Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Law/State_Citizenship.txt

Text File | 1996-07-08 | 30KB | 543 lines

From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
[e-mail].
------------------------------------------------


N> What do you mean by
N> state citizenship and US citizenship are not
N> the same.  Could you please explain it to me
N> I'm very interested.
N> Thankyou.

This is what he means by state Citizenship and US citizenship not being
the same:

ARTICLE #1: What is Sovereign Citizenship?
by Scott Eric Rosenstiel

     What is Sovereign Citizenship?  Sovereign Citizenship is the status
held by our forefathers.  George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and
everyone else who won their freedom from the British Empire had this
status.  It was the birthright of all Americans, and we were generous in
extending this most important right to foreign-born persons through the
naturalization laws.  With this status, our unalienable rights of life,
liberty, and property couldn't be infringed.  During the Civil War a method
was discovered by the leading attorneys, financiers, and politicians of the
day to deprive us of this status.  Fortunately, we can get it back.
     This brings us to the question, "What are we getting back?"  What does
it mean to be a Sovereign Citizen?
     The word "sovereign" is defined in the 6th edition of Black's Law
Dictionary, published in 1990, as being, "A person, body, or state in which
independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king
or other ruler in a monarchy."  Prior to the War for American Independence,
the British king was the sovereign and the American people were his
subjects.  The war's outcome changed all this:

          The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the
     collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of
     the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
          State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)

     Thus, the people became Citizens of their respective states.  But more
importantly, for the first and only time in recorded history, the people
were recognized as being the true sovereigns:

          It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties
     in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles.
     That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as
     his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance... No
     such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on
     the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they
     are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but
     themselves...
          Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas' Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages
     471, 472 (1793)

     Each individual, at least so far as respects his unalienable rights is
his own sovereign.  These rights weren't given to any government.  In fact,
they can't be.  Perhaps you can give up all of your rights, if you so
choose, but who has the power to give your rights up for you?  In America,
no one can, because we're all equal.
     In American this principle of popular sovereign is recognized by all
governments - state and federal.  When the states became independent, the
state governments were formed, all of them based on the authority of the
people, and not the will of one man or a small body of men.
     The federal government as we know it today was created in 1789 when
the federal constitution went into effect.
     The constitution mentioned something previously unknown in American
law: Citizenship of the United States:

          The term, citizens of the United States, must be understood to
     intend those who were citizens of a state, as such, after the Union
     had commenced, and the several states had assumed their sovereignties.
     Before this period there was no citizen of the United States...
          Manchester v. Boston, Massachusetts Reports, Vol. 16, Page 235
     (1819)

     Thus a Citizen of a state is, by the federal constitution, made a
Citizen of the United States.  This means the following:

          A citizen of one state is to be considered as a citizen of every
     other state in the union.
          Butler v. Farnsworth, Federal Cases, Vol. 4, Page 902 (1821)

     A Citizen of any one of the states is considered and treated as being
a Citizen of all of them.  The phrase "Citizen of the United States" does
not refer to a separate class of citizenship:

          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.  To conceive a citizen of the
     United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is
     totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper
     construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the
     Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
          Ex parte. - Frank Knowles, California Reports, Vol. 5, Page 302
     (1855)

     Because of the principles enunciated in the above cases and others
like them, it's correct to say that the American people are Citizens of our
respective states.  But we're more than this.  We're in a very real sense
Citizens of all the states.  We are, in the greatest sense, and proudly so,
Citizens of the several United States.
     This brings us to what are considered as being the rights inherent in
Citizenship in America:

          When men entered into a State they yielded a part of their
     absolute rights, or natural liberty, for political or civil liberty,
     which is no other than natural liberty restrained by human laws, so
     far as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the
     public.  The rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of
     acquiring and protecting reputation and property, - and, in general,
     of attaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury to
     another, are the rights of a citizen; and all men by nature have them.
          Douglass, Adm'r., v. Stephens, Delaware Chancery, Vol. 1, Page
     470 (1821)

     These are the rights inherent in Sovereign Citizenship.  So long as we
remained Citizens, they couldn't be taken away from us.  So the key was to
take our Citizenship away from us.

ARTICLE #2 - Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship

     If you look through the copy of the United States constitution found
in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary, you'll notice something very
interesting.  The word "Citizen" is always capitalized until you get to the
fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868.  After that, it's no
longer capitalized.  This isn't an isolated occurrence either.  In the
definition of "Dred Scott Case," a supreme court case decided before the
fourteenth amendment, they capitalize "Citizen," but everywhere else in the
dictionary, where it refers to the laws of today, the word isn't
capitalized.  As you shall see, this is just one small indicator of many
that the fourteenth amendment created a new class of citizen.
     This is certainly no secret to the legal community.  In fact, under
the definition of "Fourteenth Amendment" it says, "The Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States... creates... a citizenship of the
United States as distinct from that of the states..."  This class of
"citizen of the United States" was new; it was unknown to the constitution
prior to 1868.  This wasn't the status of our forefathers.
     In the first sentence of the definition of "United States" found in
Black's, it says, "This term has several meanings."  Pursuing this further,
we find that one of the definitions is the "collective name of the states
which are united by and under the Constitution."  This is what the framers
of the constitution meant by "Citizen of the United States" - that is, the
Citizen of one state is to be considered and treated as a Citizen of every
other state in the union.
     Used in another sense, though, the term is simply the name of the
federal government.  This is what is meant by "citizen of the United States
in the fourteenth amendment":

          Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects
     only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it
     does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.
          Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)

     From the authorities above, we can see that the fourteenth amendment
created citizenship of the federal government.  This status is a privilege
granted by the government:

          Citizenship is a political status, and may be defined and
     privilege limited by Congress.
          Ex Parte (NG) Fung Sing, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 6,
     Page 670 (1925)

     It goes without saying that the federal government can regulate the
privileges it creates.  By definition, "citizenship" is the basis of a
person's relationship with the government.  In the legal sense, everything
else is built upon it.  Therefore, since fourteenth amendment citizenship
is a privilege, every aspect of the citizen's life could potentially be
regulated.  Worst of all, this new class of citizen does not have the right
to invoke the protections of the Bill of Rights, as explained in the
following supreme court case:

          We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that 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.  They were decided subsequently to the adoption of
     the Fourteenth Amendment...
          Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

     This isn't an idea peculiar to the turn of the century either.  Going
back to the 'Jones' case, which was decided in 1993, we find the courts of
today saying, "The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of
the Bill of Rights not protects all rights of individual citizens."
     Although fourteenth amendment citizens have no guaranteed access to
the Bill of Rights, the amendment itself does state that they have certain
"privileges and immunities."  Here's what the supreme court has decided
they are:

          Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on
     the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential
     character of the national government, or are specifically granted or
     secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United
     States.  Slaughter-House Cases, supra, p.79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436,
     448, 34 L.ed. 519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct.Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152
     U.S. 377, 382, 38 L.ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup.Ct.Rep. 570.  Thus, among the
     rights and privileges of national citizenship recognized by this court
     are the right to pass freely from state to state (Crandall v. Nevada,
     6 Wall. 35, 18 L.ed. 75); the right to petition Congress for a redress
     of grievances (United States v. Cruikshank, supra); the right to vote
     for national officers (Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 28 L.ed. 274,
     4 Sup.Ct.Rep. 152; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58, 45 L.ed. 84, 21
     Sup.Ct. Rep. 17); the right to be protected against violence while in
     the lawful custody of a United States marshall (Logan v. United
     States, 144 U.S. 263, 36 L.ed. 429, 12 Sup.Ct. Rep. 617); and the
     right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws
     (Re Quark, 158 U.S. 532, 39 L.ed. 1080, 15 Sup.Ct.Rep. 959).
        Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78 (1908)

     As discussed in the last article, Sovereign Citizens created
government to guarantee them their rights.  In contrast, it would seem from
the above that the federal government created fourteenth amendment
citizenship to guarantee its power.
     As a side note, this amendment has always been controversial.  Many
people over the years have questioned the amount of power it vests in the
federal government.  Some have even questioned its validity.  On one
occasion Judge Ellett of the Utah supreme court remarked:

          I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its
     faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly
     approved and adopted.
          State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, Page
     941, 942 (1975)

     However, the most important fact about this amendment is that,
although it created a new class of citizen, it did not  have any effect on
Sovereign Citizens.  Both classes still exist:

          When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States
     were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose
     posterity the government was established.  Each of them was a citizen
     of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free
     persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by
     birth citizens of the State and of the United States.  (Mr. Calhoun in
     his published work upon the Constitution denied that there was any
     citizenship of the United States in any other sense than as being
     connected with the government through the States.)

          The first attempt by Congress to define citizenship was in 1866
     in the passage of the Civil Rights Act (Revised Statutes section 1992,
     8 United States Code Annotated section 1).  The act provided that:

          "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any
     foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States."

          And this in turn was followed in 1868 by the adoption of the
     Fourteenth Amendment, United States Code Annotated Amendment 14,
     declaring:

          "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
     subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
     and of the State wherein they reside."
          Perkins v. Elg, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 99, Page 410
     (1938), affirmed by supreme court at 307 US 325 (1939)

     Both classes of citizen still exist.  It's your right to be a
Sovereign Citizen, while it's a privilege to be a fourteenth amendment
citizen, and most importantly, it's up to you to determine which one you
are, and which one you want to be.

ARTICLE 3: IRS Taxes

     In this article we'll examine what are commonly called IRS taxes.
     Most people in America today feel that the federal system of taxation
isn't working very well, from the collection techniques to how tax dollars
are spent, and even the president and many memebers of congress admit that
many items in the budget are there just to please various special-interest
groups.  It's also universally admitted that, despite the high levels of
taxation, both the deficit and the national debt and growing at an ever-
increasing rate.
     To reduce this problem, President Ronald Reagan created a commission
to study government waste entitled: The President's Private-Sector Survey
On Cost Control, popularly known as the "Grace Commission," named after its
chairman, J. Peter Grace.
     In his opening letter to the president in volume one of the report,
Chairman Grace revealed that "...all individual income tax revenues are
gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from
their Government."
     This comes as a great shock to many, but the truth of the matter is
that IRS taxes as we known them today were never intended to pay for any
government services.
     The concept of the withholding tax was invented during the World War
II-era by Beardsley Ruml, who at the time was the chairman of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York.
     To explain the new tax, and its purposes, Chairman Ruml wrote an
article which appeared in the January 1946 issue of "American Affairs."
Appropriately enough, the article was entitled, "Taxes For Revenue Are
Obsolete."
     In summarizing the points of his article, the editors of "American
Affairs" wrote, "...a sovereign national government is finally free of
money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing
itself with revenue."  Chairman Ruml himself does admit though that "...a
century and a half ago, the national government required revenues in order
to pay its bills."
     So taxes aren't needed for running the federal government anymore.
This leaves many asking, "Why does the government take so much of what I
earn?"
     Chairman Ruml, under the heading "What Taxes Are Really For," gave the
following answers:

          Federal taxes can be made to service four principle purposes of a
     social and economic character.  These purposes are:

          1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the
     purchasing power of the dollar;
          2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of
     income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
          3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing
     various industries and economic groups;
          4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of cretain national
     benefits, such as highways and social security.

          In the recent past, we have used our federal tax program
     consciously for each of these purposes.  In serving these purposes,
     the tax program is a means to an end.

     To summarize, here is what IRS taxes are and are not used for:

1.   They are used to help implement economic policies designed by the
federal government,

2.   They are used for social purposes (who should, and should not, in the
opinion of congress, have such-and-such amount of money), and

3.   They are used to subsidize various groups and interests, such as
private banks, but

4.   They are not used to pay for any government services.

     This means that if all IRS tax laws were repealed tomorrow, there
would be no effect on government services.  The only thing that would
change is that the federal government wouldn't be able to exert the social
and economic control that it currently does.
     There are more and more people saying that we'd be better off without
the regulated economy we currently have.  Certainly having the federal
government involved in every aspect of the economy was something never
contemplated by the framers of the federal constitution.
     Among those who've said that our federal tax system doesn't work is T.
Coleman Andrews, who actually served as the commissioner of Internal
Revenue back in the 1950's.
     After he left office, he began to speak out against what he perceived
as being "rapacious tax enactments."  In an article he wrote for the April
22, 1956 issue of "The American Weekly," he shared these reflections:

          As Commissioner of Internal Revenue I often thought how far we
     had gone toward coming ourselves "through excessive and unjust
     taxation."
          We have failed to realize, it seems to me, that through our tax
     system we have been playing right into the hands of the Marxists, who
     gleefully hail the income tax as the one sure instrument that will
     bring capitalism to its knees.

     On this point, it's interesting to note that a graduated income tax is
one of the planks of "The Communist Manifesto."  He also explained how
special-interest groups have exempted themselves fom taxation, and that the
true targets of IRS tax laws are the middle class:

          Whether you believe it or not, everybody is being overtaxed and
     the middle class is being taxed out of existence, and the nation,
     thereby, is being robbed of its surest guarantee of continued sound
     economic development and growth and its staunchest bulwark against the
     ascendancy of socialism.

     Almost every American, whether he's interested in current affairs or
not, believes that taxes are simply too high.  Some justify this to
themselves by saying that IRS taxes are absolutely necessary to pay for
needed government services, and that everyone is paying just as much as
they are.
     These arguments would undoubtedly disappear if more people knew that
IRS taxes are specifically targeted on the middle-class and don't pay for
any government services.
     This is where Sovereign Citizenship comes in.  As a Citizen, most IRS
tax laws simply won't apply to you.  You won't have to hope that congress
"gives you a break."  You won't have to change the tide of public opinion
to keep what you earn.  You'll simply use the law, as it's written, to your
advantage, instead of allowing it to be used advantageously against you.
     It's perfectly alright to do this.  Even the federal courts approve:

         Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low
     as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best
     pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's
     taxes.
          Helvering v. Gregory, Federal Reporter, 2nd series, Vol. 69, Page
     810 (1934)

     There's no patriotic duty to pay a lot in taxes.  But isn't there a
duty to yourself and your loved ones to reduce your costs, while justly
supporting your community with your increased purchasing power?

ARTICLE #4 - The Federal Reserve System

     One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort
to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's
ability to pay it's bills?"  As explained in the first article in this
series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay
for government services.  What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned
Federal Reserve System.
     Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as,
"Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to
which state chartered banks may belong.  Membership rules require
investment of stock and minimum reserves."
     Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed.  This was explained in
more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd
Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:

          Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by
     commercial banks in its region.  The stock-holding commercial banks
     elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.

          Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily
     regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks.

     Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these
privately owned banks actually issue money:

     Federal Reserve Act.  Law which created Federal Reserve banks
     which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money
     in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and
     supervising banks.  Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).

     The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is,
create, the money we use.  In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and
Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the
88th Congress, put out a study entitled "Money Facts" which contains a good
description of what the FED is:

          The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine.  It can
     issue money or checks.  And it never has a problem of making its
     checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary
     to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's
     Bureau of Engraving to print them.

     As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power.  Now
imagine a group of people who have the power to create money.  Imagine the
power these people would have.  This is what the Fed is.
     No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden,
who was the chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the '30's.
Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he
criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations.
In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages
1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:

          Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt
     institutions the world has ever known.  I refer to the Federal Reserve
     Board and the Federal reserve banks.  The Federal Reserve Board, a
     Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and
     the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the
     national debt.  The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal
     Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost
     this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over.
     This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the
     United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted
     our Government.  It has done this through the maladministration of
     that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt
     practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
          Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United
     States Government institutions.  They are not Government
     institutions.  They are private credit monopolies which prey upon
     the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and
     their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and
     swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.  In that dark
     crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's
     throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who
     send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation;
     and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for
     the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting
     of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past
     misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
          Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and
     disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who came here
     from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining
     our American institutions.

     The Fed basically works like this:  The government granted its power
to create money to the Fed banks.  They create money, then loan it back to
the government charging interest.  The government levies income taxes to
pay the interest on the debt.  On this point, it's interesting to note that
the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress
the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913.
     The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally
admitted.  Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities,
even support it.  On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and
in the present, that speak out against it.  One of these men was President
John F. Kennedy.  His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book:
Crossfire:

          Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American
     society involves money.
          Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the
     constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and
     regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not
     paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who
     print paper money then loan it to the government at interest.
          He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive
     Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in
     United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the
     traditional Federal Reserve System.  That same day, Kennedy
     signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills
     from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S.
     currency.
          Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had
     been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some
     time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks
     that were not part of the Federal Reserve system.  Saxon also had
     decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local
     general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal
     Reserve banks.
          A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author
     has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United
     States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death.
          According to information from the Library of the Comptroller
     of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today,
     although successive administrations beginning with that of
     President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and
     instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal
     Reserve notes.
          Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the
     deficit is at an all time high.

     The point we're trying to make with this is that the IRS taxes you pay
aren't used for government services.  It won't hurt you or the nation to
legally reduce your tax liability.  In fact, it will help both.  And
remember.  It's your money.  You earned it.  For more information,
call The Sovereignty Workshop BBS [phone].
Replies to [e-mail] only.

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.


All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail [e-mail])