STATE vs. U.S. CITIZENSHIP THEORY RECONSIDERED

1. Are you either a sovereign state citizen or a slave 14th amendmentU.S. citizen?
2. The Federal Gov. has absolutely no power over a state citizen in the Union.
3. Have you read the court cases that the state citizenship proponents rely on to find out if their quotes from court cases are correct?

The answer to all of the above is a solid NO!

A short essay by Peymon M., a former proponent of state vs. U.S. citizenship theory.

Many of us are fed up with the oppressive taxation and control that we are suffering at the hands of government at all levels. Back in 1993, I was persuaded to believe that I had unknowingly allowed myself to become a U.S. citizen/slave by trading in my “sovereign state citizen status” to that of a “U.S. citizen/subject/slave” created by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America.

I used to teach “state citizenship.” I studied with some of the most renowned “state citizenship” experts in America. Not knowing how to look up a court case in the law library, I never read the full court cases, which I previously quoted from the law digest books.

Eventually, when I learned how to find a court case in the law library, and upon the insistence of some good friends, I pulled out and read the full text of each court case from which I was quoting. I did not like what I read. I was wrong about this whole thing. But hey, better to stand corrected than to keep my head in the sand.

Do yourself a favor and read the full court cases, which I quote.Make sure for yourself that your position is the correct one. If you don’t know how to find the court cases in the law library, you may get them through me. Happy reading.

Where did citizenship come from?

In the beginning, people were created free, independent, and sovereign and no one could force them to do anything unless they were overpowered. This is exactly what happened. Evil people formed gangs that attacked, raped, robbed, and murdered other free, independent, and sovereign men, women and children, one by one.

This went on for a while until the good people “wised up” and started forming their own good gangs and tribes mutually to protect each other from the evil gangs and thereby created a gang, tribe, jural society or a state. The fundamental purpose of any gang, tribe, jural society, or state is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its individual members. Members of these groups are also called citizens.

The Massachusetts Bill of Rights is explicit regarding how this takes place: “The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for a common good.”

Each group outlined a territory or turf, which they called collectively theirs. The borders of this area are the borders of the state. To assure the continued existence of this collective entity, which is needed to protect each of its individual members, each member in addition to his or her rights had privileges; immunities and duties (such as jury duty, service in the militia…) This way the shared contribution of everyone assured the future protection of all members and their posterity (children). This is a classical “all for one and one for all” kind of a situation.

By now, you realize that in the political sense, the terms gang, tribe, jural society and state are synonymous. The word “member” (of a gang or tribe) is the same as a “citizen of a state”. I know this might sound distasteful for some people to accept that their state is just a collection or group of people (albeit a good one with good purposes in mind), but I never promised you that reality is always sweet; did your parents?

How about citizenship in America?

In 1776, after the American people kicked the sovereign King of England out of the colonies by the use of force, the American people once again became sovereigns. As mentioned above, to protect themselves from control and abuse by the power hungry criminal gangs (the mobsters of the time), they organized themselves into 13 distinct and separate groups/gangs (states).

Under the Articles of Confederation, these states joined in a voluntary association for their mutual benefit much like how most (not all) countries of the world are members of a confederacy called the United Nations. The confederate government (the United States) supposedly had limited powers over its member nations much like the way the U.N. has limited powers over its member states.

Read New York v. U.S. 112 S.Ct.2408 (1992) on page 2421 which states: “Alexander Hamilton observed: ‘The great and radical vice in theconstruction of the existing confederation is in the principle ofLEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contra distinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of whom they consist.’ The Federalist No. 15, p. 108.”

The confederate U.S., like the U.N. of today, had no power over the individual citizens of its member states and was totally dependent upon the whim of the clear and strong majority of its members to pressure the members who are behind in paying their membership dues to pay up; otherwise the U.N. and the confederate U.S. are both powerless to do anything about their lack of funds.

Again, read New York v. U.S. in page 2421: “Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the authority in most respects to govern the people directly. In practice, Congress could not directly tax or legislate upon individuals; it had no explicit ‘legislative’ or ‘governmental’ power to make binding ‘law’ enforceable as such.”

Did the U.S. Constitution change anything?

The American people were told in 1789 that in order for them to be better served by their gangs/groups (states) they ought to approve the creation of a new and empowered super gang (the U.S. government), which will exercise certain functions (powers) delegated from the states to this new super gang or super state. Furthermore, the states would no longer be under the power of the U.S. (which could not be enforced anyway), and retain their sovereignty. They would just be prohibited from exercising those functions (powers) now delegated to the U.S. government.

Read New York v. U.S. on page 2422 and 2423: “The necessity of having a government which should at once operate on the people, and not upon the states, was conceived to be indispensable by every delegation present.’…”Laws to be effective must not be laid on states, but upon individuals.”…And the laws of the Confederation were binding on the states in their political capacities, but now the thing is entirely different. The laws of Congress will be binding on individuals.” “…In providing for a stronger central government, therefore, the framersexplicitly chose a constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States. As we have seen, the Court has consistently respected this choice.”

However, now the individual members (citizens) of these states, in the areas delegated to the U.S. government came directly under its powers and thereby became members/citizens of the super state called the United States (U.S. for short). This was a proposal which the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry strongly opposed and argued as an opening window to a new central government which will eventually come to oppress the people much like the King of England (How right they were is too obvious now.)

Nevertheless, the anti-federalists lost the argument and the people of the several states allegedly approved the Constitution of the United States of America, which created a new U.S. government and our dual system of government.

In New York v. United States, on page 2421 the court states: “Both the States and the United States existed before that instrument established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting with ample power, directly over citizens, instead of the confederate government which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the states.” Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall at 76

This is to say that, if a bunch of street gangs, like the Crips and the Bloods (famous L.A. gangs) came together to form a Union in which they delegated powers to a Super Gang authority, and in the areas delegated, their members also became members of this Super Gang.

By becoming a member (citizen) of the Super Gang (the U.S.) you become eligible to become the member (citizen) of the gang (state) of which you lived in its turf (the state in which you live): a U.S. and State citizen at the same time.

In Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393, 15L.Ed 691 (1857), the U.S. Supreme court stated: “It is true, every person, and every class and descriptions, of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body [The United States of America].”

When I was getting into “state citizenship”, I was shown by a law digest quote which stated: “(Ala. 1909) 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 Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788, 160 Ala. 155.”

This statement appeared to indicate a case of 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, which was held not to be a state citizen. But if you read the actual court case, you will get a very different picture.

The court actually said: “There is, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and on of the state. Once class of citizenship may exist in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. The federal government by this amendment (the 14th amendment) has undertaken to say who hall be citizen of both of the states and United States.”

Didn’t the 14th Amendment change anything?

Yes. The alleged 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution changed some things. For example, it allowed the former black and oriental slaves who were supposedly freed by the alleged 13th amendment to become U.S. and State citizens in a wholesale way. It also brought state legislation under the scrutiny of the U.S. government in many ways never intended by the founding fathers…

However, it did not create a new class of citizenship as suggested by some. Remember, by ratification of the U.S. Constitution, each citizen of the state was also made a citizen of the United States.

Can you disprove the state citizenship proponent’s arguments?

The state citizenship theory claims many other things such as:

  1. A “state citizen” is not a “person.”
  2. “Resident” means only a temporary place of living, and is for U.S. citizens, not state citizens.
  3. A state citizen is individually sovereign.
  4. A state citizen is not subject to state and federal legislation.
  5. Income taxation is primarily based on your status as a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen.
  6. The word “United States” means only Washington D.C. and federal territories.

To clearly and unequivocally disprove the above I will mostly refer to the very court cases that they refer to and pre-14th Amendment (1868) court cases and dictionaries.

The words 1) “person,” 2) “resident”and 6) “United States:”

The 1867 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary states “Persons are also divided into citizens and aliens when viewed with regard to their political rights.” The U.S. Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 states: “No personexcept a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at this of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office… and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Obviously, “citizens” are included in the meaning of the word “person”. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were Citizens of the United States “residing” in the “United States” (states of the Union).

3) A state citizen is individually a sovereign:

I was originally convinced that state citizens are sovereign when I read this quotation from a law digest: “People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89.

Wow! I was so excited to get confirmation that I am truly free and independent as a sovereign. I went about teaching this to many others, until I learned how to look up a court case in the law library and dug up this hard-to-find case of Lansing v. Smith, of which no one I knew had seen a copy.

The Supreme Court of New York in 1829 did say the above, but what it said immediately after gave it a totally different meaning. The sentence in Lansing continued; “Through the medium of the legislature they nayexercise all the powers which previous to the revolution, could have been exercised by the King alone…”

This case was about the right to navigate in the waters of New York. Further down the same page the court continues: “The right to navigate the public waters of the state, to fish therein, and the right to use the public highways, are all public rights belonging to the people at large. They are not the private inalienable rights of each individual.” Reading the rest of the story does draw a different picture, doesn’t it?

4) The “state citizen” is not subject to State or Federal legislation:

The 1867 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary under the definition of “person” states: “When the word ‘persons’ is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 2 III. 178. “It describes Natural persons as: “Natural persons are divided into males, or men, and females or women.”

Clearly if you are a man or woman, you are a “natural person” and a “person”, and you are the “person” in the state and federal legislatures acts to which they are subjecting the laws.

5) Income taxation is primarily based upon your status as a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen.

In the Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the earliest tax case to reach the Supreme Court of the United States, all four judges that gave an opinion on this case agreed that Congress possesses very wide taxing powers within the United States and therefore could tax Mr. Hylton’s (a state and U.S. citizen) carriages.

Back in 1796, the U.S. government had no territories. The White House was not even built yet. Obviously, citizenship was not an issue here.

Form our own “Jural Society”, “Township” or “Common Law Court” to have them leave us alone?

Yes, you may; but remember, they claim that they are the only lawful authority around. If your group starts to get too big or successful they may simply crush you and portray you as the “extremist nut” like they did in the Waco massacre. If they did not let the South secede (separate) from the American Union back in 1861, what makes you think they will let you and your friends secede now?

So, what can I do now to live free?

There is a lot that you can do to regain your freedoms.The hated income tax is voluntary; “income” legally refers to privileged activities and not to compensation for your labor. The primary purpose of government is still to protect your life, liberty, and property.

You will find the “silver bullet” within the following quotes:

“If a nation wishes to be ignorant and free, they want something which never has and never will be.”
“Seek the truth and the truth shall make you free.”                   
“Freedom is not free.”

Click here to obtain the court cases and cites mentioned in this article.