There have always been 2 classes of citizens in America.
The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443." Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
"Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
"There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
"Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
These two classes of citizenship continue to this day, "Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1." Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
The US citizen A US citizen does not have any rights. "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
A US citizen is a corporation. "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended, which brings us to the next topic.
The Fourteenth Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment turns citizenship upside down from what the founding fathers intended.
"And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship "paramount and dominant", instead of "derivative and dependant" upon state citizenship." Colgate v Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, on page 427
Therefore, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, US citizenship was derivative and dependent upon state citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment made US citizenship paramount and dominant.
In other words, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment you had to be a state citizen to be a US citizen and the state citizenship was dominant over the federal citizenship, but after the Fourteenth Amendment you could be a US citizen without being a state citizen, and the courts can presume that you are a US citizen and not a state citizen. If the courts can presume something, then every bureaucrat can presume the same thing.
Tashiro v. Jordan May 20, 1927, 255 P. 545 Cal. Supreme Court: "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other"
"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Max well v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1." Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993)
Thw Fourteenth Amendment citizen is a US citizen
The (so-called) Fourteenth Amendment is a revision. For further information on the (so-called) Fourteenth Amendment see the Non-Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by Judge AH Ellett
This document is 155 pages long and explains how the ratification of the (so-called) Fourteenth Amendment is defective at best, as well as how it is in fact a revision because it changes all sorts of things in the Constitution.
Some members of Congress at the time affirmed the right of Americans to renounce the US citizen the day before the (so-called) Fourteenth Amendment was declared approved and adopted by passing An Act Concerning the Right of American Citizens to Expatriate.
Another Important part of this is the color of law statutes.
Color of Law "Color" means "An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240.
"Colorable" means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth." Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146.
"Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.
"prima facia" means "At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary." State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071.
Prima facia and color of law both go hand in hand, because if a law is prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States, that means it is color of law, by definition. In other words the bureaucrat presumes that the law applies to you until you defeat their presumption.
If you read these prima facia, color of law statutes, you will find them using words like "person". I will use the color of law Title 26 USC as a typical way that they do it.
26 USC 7701 (a) (1) Person. The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
In the Internal Revenue code they say that a "person" has to pay taxes and obey their filing requirement etc., and most people think that they are such a "person", so they do it, but there is a maxim of law that says something else.
Ejusdem Generis (eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.
Pursuant to the Maxim of Law ejusdem generis the word "individual" is another type of fictitious entity because the rest of the entities are fictitious entities and in the rules of statutory construction, a definition must contain the same type of entities, or it is void for vagueness. Therefore, an “individual” and a "person" are different names for a corporation.
Title 15 USC Section 44 even provides for an "unincorporated corporation".
When you do what a color of law statute says, you are deemed to have agreed to the terms of the contract, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
This is consistent with what the Courts are saying, a "Person" is: a) “a variety of entities other than human beings.” Church of Scientology v U.S. Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 (1979) at pg 418 b) ”...foreigners, not citizens...." United States v Otherson, 480 F. Supp. 1369 (1979) at pg 1373. c) the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies...Title 1 U.S.C. Chapter 1 – Rules of Construction, Section 1
A sovereign is not a "person" in a legal sense and as far as a statute is concerned; a) " 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)" Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b) “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192
All of this is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment talks about a "person" being a US citizen, and both of them are corporations.
Other terminologies which mean the same thing are "pretend legislation" and then it would also follow that offenses under "pretend legislation" would also be "pretend offenses". These terminologies are found in the Declaration of Independence(1776).
For any statute to be legimate, there are certain requirements. For example, it has to have a preamble, it has to be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by the President, and there are other requirements as well. The lack of any of these would make it color of law. Remember, "color of law" means it does NOT have authority, therefore, you have to agree with it, - it is a contract. That is why it is "prima facia", which means it is "at first look". In other words, at first look the courts presume that the statute affects you but if you can show that you didn't agree to it in some way, then you are free to go.
Because the US Congress perjurers did their Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and also because state citizens are foreign to the United States, most people think that they have to go through a lot to prove that they did not agree to one of these so-called contracts, but the opposite is true.
Color of Law, and Prima Facia, and presumption are all associated with Admiralty Maritime Law courts.
Still don't believe that the courts view these colorable codes, rules and regulations as a contract?
"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
Posts: 68 | From: 111th Battalion/41FF/M Corp | Registered: Dec 2008
-------------------- "To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification." ~ Brock Chisholm, when director of UN World Health Organization Posts: 1328 | From: In the Mountains | Registered: Feb 2005