes differentiate between the “right” to use the highway, and the “privilege” to do so. The MO Code of State Regulations (CSR) governs the administration and enforcement of such regulatory revenue schemes. However, they are conveniently lacking the essential, implementing, promulgating rules the Director of the MODOR is required by law to give to otherwise “naked statute” the full force & effect of law. Here is an excerpt from my “Memorandum of Law” on the subject matter:

    Clearly, by the admission of Missouri case law, the only constitutionally permissible legislative intent and purpose of the regulatory revenue licensure scheme of taxation is regulatory and remedial, and cannot be arbitrarily and subjectively punitive, and it was intended only as a deterrent for public protection against possible injury at the hands of certain incompetents or impaired individuals, and to create no liability where a private motorist is in fact competent but unlicensed, and, more specifically, not engaged in any statutorily specific privileged, occupational, business, commercial, or public driving activity requiring a license (payment of the aforesaid tax) (See Siess v. Layton, (Supp.1967), 417 S.W.2d 6, cited in RSMo).

    The driver’s license issued by the MODOR merely evidences the payment of the aforesaid excise tax defined as:
    “…every form of taxation which is not a burden laid directly upon persons or property, and includes every form of charge imposed by public authority for purpose of raising revenue upon the performance of an act, the enjoyment of a privilege, or the engaging in an occupation,” Note 13, excise tax, Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S., p. 427.

    By legal definition (Black’s Law Dictionary), a “privilege tax” is akin to an “occupation tax” and a “business tax” and such taxation is not generally applicable against all Missouri motorists arbitrarily; such motorists must be members of the specific class of “persons” engaged in some specific, statutorily defined, privileged, occupational, business, commercial, or public driving activity, in use of a “vehicle” identified as having the “nature and characteristics” rendering said vehicle and its driver/operator subject to such taxation and associated regulatory control under the police power which the legislature deems is essential for the public health, safety, morals, and welfare.

    An excise tax, being an indirect tax, cannot lawfully be arbitrarily, directly applied against the public because such direct taxation without apportionment is strictly prohibited by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, U.S. Constitution.

    According to prevailing Missouri law:
    “A license tax for using vehicles on city streets was not a tax on personal property, but was a license tax on a privilege connected with property, although imposed for revenue” See Kansas City v. Richardson, (1901) 90 Mo.App.450, Article 10, Section 4(a), Note 18, p. 428, Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S.; and,

    “Const. 1875, Art. 10, Section 4 was not applicable to property and rights the money value of which was not ascertainable, such as the use of the public highways by vehicles,” See City of St. Louis v. Green, (1879) 7 Mo.App. reversed on other grounds, 70 Mo. 562, Article 10, Section 4(a), Note 18, p. 428, Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S.; and,

    Missouri law provides that the “motor vehicle driver’s license tax” is not a property tax, but is an excise tax imposed for the privilege of conducting business for profit or gain on the public highways in Missouri, See General Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Bates, (1952) 249 S.W.2d 458, 363 Mo. 146, and American Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis (1917) 192 S.W. 402, 270 Mo., Note 14, Occupation taxes in General, Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution, Taxation, p. 427, V.A.M.S.; and,

    Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution provides that liability to pay the “motor vehicle driver’s license tax” is determined by the “nature and characteristics” of the property (automobile) being used, and not on the nature, residence, or business of the owner or amount owned. See Note 13, Excise Tax, p. 427 and p. 422 under classification of taxable property-taxes on franchises, incomes, excises, and licenses, Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S.; and,

    The controlling U.S. Supreme Court cases provide that:
    “Though a citizen may have under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to transport his property upon them by motor vehicles, yet, he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion without violating the due process clause or the equal protection clause. Packard v. Banton, 254 U.S. Loc.Cit.1, 44 S.Ct. 257, 68 L.Ed. 596. There is a constant recognition of the principle that under this power the state ‘has a broad discretion in the exercise of its power of regulation.’ Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553, Loc.Cit. 560, 51 S.Ct. 582, 587, 75 L.Ed. 1264. Upon such classification no person can interpose an objection, save only in those cases where the classification or discrimination is entirely arbitrary, and the burden is on the assailant to show that the classification is essentially arbitrary.” Park Transp. Co. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, et.al., 60 S.W.2d, 388-392.

    Further, “it is pointed out by Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations, 7th Ed. P. 283, that a license for regulation is issued under the police power; but the exaction of the license fee with a view to revenue would be an exercise of the taxing power. The police power cannot be exercised for the purpose of exacting revenue. If the purpose of a license is regulation only, it is beyond the authority of the legislature…to impose it for the purpose of revenue. However, a license may be imposed strictly as a revenue measure in the exercise of the taxing power. 25 Cye. 609; 12 C.J. 906; Kansas City v. Grush, 151 Mo. 134, 52 S.W. 286; City of St. Charles v. Eisner, 155 Mo. 680, 56 S.W. 291; State ex.rel. McClung v. Becker, 288 Mo. Loc.Cit. 614, 233 S.W. 54. An occupation tax may at the same time be both a police regulation and a revenue measure.” Id. Viquesney v. Kansas City et.al., 266 S.W. 700-704.

    Because the “motor vehicle driver’s license tax” being imposed, by law, must be, and is based on the extent to which the privileged driving activity is conferred or exercised by a motorist irrespective of his assets, it is an excise tax, and, apparently is being imposed for both police regulation and as a revenue measure, rendering it an occupation tax for the privilege of engaging in some privileged occupation, evidenced by the fact that such funds collected under Section 136.030, RSMo using the police power to simultaneously regulate such privileged, occupational driving activities while collecting said tax under threat of criminal punishment, are deposited in the State Highways and Transportation Fund pursuant to Section 226.200, RSMo. and Article 4, Section 30(b), Missouri Constitution.

    Section 226.200, RSMo, subsection 1 provides that “…highway users as an incident to their use or right to use the highways…” and “…upon, with respect to, or on the privilege of—use thereof…” in keeping with the same provisions in Article 4, Section 30(b), Missouri Constitution, distinguishes between those using the highways as an occupational privilege and those using the highways as a matter of right, yet the tax is being arbitrarily imposed, collected, and enforced under threat of criminal punishment against any and all highway users by the police power for want of sufficient class distinctions being made manifest in Chapter 302, RSMo, and in particular, Section 302.020, RSMo, along with the failure and refusal of the Director of the MODOR to exercise his/her duty to promulgate essential implementing, promulgating rules/regulations in the Code of State Regulations, 12 CSR to govern and guide the taxing power and the police power in the regulation, enforcement, and collection of the tax.

    Thus, the inherently oppressive, vague and ambiguous construction of Section 302.020, RSMo using statutory language terms “any person, the person,” and “vehicle” has permitted and encouraged subjective, arbitrary, predatory, selective and discriminatory law enforcement and criminal punishment against me through impermissible extension of legislative power as is proven by the actions taken against me by both Missouri and Texas authorities.

    The doctrine of ejusdem generis must be applied in the administration and enforcement of Chapter 302, RSMo since the “…general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of [persons or] things, the general words [“any person, the person & vehicle”] will be construed as applying only to [“persons” or] things [“vehicles’] of the same general class as those enumerated,” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. P. 517), excluding all other classes pursuant to the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alteris (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. P. 521) and doctrine of enumeratio unius est exclusio alterius (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. P. 479).

    In light of the fact that the license at issue is the receipt showing the payment of the “motor vehicle driver’s license [excise] tax,” being collected under authority of Section 136.030, RSMo using the police power through Chapter 302, RSMo, these sections of law are pari materia with each other, and therefore must be construed with reference to each other assuring proper construction, legislative intent and purpose, and correct application of the law.

    In examining the driver’s license regulatory revenue scheme of taxation from its inception to this time, there cannot be found any constitutionally valid, explicit expression of legislative will that such act as driving an automobile without renewing a valid expired driver’s license under Chapter 302, RSMo, in and of itself, shall be treated or regarded as an actual criminal act, or genuine crime, absent the requisite criminal element, such as hit-and-run, vehicular homicide, or habitually impaired drivers who actually commit such criminal acts in the use of a vehicle on the public highways, the present Missouri legislative malfeasance and general practice and custom of those who moved against me to the contrary notwithstanding.

    There is, and always has been a vast and well-defined difference between a penal statute and a criminal statute. In Atcheson v. Everett, 1 Cowp., 382, Lord Mansfield said: “There is no distinction better known than the distinction between civil and criminal law, or between criminal prosecutions and civil actions.”

    Mr. Justice Blackstone, and all modern and ancient writers on the subject distinguished between them. Penal [civil] actions were never yet put under the head of criminal law or crimes. See State ex.rel. McNamee v. Stobie, 92 S.W. 191, beginning at p. 212 to 214, controlling Missouri case law which further provides:

    “If an act, which is not indictable at common law, is prohibited by statute, and a particular method of proceeding is given by the statute, that method must be pursued, and an indictment will not lie unless expressly provided for by the act; although, if the act is merely prohibited, and no method of proceeding is pointed out, an indictment will lie.”

    Going on in Stobie on page 213: “…but the addition of the remedy by indictment or information did not make the offense a criminal one, nor did it change the original character of the offense. The offense is not one which is prohibited [only regulated]. The statute only inflicts a forfeiture for the doing of the act of trespass. Penalties and forfeitures have ever been recoverable by civil actions or by indictment or information, but the form of the remedy does not change the character of the offense [even if it is labeled a felony or misdemeanor], nor does it make that criminal which before the change of the remedy was simply a civil wrong [and that civil wrong involving licensing only if liability is proven];” and,

    Going on in Stobie at page 214, Chitty, in his work on Criminal Law, page 163, says: “Where a statute prohibits an act to be done under a certain penalty, though no mention is made of indictment, the party offending may be indicted and fined in the amount of the penalty; but, where it is merely provided that if any person do a certain act he shall forfeit a sum to be recovered by action of debt, etc., no indictment can be supported. And where a statute creates and points out a particular mode of punishment, as by information, or conviction before a magistrate, this proceeding cannot be maintained; but the specific mode pointed out in the act must be observed.;” and,

    Going on in Stobie, at page 214, “Thus it appears that the statute creates only a civil right in favor of the party injured [in this case with me, there is no injured party], and that the proceedings for the recovery of the penalty, and double damages allowed by the act, must be initiated by the party injured, and by no one else, not even the state. And, further, that, whether the action be a civil action or an indictment or information, the sum recovered is a penalty, forfeiture, or damage, and that party has the option, under the statute, to determine the character of the action that shall be instituted. In any case, the action is civil and not criminal, and the right of action and the proceedings asserting the right arise solely from the act in question.”

    And finally,

    60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, Section 37, page 206 reveals further that the Missouri judgment against me cannot be sustained as a matter of law, to wit:
    “…Such an action [for alleged violation of vehicular traffic regulation] or proceeding, however, even though civil, is penal in its nature, so the burden is on the state…to prove the defendant’s violation of the regulation…. No presumption arises in such action from the mere fact that the defendant has taken out a license that he or she has engaged in the business covered by the license, and he or she may offer evidence to show that he or she was not engaged in such business. A judgment entered in such a civil action or proceeding, which in form and effect is one which can properly be entered only in a criminal prosecution for a violation of the motor vehicle statute, is erroneous, and the proceeding cannot be treated as a criminal prosecution so as to sustain the judgment, although the evidence is sufficient to show a violation of the statute.”

    So Al, what we have going on by the arbitrary enforcement of these regulatory revenue schemes constitutes criminal syndicalism which Black’s LD defines as “organized terrorism.” The facts & law of the matter are ignored because of the general practice and custom being exercised against woefully ignorant and cowardly people by the political usurpers, liars, traitors and thieves. Instead of the STATE securing the antecedent, unalienable rights, liberty & freedom of the people, which is it’s stated purpose for existence, the STATE operates to protect itself and its protection racket of legalized plunder & extortion.

    There is only one solution and I believe it is here: http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org

    What do you and your subscribers think?

     
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 4:30 AM

      @There is only one solution and I believe it is here
      NO !! it is NOT THERE !! Your link info is not true. Our ONCE Beulah Land became the greatest Nation in the History of mankind. AND this WAS AFTER the 1787 Constitution and all your link information is saying just the exact opposite. Remember the song, America, God shed his grace on thee? The founding Fathers NEVER thought of themselves as SOVEREIGNS. BUT! they DID say they & their posterity WERE SUPERIOR to GOVERNMENT people. It’s really simple. There MUST be a Chain of command. You hire me to do a job & YOU are the BOSS, aka, MY SUPERIOR. “God” BLESSED This Country. The people thought MORE of the Blessings than the GIVER. They DID NOT NEED “God” ANYMORE , or SO they THOUGHT. THEY DEGENERATED into Immorality & worse and as you MUST KNOW We reap what we sew.

       
  11. gary

    June 30, 2015 at 12:59 AM

    Russell Arms, I do not have an SSN, I do not have a ‘drivers license, or any other kind of ‘license’ or ANY form of Government (United States) ID, no bank accounts, no ‘registrations on cars, boats, etc,.no bullshit….I am COMPLETELY out of the system….I don’t just ‘talk the talk, I WALK THE WALK, and have for the last seven years. I have been stopped a number of times, occasiionally ‘ticketed’ by bully cops, and I just send their silly paper back to their ‘courts’ and tell them I am NOT ‘within their jurisdiction’….and I ask a LOT of questions they do NOT want to answer

    I don’t know what YOU ‘do’, and it’s really none of my business, but I can tell you, you are NEVER at GovCo’s mercy, unless you are still ‘IN’ their club, and if you are, then you, with supposedly so much knowledge, MUST then be there voluntarily., as you can hardly claim ‘ignorance’…..as Thomas Jefferson would say, those with the ABILITY, have a RESPONSIBILITY to change things….

    I was not picking on anything you said, merely pointing out it is EASY to forget all the United States bullshit applies ONLY “within the United States”, as I have to remind myself CONSTANTLY, as I do research on ‘laws’, even after having been doing this research for now 11 years…..

    I can understand why people are afraid to leave the system, but I am NOT one of them….GovCo has ZERO ‘power’ over me, they are just another corporation, one with whom I have NO contracts, and I treat it as such, regardless of whether it is highway patrol, border patrol, IRS, FTB or any other BS alphabet agency of the ‘UNited States’……

    I have learned over time what ‘laws’ to carry copies of with me,to point out to GovCo’s agents the ‘laws’ THEY are bound by, not me, and should the necessity arrive, for whatever reason, I am more than prepared to defend myself AS NECESSARY, against any of GovCo’s employees…I know where I stand, and I know where they stand, and I have NO fear of them …..brainwashing didn’t hold like GovCo hoped it would….

    If you are so inclined to take offense at a friendly reminder, then what have YOU done lately, other than talk about this stuff, to extract your self from this slavery? Still got a ‘license’?, cars still ‘registered’? still got a bank account and an SSN? still paying ‘federal’ and STATE ‘income taxes’? still using a ZIP CODE and two-letter STATE ‘address’?

    Come try my shoes on, walk the path OUTSIDE of the club, before you criticize and ASSUME……..I am just here to help, to provide information from GovCo themselves, as they seem to hide everything IN PLAIN SIGHT….never ‘talk the talk’, unless you ‘walk the walk’…..

     
  12. Russell Arms

    June 30, 2015 at 2:22 AM

    gary,
    I try to get two birds with one stone in my comments,at least some of the time. In my mind, most people ARE in the system & ARE at gov-co’s mercy whether they think so or not. ALSO, we do have the LUCK factor to consider, e.g., you say you have been stopped many times but maybe you need to be stopped by a 60-IQ level “Peace Officer” who is power mad. You say you send in questions that are never answered. TRY doing that FROM Jail. By NOT having the very things you say you DO NOT have can get you arrested IF you are stopped by the 60- IQ level “Peace Officer simply for the very fact YOU do not have them. I DO NOT HAVE them either. I GIVE ALL the CREDIT TO “God” for my protection, AND I ask for his protection EVERY DAY, to help me not to cause damage or injury to ANYONE AND ANYTHING & to allow me to have a SAFE TRIP to & fro. I just CANNOT THANK “God” ENOUGH for how MUCH he UNDERSTANDS & HEARS my PLEAS. So far, my PLEAS are answered in a very comforting way.It was not ALWAYS that way though. Anyway, I SEE ROUGH times ahead for those who truly do love “God” at least as best as they know how. We will be TESTED TO THE MAX !! BUT I think about what is written in 1st Corinthians 2:9. There is where my hope IS. Shalom !!!

     
  13. palani

    June 30, 2015 at 5:06 AM

    A claim to citizenship in the political plane is analogous to a claim to hold a share of Enron stock in 2001 in the economic plane. Bankrupt entities get little respect and claiming a portion of their ‘territory’ (whether economic or political) lacks the wow factor to impress.

     
    • Russell Arms

      June 30, 2015 at 6:07 AM

      palani,
      @ A claim to citizenship in the political plane is analogous to a claim to hold a share of Enron stock in 2001 in the economic plane. Bankrupt entities get little respect and claiming a portion of their ‘territory’ (whether economic or political) lacks the wow factor to impress.

      WOW !!! THAT’S IMPRESSIVE !! palani, would you hold it against me if I told you you impress me?SAY WHAT !?!? YOU WOULDN’T? Well what could I say to get you to hold it against me? :-) D

       
  14. Joseph LAmarca

    July 1, 2015 at 1:30 AM

    YOU WILL NEVER GET IT RIGHT !!! READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND SEE THE TRUTH

    Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 05:33:45 +0000 To: josephlamarca@hotmail.com

     
    • Dea Lawman

      July 8, 2015 at 5:27 PM

      Joseph LAmarca,
      @ YOU WILL NEVER GET IT RIGHT !!! READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND SEE THE TRUTH.
      If we can never get it right, why read the Bill of Rights???

       
  15. TJ

    July 1, 2015 at 2:02 AM

    Bill of Rights is in the federal plane developed as “colored” law protections for slaves from their masters…

    The organic law is where your Rights lay,,,

    The United States of America”, by reference thereto, all shall stand by reference to be forevermore incorporated for all purposes; this “Organic Law” includes four documents:
    1) The Declaration of Independence (A.D. 1776); and
    2) Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) which are the constitution of The United States of America; and
    3) Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787); and,
    4) Constitution of the United States (first ratified and made effective by the People in A.D. 1788); and
    “The United States of America” (constituted by the Articles of Confederation in A.D. 1781) and the “United States” (constituted by the Constitution of the United States in A.D. 1788) are two different entities, “planes” or jurisdictions.

    Peace be unto all men and women in this world. Self-defense is a right given by the Creator, to all of his creatures including mankind, but as much as I, Timothy [Miller can, I will live at peace with all men and women.

     
    • Bertha Kitt

      July 1, 2015 at 2:23 AM

      TJ,
      @ “The organic law is where your Rights lay,,,”
      May they rest in peace.

       
    • Allen Curtis

      July 2, 2015 at 6:00 PM

      TJ,
      @ *** 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) says the Social Security Number belongs to the government, not me.
      RIGHT TJ, AND, TJ, citizens aka Property of the Federal Government do authorize their Subjects to have an ID card which if you notice on the back side it also says, “Property of the U.S. Government” :-) D

       
  16. TJ

    July 1, 2015 at 3:42 AM

    BK use 42 USC, 18 USC or some other slave protection codes, statutes or regulations set forth by the Bill of no-Rights and see how far they get you,,,

     
    • Allen Curtis

      July 16, 2015 at 6:52 AM

      TJ,
      BK use 42 USC, 18 USC or some other slave protection codes, statutes or regulations set forth by the Bill of no-Rights and see how far they get you,,,

      TJ, believe it or not, some of US KNOW WHO those codes apply to & some of US do not qualify. BUT !! What you do not seem to know IS,File a Common Law Action in the District Court of the United States, & the Clerk WILL stamp your petition, Filed, date, etc, & then Next, you receive something in “YOUR” mailbox FROM the U.S. District Court & since it is addressed to “someone who is not you”, &, since it is a criminal act to open someone else’s mail, out of courtesy you take that “mail” BACK to the Court, Then you look through the file & you will see that the CLERK has altered your Common Law Petition & The Clerk SAYS YOU have filed pursuant to Title 42, section 1983, blah blah blah & so on & so forth. NOW what do you do, as THE WAR IS ON !! I know what I did, what would you do?

       
      • Adask

        July 16, 2015 at 1:55 PM

        TJ–as you know–is bye-bye. You might just as well talk to yourself as to TJ.

         
  17. TJ

    July 1, 2015 at 6:31 PM

    You really don’t get it!!! you are a “niggar” if you think you have any rights under the 14th Amendment… maybe when you learn to use “organic law”… you will quit being bitch slapped as a “DEBTOR”. Don’t waste my timed… you really don’t have a clue…

    In organic law you are the secured party creditor as the beneficiary and the holder in due course… and the FULL FAITH AND CREDIT of your “Department of Vital Records” is a fraudulent document that can be over ridden… by an apostille of the COLB and other instruments…

     
  18. TJ

    July 1, 2015 at 6:34 PM

    and while I think about it … I forgot more about the law then you morass mind can grasp…

     
    • Allen Curtis

      July 2, 2015 at 4:08 AM

      TJ,ET.AL !!!
      @ and while I think about it … I forgot more about the law then you morass mind can grasp…”
      Really? Is that right.
      The Statute of 1776 DOES NOT BEGIN with the 2nd paragraph as conspirators would like for us to believe.The conspirators repeatedly START OUT with/by using the 2nd paragraph. This 2nd paragraph is used to try & convey the meaning that The United States of America IS the melting pot of & FOR ALL RACES of the world. Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case KNEW what the Declaration of Independence MEANT & this is WHY Dred Scott was overturned in PART, but this was AFTER the 14th Amendment too!!! Let’s BACK UP A BIT !!!

      U.S. v. Callendar, 25 Fed. Case Number 14,709
      “No position can be more clear than that all the federal judges are bound by the solemn obligation of the Christian religion to regulate their decisions agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, and that it is the standard of their determination in all cases that come before them.”

      HOWEVER !!! Understanding the due process of the 14th Amendment IS NOT GOVERNED BY
      THIS ABOVE PRINCIPLE, i.e., The U.S. v. Callendar principle.

      United States v. Anthony, (1873), 24 Fed Case 829, 830.
      The Rights of the (C)itizens of the several States stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions. The Rights of the (C)itizens of the several States, as such, are “NOT” under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

      Once again,The Statute of 1776 DOES NOT BEGIN with the 2nd paragraph as conspirators would like for us to believe.The conspirators repeatedly START OUT with using the 2nd paragraph This 2nd paragraph is used to try & convey the meaning that The United States of America IS the melting pot of & FOR ALL RACES of the world. The conspirators started out using our FREEDOM Liberty document to our eventual detriment. It looks like they have succeeded, but it has been a slow insidious long drawn out process, for them.

       
  19. Allen Curtis

    July 2, 2015 at 1:59 AM

    TJ,
    @ Don’t waste my timed… you really don’t have a clue…
    @ and while I think about it …I forgot more about the law then you morass mind can grasp…
    @ You really don’t get it!!! you are a “niggar” if you think you have any rights under the 14th Amendment…

    What influenced you to think I & some other MEN made in the image of “God” (see Psalm 8) are 14th Amendment citizens? You ASSume a lot. Based on what you have said, &, without more, I, & some more People, aka MEN, forgot more about the law than you morass mind can grasp & you can chew on that while you’re thinking about it. :-) D

    P.S. I was Born in The State of Virginia, a Republican State of the United States of America. Bertha was too. :-) D
    P.P.S. We are both of the White Race & claim those KIND of RIGHTS as described in the Statute of 1776. It’s the listeners WE proclaim this to that do not HEAR US. GET IT, TJ ?

     
    • TJ

      July 2, 2015 at 5:20 AM

      You really are a megalomaniacal ass!… I could give a shit where you are born… I have proof my relatives originated in New Hampshire and fought against the BRITISH, pleaded their life, liberty and property to defend the united States of America…and were in posterity, in perpetuity granted immunity from inferior BAR courts>>>> protected as part of the Treaty of Paris 1783 and the Foreign Sovereign Act of 1976 (created when the last face value coins disappeared).

      You have no Rights… Lincoln made sure of that.. maybe read and understand the Lieber Code… and the 14th Amendment… WHICH YOU DON’T HAVE A CLUE…

      Black’s who were newly freed had zero rights, so the 14th Amendment was created to give them “some”, two days bf the vote, it was changed to include all Americans… using the Treaty of Paris also as a background for inferior BRITISH (BAR) mercantile courts to rule against prisoners of war.

      The N S war was never signed a Treaty, we are still at a state of war… you and everyone are criminals, you are a surety for your evil twin…the all CAPS fiction corporate creation of the bank$ter creation to make you a “white” slave— so get a life>>> LITERALLY.

      The SS-5 application gave you a vessel # to take your whereabouts and under YOUR state governors consent… your earnings and property are pledged under the FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE to the bankrupt UNITED STATES corporation by your consent..

      You are just some hot head without knowledge or wisdom… every action THEY bring has recourse and remedy or Congress is committing TREASON… If you get over your attitude and do the due diligence and research work… you might be able to unstick that fat head stuck up you ASS-ets…

       
      • Allen Curtis

        July 2, 2015 at 6:34 AM

        TJ,
        @ You are just some hot head without knowledge or wisdom… every action THEY bring has recourse and remedy or Congress is committing TREASON… If you get over your attitude and do the due diligence and research work… you might be able to unstick that fat head stuck up you ASS-ets…

        Well thanks TJ, but, unlike you, I do not need Mladen aka Mark for a teacher/mentor. I can do better than that. Thanks anyway

         
      • Allen Curtis

        July 2, 2015 at 3:57 PM

        TJ,
        @ My knowledge comes from Lexis Nexis and thousands of hours hands on research…
        @ @ I don’t claim to know the answers,
        @ and while I think about it …I forgot more about the law then you morass mind can grasp…

        ok TJ.

         
      • Allen Curtis

        July 2, 2015 at 10:07 PM

        TJ,
        @ The N S war was never signed a Treaty, we are still at a state of war…
        I agree wholeheartedly !!

        @ you and everyone are criminals,
        Are you saying you are the ONLY ONE that IS NOT regarded as a criminal? For example, if the J, is the 1st letter in/of your surname, e.g., Jackson, that is a criminal identifier isn’t it? Anyway you have made it crystal clear that you are the only one that is not a criminal. What do you mean then when you also say you don’t have the answers? Remember saying that? I do. I remember.

         
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 5, 2015 at 12:10 AM

        TJ,
        @ You really are a megalomaniacal ass!…
        Roger, Henry, & Toland think so too & I think even the Chief thinks so, at least at times. :-) D

         
    • TJ

      July 2, 2015 at 6:07 AM

      as a prisoner… you can’t tell the warden what to do…GET IT>>> AL!!!

      You must first become a warden using the WISDOM and the knowledge of the King of kings…to tell the warden to F Off…

      wake up boy…

       
      • Adask

        July 2, 2015 at 6:22 AM

        TJ, I’ve cleaned some of your cuss words off your comments. I won’t do it again. I you feel compelled to cuss on this blog, I will feel compelled to ban you.

        Call me a boy, again, and you’re gone.

        The idea that you can refer to the “King of kings” and use the words “F Off” in the same sentence suggests that your grasp of Christianity is not as solid you let on.

         
  20. TJ

    July 2, 2015 at 6:41 AM

    Ego’s are a fault of a man you believes in the laws and traditions of man and corruption. The notion you are so superior in knowledge and WISDOM is pious. I don’t claim to know the answers, BUT I have done the due diligence… I have nearly a Tb of case law, treaty law, international law and ecclesiastical law to walk the walk with…DO YOU??

    For the self righteous “person” d/b/a Allen Curtis to FLAME a response to me is offensive… but you don’t get the laws of astro-turf!!

     
    • Allen Curtis

      July 2, 2015 at 3:09 PM

      TJ,
      @ I don’t claim to know the answers,
      I would have never known that if you did not tell me. Fact is, I thought you were claiming you knew the answers & nobody else did.

       
    • Allen Curtis

      July 2, 2015 at 9:44 PM

      TJ,
      @ “Ego’s are a fault of a man you believes in the laws and traditions of man and corruption.”

      TJ,The Bible says you shall know then by their fruits. I am very familiar with your fruits, & what you say about EGO & everything else you say in your own words describes you to a TEE !!! :-) D

      @The notion you are so superior in knowledge and WISDOM is pious.

      This IS the impression you TRY to make but you cut off your own nose to spite your face. :-) D

      @ I don’t claim to know the answers, BUT I have done the due diligence… I have nearly a Tb of case law, treaty law, international law and ecclesiastical law to walk the walk with…DO YOU??

      Yes but I forgot more about you than I ever knew about me

      @ For the self righteous “person” d/b/a Allen Curtis to FLAME a response to me is offensive…

      To YOU it’s offensive but you are not important enough for me to even think about offending. You offend yourself. :-(

      @ but you don’t get the laws of astro-turf!!

      TJ,You are a very good astroturfer. :-) D

       
  21. TJ

    July 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM

    Allen Curtis

    Well thanks TJ, but, unlike you, I do not need Mladen aka Mark for a teacher/mentor. I can do better than that. Thanks anyway

    Little Al…I don’t have a clue who you are talking about… which once again shows your ignorance…

    My knowledge comes from Lexis Nexis and thousands of hours hands on research…
    not ASS-umptions.

     
    • Allen Curtis

      July 2, 2015 at 3:36 PM

      TJ
      @ My knowledge comes from Lexis Nexis and thousands of hours hands on research…
      Apparently Mladen aka Mark got his knowledge from the same source. A good book for you, TJ, to read & hopefully understand is, “How to win Friends & Influence People” by Dale Carnegie.

       
  22. palani

    July 2, 2015 at 7:24 AM

    Citizenship applies to humans. I have met no corporate citizens and the concept clearly does not apply to us meat popsicles.

     
    • TJ

      July 2, 2015 at 5:54 PM

      If you buy into their bovine fecal matter… EVERY word has an exact meaning, every punctuation mark.

      The 14th Amendment states US “citizen”… has NO rights, it has inalienable rights [benefits]…which can be bought, sold, traded or stolen.

      But the private side is an American “Citizen” and has UN-a-lien-able Rights, cannot be bought., sold, traded or forced..

      Just like we the People [private side] not we the people [public corporate fiction side].

      “I am because I say I am”… Jesus the Christos… I say I am because I am…some putrid corporate bank$ter is not going to force contract onto me, against my free will…i.e. inferior court black robed priests of Baal… corporate fictions have no mouth and need a living thing to do their bidding…

      BY CONSENT…

       
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 3, 2015 at 9:51 AM

        TJ @ The 14th Amendment states US “citizen”… has NO rights, it has inalienable rights [benefits]…which can be bought, sold, traded or stolen.

        I do not see where the 14th Amendment “STATES” what you say the 14th Amendment STATES. Is there a 14th Amendment “states US citizen”?

         
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 5, 2015 at 7:18 AM

        TJ,
        @ “I am because I say I am”… Jesus the Christos… I say I am because I am…some putrid corporate bank$ter is not going to force contract onto me, against my free will…i.e. inferior court black robed priests of Baal… corporate fictions have no mouth and need a living thing to do their bidding…

        BY CONSENT…

        TJ. Are you saying, YOU, are, I AM ? Watch what happens in the end of this video.

        ‘I Am the Living Man Protected by Natural Law!’: You Are Probably …
        Nov 24, 2013 … At the outset of the trial, Tertelgte objected to being referred to by his legal name,
        instead demanding the court recognize him as “the living man.
        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/24/i-am-the-living-man-protected-by-natural-law-you-are-probably-going-to-want-to-watch-this-epic-court-testimony/

         
      • TJ

        July 5, 2015 at 8:10 AM

        Another FYI…

        prior to the trial and ANY “special” visitation is under duress, you claim your proper Christian appellation name… John [Doe (upper and lower case)

        THEY will use your first and last name at every phase…EXCEPT at the trial… then it is MR. DOE, as a corporate designation of the laws of Delaware.

        Persona and Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged FOREVER.
        _______________________________________________________________________________

        Here’s another little known action to challenge anything THEY forced on a citizen:

        The Massiah Doctrine prohibits the admission of a confession or contract obtained in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Specifically, the Massiah rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings deliberately elicited by the government after formal charges have been filed.
        The events that trigger the sixth amendment safeguards under Massiah are:
        (1) the commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings and
        (2) deliberate elicitation of information from the defendant by governmental agents.
        The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions. The purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel are to protect the right to a fair trial and to assure that the adversarial system of justice functions properly by providing “effective’ and ‘competent” counsel as an advocate in his contest against the governmental “prosecutorial forces” of the state with unlimited funds and resources.

        Commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings
        The Sixth Amendment right “attaches” once the government has committed itself to the prosecution of the case by the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings “by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment”.
        See: Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 632 (1986); see also Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977). In Maine v. Moulton the court stated “By its very terms, it becomes applicable only when the government’s role shifts from investigation to accusation. For it is only then that the assistance of one versed in the intricacies … of law,” ibid., is needed to assure that the prosecution’s case encounters “the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing”. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until such time as the “government has committed itself to prosecute, and … the adverse positions of government and defendant have solidified …'” Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 689 (1972).
        Determining whether a particular event or proceeding constitutes the commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings requires both an examination of the rules of criminal procedure for the jurisdiction in which the crime is charged and the Supreme Courts cases dealing with the issue of when formal prosecution begins. See: aforementioned

        Once adversarial criminal proceedings commence the right to counsel applies to all critical stages of the prosecution and investigation. A critical stage is “any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel’s absence might derogate from the accused’s right to a fair trial”. See: United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 226, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1932, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); see also; United States v. Hidalgo, 7 F.3d 1566 (11th Cir. 1993). Under the critical stage analysis, virtually every phase of the criminal trial is a critical stage.

        Additionally courts have generally held that pretrial hearings regarding conditions of pretrial release and suppression of evidence are considered critical stages. Smith v. Lockhart, 923 F.2d 1314 (8th Cir. 1991) on the other hand courts have generally held that certain pre-trial post accusation investigative procedures are not critical stages. Analysis of fingerprints, blood samples, clothing, hair, handwriting, and voice samples have all been ruled to be noncritical stages. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, (2001).

        Government attempts to obtain incriminating statement related to the offense charged from the defendant by overt interrogation or surreptitious means is a critical stage and any information thus obtained is subject to suppression unless the government can show that an attorney was present or the defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel. See: Brewer v. Williams, 97 S. Ct. 1232 (1977) “That the incriminating statements were elicited surreptitiously in the Massiah case, and otherwise here, is constitutionally irrelevant. See ibid.; McLeod v. Ohio, 381 U. S. 356; United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354, 358 (CA7)”.

        Deliberate elicitation of information from the defendant by governmental agents
        Deliberate elicitation is defined as the intentional creation of circumstances by government agents that are likely to produce incriminating information from the defendant. See: Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990).

        The definition of “deliberate elicitation” is not the same as the definition of “interrogation” under the Miranda rule. Miranda interrogation includes express questioning and any actions or statements that an officer would reasonably foresee as likely to cause an incriminating response. Massiah applies to express questioning and any attempt to deliberately and intentionally obtain incriminating information from the man or woman regarding the crime charged.

        The difference is purposeful creation of an environment likely to produce incriminating information (Massiah) and action likely to induce an incriminating response even if that was not the officer’s purpose or intent (Miranda).

        As noted, information obtained in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is subject to suppression unless the government can establish that the defendant waived his right to counsel. The waiver must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary. See: Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977).

        A valid Miranda waiver operates as a wavier of Sixth Amendment right.

        You and your kind really need to get over your ego trips and maybe listen for a change…

         
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 5, 2015 at 7:35 AM

        TJ,
        @ you think and act like a little colored citizen DEBTOR…. Jerry B.
        @ Tisk tisk little mr. know it all…
        I wonder who is giving me a thumbs down & you a thumbs UP? :-) D

         
    • TJ

      July 5, 2015 at 7:55 AM

      citizen is a UNITED STATES sheople slave.

      Citizen is the private side.

      citizen-ship is mercantile, anything with ship attached should be a RED FLAG…

       
    • Allen Curtis

      July 16, 2015 at 7:15 AM

      palani,
      @ “Citizenship applies to humans.”
      I believe the word Citizen existed lonnnnnnnnnng before the “ship” was added. Any word that had a wholesome meaning has been altered. Take, the word, GAY, for example. It originally meant, happy, cheerful. Yahshua said, translated in English, Be of good Cheer, meaning, be glad, be happy, be cheerful. I guess today, that means, BE GAY, meaning, BECOME GAY, &, within the meaning of what GAY means today. BECOME HOMOSEXUALS, aka QUEERS, LESBIANS. aka FAGGOTS. :-(

       
  23. Allen Curtis

    July 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM

    palani,
    @ Citizenship applies to humans. I have met no corporate citizens and the concept clearly does not apply to us meat popsicles.

    Ok so we can add to MOOA, > MOOAOMP. I find it hard to grasp the the Founding Fathers DID use the Citizen word knowing it meant what you, palani, say it does. It may very well be a derogatory word in meaning today BUT it meant something a lot different at one time. Fact is the Apostle Paul got out of a lot of trouble he was up against by notifying the Powers that be, THEN,he was a Roman Citizen. Paul pleaded his privilege as a Roman citizen, by which he was exempted from all trials and punishments which might force him to confess himself guilty. Acts 22:28. Of course this is of no interest to you or anyone else who doesn’t put much, if any credence in what the Holy Bible has to say, & about anything.

     
    • palani

      July 3, 2015 at 6:42 AM

      @Allen “Of course this is of no interest to you”
      Could you find it in your heart to forgive me?

       
      • TJ

        July 3, 2015 at 7:17 AM

        That’s a tall request to ask little man Allen C. to forgive or admit he is wrong about anything… he is good only at VAIN JANGLING

        The context of the terms “vain jangling” and “vain babbling” is interesting because it is so strict; the terms appear only in Paul’s epistles to Timothy. I took the opportunity to go to the Oxford English Dictionary to see what they had to say about the history of these words. There is a lot of overlap between the three terms, “vain”, “babbling”, and “jangling;” but there are also some important observations.

        “Vain” as used here is not really related to “vanity” as we think of it today, about people centered on themselves. Instead it refers to emptiness of meaning and value.

         
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 5, 2015 at 12:21 AM

        palani,
        The ol Lamplighter says all is well.
        The Browns – The Old Lamplighter – YouTube
        Dec 8, 2009 … The Browns – The Old Lamplighter … All Comments (145) … back when radio
        played everything that was good and/or popular on New York City …
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tuO-auG5uk – 255k – Cached – Similar Pages

         
  24. Jerry Byrd

    July 3, 2015 at 7:53 AM

    @ “Vain” as used here is not really related to “vanity” as we think of it today, about people centered on themselves. Instead it refers to emptiness of meaning and value.
    U R VAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYNNNNNNNNN TJ

     
    • TJ

      July 5, 2015 at 2:43 AM

      Maybe learn how to spell bf you call the kettle black…

      The Three United States

      The standing 1945 Supreme Court definition of the term United States:

      The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

      Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, definition of United States:

      United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]

      Which One Are You? by The Informer:

      1.I am a Citizen of the United States1 like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a “Citizen of the United States1.” This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital “C” in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.

      2.I am a United States2 citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States2 (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english. This is the “United States2” the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).

      3.I am a Citizen of these United States3. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States2). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States2 domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.

      A Ticket to Liberty, by Lori Jacques:

      It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States2 and sovereign states of the United States3 of America are NOT joined under the title of “United States.” The president represents the sovereign United States1 in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States2 in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States3 united by and under the Constitution …. After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term “United States2” is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States2 extends.
      The federal zone over which the sovereignty of the United States2 extends is the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions belonging to Congress, and a limited amount of land within the States of the Union, called federal “enclaves”.

      The Federal Zone by ?:

      The Secretary of the Treasury can only claim exclusive jurisdiction over this federal zone and citizens of this zone. In particular, the federal enclaves within the 50 States can only come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress if they consist of land which has been properly “ceded” to Congress by the act of a State Legislature. A good example of a federal enclave is a “ceded” military base. The authority to exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves originates in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. By virtue of the exclusive authority that is vested in Congress by this clause, Congress shall have the power:
      To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States2, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

      The power of Congress to exercise exclusive legislative authority over its territories and possessions, as distinct from the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves, is given by a different authority in the U.S. Constitution. This authority is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, as follows:
      The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States2;
      Within these areas, it is essential to understand that the Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations which restrict its power in the areas of land over which the 50 States exercise their respective sovereign authorities:
      [T]he United States2 may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution …. In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States3. … And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States2, has made those guaranties applicable. [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
      In other words, the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, either to the territory or to the citizens of that zone, or both.

      Langdell, The Status of Our New Territories
      12 Harvard Law Review 365, 371:

      Thirdly. — … [T]he term “United States” has often been used to designate all territory over which the sovereignty of the United States2 extended.
      The conclusion, therefore, is that, while the term “United States” has three meanings, only the first and second of these are known to the Constitution; and that is equivalent to saying that the Constitution of the United States3 as such does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it, — a proposition the truth of which will, it is believed, be placed beyond doubt by an examination of the instances in which the term “United States” is used in the Constitution.

      No court is to be charged with the knowledge of foreign laws; but they are well understood to be facts which must, like other facts, be proved before they can be received in a court of justice. It is equally well settled that the several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other, and that the courts of one state are not presumed to know, and therefore not bound to take judicial notice of, the laws of another state. [Hanley vs Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 535 – 6 S.Ct. 242, 244 (1885)]

      Try applying sections 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 to the Secretary of the Treasury’s jurisdictional claims for the “internal” revenue laws:

      The term “United States2” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States2. It includes the states, the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of the United States2, the territorial waters of the United States2, the air space over the United States2, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States2 and over which the United States2 has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. [26 CFR 1.911-2(g)]

      Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, definition of foreign state:

      The several United States3 are considered “foreign” to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union. … The term “foreign nations,” as used in a statement of the rule that the laws of foreign nations should be proved in a certain manner, should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence one state of the Union is foreign to another, in the sense of that rule.

      Congress still refers to the 50 States as “countries”:

      (b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a)
      [28 U.S.C. 297, 11/19/88]

      Private international law assumes a more important aspect in the United States than elsewhere, for the reason that the several states, although united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws for all national purposes embraced by the Federal Constitution, are otherwise, at least so far as private international law is concerned, in the same relation as foreign countries. The great majority of questions of private international law are therefore subject to the same rules when they arise between two states of the Union as when they arise between two foreign countries, and in the ensuing pages the words “state,” “nation,” and “country” are used synonymously and interchangeably, there being no intention to distinguish between the several states of the Union and foreign countries by the use of varying terminology. [16 Am Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 2]
      Foreign Country. A foreign country is any territory (including the air space, territorial waters, seabed, and subsoil) under the sovereignty of a government other than the United States2. It does not include U.S.2 possessions or territories.
      [Instructions for Form 2555: Foreign Earned Income, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service]

      (h) Foreign country. The term “foreign country” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States2. It includes the territorial waters of the foreign country (determined in accordance with the laws of the United States2), the air space over the foreign country, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the foreign country and over which the foreign country has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. [26 CFR 1.911-2(h)]
      This issue of jurisdiction as it relates to Sovereignty is a major key to understanding our system under our Constitution. [The Omnibus, Addendum II, page 11]

      A Ticket to Liberty, by Lori Jacques:

      When reading the various acts of Congress which had declared various people to be “citizens of the United States”, it is immediately apparent that many are simply declared “citizens of the United States3” while others are declared to be “citizens of the United States2, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States2.” The difference is that the first class of citizen arises when that person is born out of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States2 Government. 3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens, explains: “A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States2, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his birth occurs in territory over which the United States2 is sovereign …”

      On one hand, Congress is empowered to enact public laws for the 50 States, subject to certain restrictions. On the other hand, it is also empowered to enact “municipal” statutes for the federal zone, subject to a different set of restrictions.

      [C]ongress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one character as legislating for the states; in the other, as a local legislature for the district. In the latter character, it is admitted, the power of levying direct taxes may be exercised; but, it is contended, for district purposes only, in like manner as the legislature of a state may tax the people of a state for state purposes. Without inquiring at present into the soundness of this distinction, its possible influence on the application in this district of the first article of the constitution, and of several of the amendments, may not be altogether unworthy of consideration. [Loughborough vs Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 – 5 L.Ed. 98 (1820)]
      In exercising this power [to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States2], Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States3. [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

      Various definitions of the term UNITED STATES

      Black’s Law Dictionary definition of State defines one of the 50 States of the Union:

      The section of territory occupied by one of the United States3. One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America.

      Uniform Probate Code, Section 1-201(40) defines a federal state:

      Any state of the United States2, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession subject to the legislative authority of the United States.

      IRC 4612(a)(4)(A):

      (A) In General. — The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

      IRC 6103(b)(5):

      (5) State — The term “State” means —
      (A) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

      IRC 7701(a)(9):

      When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof– …
      (9) United States. — The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
      (10) State. — The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

      IRC 3306(j)(2):

      For purposes of this chapter —
      (2) United States. — The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

      Political Corrections

       
      • Jerry Byrd

        July 5, 2015 at 5:39 AM

        @ TJ
        @ July 1, 2015 at 6:31 PM
        @ You really don’t get it!!! you are a “niggar” if you think you have any rights under the 14th Amendment… maybe when you learn to use “organic law”… you will quit being bitch slapped as a “DEBTOR”. Don’t waste my timed… you really don’t have a clue…
        July 5, 2015 at 2:43 AM @ For purposes of this chapter,< GET IT TJ? LOOK TO YOUR LEFT PRESUMING YOU DO KNOW YO LEFT FROM YO RIGHT. :-) D

         
      • TJ

        July 5, 2015 at 7:13 AM

        Tisk tisk little mr. know it all…

        I only placed that so the uniformed can begin to learn, there are many trap doors in the matrix…

        I filed with the DTCC and the treasury department the proper notification of my status as the “secured party creditor” as the “sole general beneficiary”.

        I DO NOT use THEIR codes, statutes, or regulations for “colored” citizens… I am a Continental American Citizen… because I say I am…

        you think and act like a little colored citizen DEBTOR…. Jerry B.

         
  25. TJ

    July 5, 2015 at 7:47 AM

    I wonder Jer?

     
    • Jerry Byrd

      July 5, 2015 at 8:15 AM

      TJ,
      VAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYNNNN people PROUD TOO ! :-) They give themselves thumbs UP. D

       
  26. Jerry Byrd

    July 6, 2015 at 1:08 AM

    TJ,
    @ ahhh yes little Jer… you must have really long arms from patting yourself on the back all the time. :>)
    The GREAT I AM gave me my long arms. I thank YOU every day for everything. Are you grieving in your heart that you gave me my long arms? In a pissing contest I still say that the man with the longest Penis has a better chance of winning the pissing contest & I do thank you that I have been advised that I am well equipped, aka well endowed. :-)

     
  27. John

    December 28, 2015 at 4:47 PM

    This is some great dialogue with a lot of knowledge and ignorance.

    I would suggest if you want to know where and why you are or are not a citizen in any meaning of the word or location that you look at the law of the CONTRACT OF ADHESIONS when you understand this, I believe you will find verification to some of the information established above regarding: drivers licenses; birth certificates; social security numbers, etc.

    The only path to setting ones self free from the government is to break all of the Adhesion Contracts that one has with the various governmental agencies. To that extent I found the commentary and specifically the written disclaimer by: TJ, June 30, 2015 at 9:13 AM and his letter of rescission to be very interesting.

    You see what has happened in this country is we have given up or rights for privileges and thereby have become subjugated to the whims of those various governmental agencies.

    Just some food for thought and my inflated 3 cents worth.

    Have a Safe and Happy Holiday and perhaps a new beginning for the New Year.

     
    • Adask

      December 29, 2015 at 5:26 AM

      I’ll see your three cents and raise you four.

      If I understand correctly, the “contracts of adhesion” you’re talking about have only one signatory (you). If so, there’s no “meeting of the minds” (“minds” being plural) because there’s only one signatory and thus only one “mind” referred to on the alleged “contract”. My understanding of “contracts” is that there must be a “meeting of the minds” (plural) whereby each of the two or more persons signing the contract can be reasonably presumed to have know, understood and voluntarily agreed to each of the terms in the contract document.

      From my perspective, an alleged “contract” with only one signatory is not a true, multi-party contract. We can call the resulting one-signature document an “adhesion contract,” “contract of adhesion” or “unilateral contract”. But if there’s only one signature (yours) on the document, it is not any kind of “contract” but is, instead, a PLEDGE.

      The bad thing about pledges is that whoever signs the pledge binds himself to perform certain duties without receiving anything in return. For a two-party contract to be valid, each party must provide something to the other (I give you $10,000; you give me your used car). These contractual provisions must be roughly equal in value. I.e., if I contract to give you just $1 for your used car that anyone else would say is worth $10,000, our contract may be based on coercion and the resulting inequality can be challenged in court. The inequality may not render the contract void, but it may be voidable.

      So far as I can tell, the nice thing about pledges is that there is no “meeting of the minds”. Since there’s only one signatory, there is no agreement as to what the pledge MEANS. There is no agreement as to the definition of each of the words used in the pledge. If I alone sign a pledge, I believe the pledge means whatever I say it means. As the sole signatory, I believe I control the venue, jurisdiction, and meaning associated with any pledge that I’ve signed. Even if the pledge is some standard form provided by government or some agency, I believe that, as sole signatory, the pledge only means whatever I say it means.

      For example, given that there are multiple definitions of the term “United States,” if that term is used in any pledge I’ve signed, I get to pick and choose whichever “United States” I meant when I signed the pledge. I might even declared that when I used the term “United States,” I really meant “The United States of America”. As sole signatory, the pledge means whatever I say it means.

      If I am half-way adept at using and defining words, I believe I can declare that the meaning of any pledge is ultimately harmless to me.

      My main argument is that if you’re the only one who signed a document (like a drivers license, application for benefits, 1040, mortgage or note), then you alone know what you meant by the words used that were above your signature on the document. If you don’t ever specify exactly what you meant (or didn’t mean) when you signed, the court and system is probably free to presume that you meant whatever the system wanted you to mean.

      But, if you are subsequently called on to honor your single-signature pledge (say, a drivers license and/or an application for a drivers license) and you expressly declare under oath that you never intended that pledge to mean that you had voluntarily waived any of your rights, agreed to represent a fiction, or agreed to act within any venue or plane other than that of a State of the Union, the government is going to have to put someone on the witness stand prepared to swear under oath that you did mean to surrender your rights, represent a fiction or act in some administrative venue rather that within a State of the Union.

      I don’t know where the government can find a witness prepared to swear my pledge is evidence that I meant what they say I meant (rather than what I meant), but even if such witness can be found, how will he sound to a jury? What will the jury think when a government witness admits under oath that people don’t have to obey the speed limit signs because “it’s the law,” but rather because they signed a “pledge” whereby they not only promised to do so (and pay fines if they failed to keep their promise), but received virtually nothing in return for their promise?

      I don’t think that’s information that the court wants the jury to hear because the jury has also made “pledges” with their single-signatory drivers licenses, applications, IRS 1040 forms, and mortgages. The court would not want to create a public record that showed how pernicious such “pledges” can be, nor would they want to create a public record indicating how easily such pledges can be refuted or at least “re-defined” and/or “restructured”.

       

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