Sunday, August 12, 2018

Sprinkle-Docket-and-Final-Judgment.pdf


https://www.agenda31.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Sprinkle-Docket-and-Final-Judgment.pdf


American Citizen, or U.S. citizen?

American Citizen, or
U.S. citizen?


There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will explain that difference.
John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.
JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.
In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person.
Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.
Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
The "United States" is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a "Federal corporation".
It is also a municipal corporation.
Municipal. In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
So the federal corporation United States, that pertains to the public affairs of a people, would be a municipal corporation.The federal government pertains to the affairs of its sovereign people.
Municipal corporation. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes . . .A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises corresponding twofold functions and duties -- one class consisting of those acts performed by it in the exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for the benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality.  Black's 6th Ed.
A municipal corporation is an artificial person, as shown above, and consists of the general inhabitants called citizens, and these artificial persons (citizens) were created by the legislature, not by God. A corporation can be a citizen itself, and that corporation can have its own citizens. A corporation also has it's own officers. When a corporation is dissolved, then the officers of that corporation no longer exist. A government has it's own citizens and employees. When that government is dissolved, then those citizens also cease to exist, since both officers and citizens of a corporation are both artificial persons.
Corporate citizen. Corporate status in the state of incorporation . . . Black's 6th Ed.
A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person?
I claim that when the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen's name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.
Constitution of the United States of America
14th
 Amendment. Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.

COLLECTIVE ENTITY RULE

Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) This doctrine - known as the collective entity rule- has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.
What is a "collective entity"? A collective entity is simply a corporate entity. Since the status of U.S. citizen can be created by naturalization let's see what naturalization is, and determine if a U.S. citizen is part of a collective entity.
Naturalization. The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are  made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Black's 6th Ed.
Person. Scope and delineation of term necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protections since this Amendment expressly applies to "person".
Let's review the definition of artificial person.
Artificial persons.  Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.
The 14th Amendment applies to "persons", and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. "Collective" "naturalization occurs when designated groups"(inhabitants) "are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress".  These artificial persons were "created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government", and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are "made" or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.
A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.
The theme of the collective entity rule states:
Brasswell vUnited States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations.
Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights.
After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial person, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.
A sovereign flesh and blood person is an American Citizen.
A corporate U.S. citizen is an artificial person and is a government agent/employee.
WHICH ONE ARE YOU?

A constitutionalist is often known by other names such as a constitutional conservative or a strict constructionalist. While the latter term typically refers to judges and justices, it is also used to describe any person that believes in a strict reading of the US Constitution. This person typically favors limited government, as prescribed by the Constitution, and one that is small not only in size but also in scope and in power.

U.S. State Constitution


Ratified
May 7, 1879 The Constitution of the State of California is the constitution of California, describing the duties, powers, structure and function of the government of California.Wikipedia
CreatedOctober 13, 1849
Author(s)Monterey Convention of 1849




CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION - CONS



ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 - SEC. 32]
  ( Article 1 adopted 1879. )

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.
(Sec. 31 added Nov. 5, 1996, by Prop. 209. Initiative measure.)

ARTICLE III STATE OF CALIFORNIA The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.(Sec. 1 added Nov. 7, 1972, by Prop. 6. Res.Ch. 120, 1972.)
 An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.(Sec. 3.5 added June 6, 1978, by Prop. 5. Res.Ch. 48, 1977.)
SEC. 6 Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.(Sec. 6 added Nov. 5, 1974, by Prop. 7. Res.Ch. 90, 1974.)
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.
(Subd. (a) amended Nov. 6, 1979, by Prop. 1. Res.Ch. 18, 1979. Entire Sec. 7 was added Nov. 5, 1974, by Prop. 7; Res.Ch. 90, 1974.)


Uniform Commercial Code





What are Uniform Laws?
In the American federal system, both the federal government and the individual states have the power to pass statutes or laws. (Local governments like counties and cities can as well but have more limited power generally seen as derived from their state.) Both are subject to constitutional limitations. Some topics are largely covered by federal legislation, some are handled almost exclusively by the states, and many are the subject of both state and federal law.
As interstate business and individual movement have increased in the U.S. the felt need for greater uniformity of law on particular subjects has grown. One response to such a need is enactment of a federal law on the subject (e.g., the federal Securities Act of 1933). Another approach known by the name "Uniform State Laws" seeks adoption of identical or similar laws by all the states. It dates back to the late nineteenth century.
A non-governmental body, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCUSL) was formed in 1892 upon the recommendation of the American Bar Association for the purpose of promoting "uniformity in state laws on all subjects where uniformity is deemed desirable and practicable." Made up of lawyers chosen by the states, the Conference oversees the preparation of proposed laws, "Uniform Laws" which the states are encouraged to adopt. For over a century this process, carried out through committees that prepare successive drafts for review and ultimate approval by the full Conference has continued to function. To date, the Commissioners have approved more than two hundred uniform laws, of which more than 100 have been adopted by at least one state. A few have been widely adopted and have, as a consequence, approached the hoped for uniform national law on their subject.

Uniform Laws: aspiration rather than reality

The phrase "Uniform Laws" can be misleading. Upon approval by the National Conference a Uniform Law is not law anywhere in the United States. It is simply a legislative proposal addressed to fifty state legislatures. During the history of the Conference, roughly half its proposals have not been adopted by a single state. (Examples include the Uniform Construction Lien Act (1987), the Uniform Franchise and Business Opportunities Act (1987), the Uniform Putative and Unknown Fathers Act (1988).) In addition, most of those that have enjoyed reasonable success have fallen way short of the goal of adoption by all or even a majority of the states. Furthermore, the versions of the "Uniform Laws" passed by the states are rarely uniform. Variations occur at the outset since prior law or other special local conditions lead states to make changes; rarely do states adopt Uniform Laws verbatim. A second source of variance is the Conference itself. Having adopted a successful Uniform Law, the Commissioners are prompted, just as true legislators are, to revised it from time to time in the light of changing conditions and policies. This results in multiple versions of some Uniform Laws, and unless and until the states that adopted an earlier version enact the Commissioners' revisions in multiple versions in effect in the states. There are, for example, at least two versions of the Uniform Probate Code in force in the states, the original code and 1989-1990 revisions which some states have not adopted and others have adopted only in part. (See the LII's Uniform Probate Code Locator page). In short, uniformity has proven an illusive goal.
The greatest successes of the "Uniform Law" approach have been in the field of commercial and business law. Beginning with the Commissioners first product, the separate Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law (at one time in effect in all the states) and Uniform Sales Act (also widely adopted), the Conference, working together with the American Law Institute, later produced the Uniform Commercial Code (now in effect in some version in nearly all U.S. jurisdictions -- see the LII's Uniform Commercial Code Locator page).

Uniform Laws: as vehicles of law revision or reform

While uniformity was the original aim of the Uniform Law process overseen by NCUSL, in time law revision or reform became a significant purpose as well. Topics for legislation where state to state variance did not create a serious problem for the conduct of business or interstate mobility but where state laws were judged by legal experts as being in need of reform have been the subject of Uniform Laws. To the extent particular acts are justified by this broader aim, their failure to win widespread adoption or to withstand the pressure for state by state variation provides less solid a basis for judging success. Indeed, such efforts may reasonably be seen as bearing fruit in cases where a Uniform Law is but one of several proposals catalyzing and shaping legislative reform. The Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act might be viewed a fair success, in this light, despite its fairly limited adoption.

Some closely related efforts

Model Acts are proposed laws on topics where reform not uniformity is the dominant aim. Those creating model acts contemplate that state legislatures may make alterations or even take bits and pieces. The National Conference has put forward a few Model Acts. The American Law Institute has as well. Its Model Penal Code is perhaps the best known and most influential Model Act.
Restatements are the exclusive product of the American Law Institute. They are not proposals addressed to state legislatures but rather efforts to codify or restate areas still governed by common law (judge-made law).


For more details on the Uniform Law process with an account why one particular cluster of Uniform Laws failed to win acceptance in the states, see Marion W. Benfield, Jr., Wasted Days and Wasted Nights: Why the Land Acts Failed, 20 Nova L. Rev. 1037 (1996).

1-103. Construction of Uniform Commercial Code to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law U.C.C. - ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS (2001)  PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS › § 1-103. Construction of Uniform Commercial Code to Promote its Purposes and Policies: Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law..






(a) The Uniform Commercial Code must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.
(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.



§ 1-201. General Definitions.

Agreement", as distinguished from "contract", means the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade as provided in Section 1-303


(8) "Burden of establishing" a fact means the burden of persuading the trier of fact that the existence of the fact is more probable than its nonexistence.
(10) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person  against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.







SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT EXPOSE THE SCAM

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT EXPOSE THE SCAM 

Clearfield Trust Co. vs. UNITED STATES 318 US 363 (1942) [APPENDIX A] 

In 1942 the Supreme Court made a decision that exposed the corporate government. It resulted in what is now called the Clearfield Doctrine. Summary of the Clearfield Doctrine As all of our government "entities" (listed on Dun and Bradstreet) are doing business using private commercial paper (the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE), they have no more rights or privileges than any other corporation. 

Because of the private currency we are all forced to use called the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE, our so-called government has lost its sovereignty and has become no different than a mere private corporation. As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private corporations. Therefore, if they intend to compel an individual to some specific performance based upon their corporate statutes or rules, then they, like any private corporation, must be the holder-in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement between it and the one upon who demands for specific performance is made. And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get the court to enforce its demands, called statutes. 

Without the contract, enforcement cannot take place lawfully . . . unless you consent. Bond vs. UNITED STATES 529 US 334 (2000) [APPENDIX B] In 2000 the Supreme Court held that the American people are in fact sovereign and not the STATES or the government. The court went on to define that local state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful action against the sovereign people by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions. 

The state and federal government is a corporation and therefore the Congress, state legislatures, city councils, municipalities and all state and federal courts are corporate entities posing as Constitutional branches of government. All laws created by these government corporations are private corporate regulations called public law, statutes, codes and ordinances to conceal their true nature. Since these government bodies are not sovereign, they cannot promulgate or enforce criminal laws. Corporate 'governments' can only create and enforce civil laws, which are bound to comply with the Law of Contracts. 

 Sources: 

  • Bond vs. UNITED STATES 529 US 334 (2000) [APPENDIX B]
  • Clearfield Trust Co. vs. UNITED STATES 318 US 363 (1942) [APPENDIX A] 
  • Clearfield Doctrine
  • Dun and Bradstreet

Saturday, August 4, 2018

Congress’s Season Of Treason 1861 -1871 United States vs. UNITED STATES vs. united States of America WHICH ONE DO YOU FALL UNDER?

Congress’s
Season
Of
Treason

1861 -1871

<script async custom-element="amp-auto-ads"
        src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0/amp-auto-ads-0.1.js">
</script>

As you will see, all your inalienable rights have been taken away from you without you knowing. Learn the term "LEGALESE" The formal and technical language of Law in legal documents. Notice the style of words; capital letters like your driver license, social security card, court documents. Your name is printed in all caps for a reason. It all comes down to:   Big "C" vs. Little "c"  as you will soon find out.

United States vs.
UNITED STATES vs.
 united States of America 

"UNITED STATES". This term has several meanings. 
(1) It may merely be the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. 
(2) It may designate territory over which 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, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 324 U.S. 652, 89 L. Ed. 1252."


United States

THE FIRST (1) "United States" is as a sovereign among the nations of the World under International Law (a nation amongst nations). It consists of (1) the Union States and (2) the Federal zone (District of Columbia, U.S. territories and possessions, forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings), and is represented collectively in the international arena by the U.S. Consuls abroad as one and the same entity. The flag that properly represents it in the world arena is "Old Glory".


UNITED STATES

THE SECOND (2) "UNITED STATES" in Hooven, supra, was created by the Constitution in Art. I, Section 8, Clauses 17 & 18. This second “United States" received further authority when under Art. IV, Section 3, Clause 1 & 2, "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the territory or other Property belonging to this United States" but it gave no authority to Congress to extend its municipal authority into the Union States. The latter gave Congress power to extend its jurisdiction (law making powers) beyond the limits of the District of Columbia over which Congress was to exercise "exclusive Legislation" to include the former territories such as the Northwest territory, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Philippine Islands, and currently, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and other territories, possessions, areas and enclaves. 

Its flag is the Stars and Stripes with the yellow fringe representing a plenary Martial Law jurisdiction. The geographical area known as the "United States" (DC) has its own citizens (United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 588) who are generally referred to as United States citizens. The yellow-fringed flag signifying this jurisdiction is not for decorative purposes. It signifies the jurisdiction of the District, also known as the Corporate U.S. Federal that has been extended into the Union states by the 14th Amendment. (14th Amend. was never passed legally.) 

This is the flag of the Democracy. It should be obvious to everyone who observes the flag next to his Senator or Representative from Washington D.C. that they represent the Districts interest in the area of his constituency and not the other way around. When the function of the Circuit Courts of the United States of America was changed to appellate status by another layer of courts, these courts were labeled United States District Courts-- the courts of the District. Where are the courts of the United States America sitting today? They do not exist.


united States of America 

THE THIRD (3rd) "united States" (of America) described in Hooven, supra, are the 50 Union states united by and under the Constitution. This "3rd united States" (of America) is known as the Republic. Its flag is "Old Glory." In the Constitutional Courts, the civil authority of the Constitution is signified by the Stars and Stripes hung vertically behind the bench, just as it hangs behind the Speaker's Chair in the House of Representatives. Why, one might logically ask, is such a flag not found in our courtrooms today? Because they are not Constitutional.

The Republic has Citizens of its own called American Nationals. Those are the Sovereign Citizens who qualify as such by being Members of the Posterity referred to in the Preamble and can only be the Natural Born or Naturalized 

White Inhabitants of each state whose forefathers delegated by solemn agreement certain powers to the Congress of the "United States" (D.C.), which powers are limited to those delegated in Art. I, Section 8, Clauses 1-16 and Art. IV, Section 3, Clause. 2, though today unlawfully expanded far beyond Constitutional limits by (1)usurpation, and (2) deception of benefits (by contract) which American Nationals unwittingly and unknowingly enter on the other hand.

When legislating for the third "(3rd) united States" (of America) all powers not enumerated in Art. 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-16, are reserved for those sovereign States, and the Citizens of those Republics, by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of these united States of America (In Union). The Founding Citizens of the Republic gave very limited powers to the Congress of the United States to legislate for the geographical area known above as the "3 Union States", described in the Hooven case, supra. These legislative powers are limited to being exclusive within the area of its jurisdiction  that power possessed by any one of the legislatures of the 50 states of the Union when legislating for its responsive geographical area. However, when legislating for the 50 Union states collectively as a nation, Congress is bound by the chains of the Constitution and must remain inside the jurisdictional boundaries of Art. 1, Clause 8, Cls. 1-16, "and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State" [18 U.S.C. Clause 7 (1), (5), & (7), see particularly Clause 7 (3)].

An Act of Congress to Re-Define “Person” in America*

On July 1, 1862, when 11 southern states were not represented in Congress due to its Civil War, the remaining members of Congress passed “An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government and to pay Interest on the Public Debt.” Therein Congress assigned an artificial meaning to the word “person” as follows. “And be it further enacted, that on and after the first day of August, Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-Two, every individual, partnership, firm, association, or corporation, (and any word or words in this act indicating or referring to person or persons shall be taken to mean and include partnerships, firms, associations, or corporations, when not otherwise designated or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof,).” Thirty-Seventh Congress. Sess. II. Chap. CXIX. Page 432. Sec. 68. (p. 459.)

Four years later the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was allegedly ratified. The Supreme Court’s anti-constitutional interpretation of the “person” therein will be forthcoming. And a mere five years later Congress once again assigned an artificial meaning to “person” in, once again, an Internal Revenue Act, the relevant portion quoted below. “And where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, the word, “person,” as used in this title, shall be construed to mean and include a partnership, association, company, or corporation, as well as a natural person.” Forty- Third Congress (1873), Session I, Volume 18, Part 1 - Title XXXV. Internal Revenue. Chapter One. Page 601, Section 3140.

The above-cited 1862 and 1873 Internal Revenue acts effectively demonstrate the intent of Congress to assign an artificial meaning to “person” just before and after the Fourteenth Amendment, an important fact when considering the possible grounds for the Supreme Court’s corresponding interpretation of the “person” of that amendment.
Furthermore, by not specifically identifying corporations and the like as “artificial persons” as they have been historically known, Congress opened the door for future laws to be written without clarity of meaning or application –“person” meaning a human being or “artificial person” meaning a legal entity. Consequently, such laws necessarily would be vague, and therefore a violation of due process as explained by the Supreme Court in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) previously cited. This open door also allowed for the courts to expand the meaning for “person” far beyond its normal and ordinary meaning.

*Excerpt from “Sins of the State” by Richard Mark Voudren

An Act of Congress to Re-Define “State” in *America*

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment the Government of the United States existed as a limited Representative government created by the several states united, possessing only those enumerated powers granted to it by the states. All other powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution were reserved to the States, or to the People respectively pursuant to Amendments IX and X.

However, beginning with the second unofficial re-construction act revealed herein, whereby Congress re-constructed the meaning for “state”, coupled with the 1867 Reconstruction Acts, designed “to change the entire structure and character of the State governments . . . by force” according to President Johnson, and culminating in the Fourteenth amendment, that republican form of government/16 was destroyed. As a consequence, the several states united were reduced in status to mere territorial districts called “states”, and made completely subject to Congress.

In 1864, when the so-called Civil War was near its end, Congress passed “An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government and to pay Interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes.” Therein Congress re-constructed the word “state” as follows, with words in brackets having been added for the purpose of clarifying how this anti-constitutional legislation should be properly read and interpreted –in a jurisdictional sense.

Chap. CLXXIII. –“An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government, to pay Interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes. Sec. 182. And be it further enacted, that wherever the word state [jurisdiction] is used in this act, it shall be construed to include the [jurisdictions of the] territories and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.” Public Acts of the Thirty- Eighth Congress of the United States. Sess.1. Ch. 173, 174. 1864. (13 Stat. 223). 

Constitutional Law
Territories, power of the United States over, as plenary (full, entire, complete, absolute) In exercising its constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting the territory belonging to the (2nd) United States, Congress is not subject to the same Constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the 3rd states of the Union. Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, supra; Downes vs. Bidwell 182 U.S. 244

Constitutional Guaranties as extended to territories. "In general the guarantees of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of excessive legislative power, when exerted for or over the insular possessions of the United States, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territories belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable." Hooven & Allison Co. vs. Evatt, supra. i.e., The Court states that the rights of those within Congress's sphere at exclusive jurisdiction are mere "privileges" extended them at the whim of Congress. 

Those who live in the District of Columbia, its enclaves, territories, or possessions, and those who live in the ceded areas of the several states (called "federal areas or enclaves") are known as #2 United States citizens. They are true federal citizens. From the standpoint of Constitutional law Congress has 100% control over the lives of All #2 United States citizens whenever they reside in the several states, or elsewhere, and their rights are subject to Congress's exclusive legislative authority. 

Such rights are called "civil rights". This type of government is a "Legislative Democracy", the object of which, since the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment, has been to rob Natural Born Citizens of their birthright and bring all Americans into the Democracy under the legislative authority of Congress as a single group under authoritarian rule --contrary to the intent of the Organic Constitution. In contrast, white people living in the Union States (the Republic) are not under the Congress's legislative authority and are known as American Nationals. 

They are citizens of the (3rd) united States of America. The reason that the federal government prefers that everyone submit to its authority "voluntary" under the 14th Amendment through participation in Social Security is that the IRS can lawfully tax only federal #2 United States citizens, its employees and those others who willingly contract with it and not #3 American Nationals who chose not to. Its authority does not lawfully extend to the latter unless they "voluntarily" place themselves under the "private commercial law" of CORPORATE U.S. FEDERAL by contracting with it by such a simple and subtle means as merely using Federal Reserve Notes and associated commercial paper instruments. 

Included in this latter group are those Whites who elected to be 14th Amendment citizens by "voluntarily" entering into unilateral contracts with the federal government by contracting for Social Security Old Age Insurance, obtaining licenses, privileges, etc, and by "voluntarily" making W-4 and 1040 contracts annually. This is what is meant by their claim that the federal income tax is "voluntary". In this way, those who "volunteer" themselves into federal contracts place themselves under the authority of Congress's powers to regulate commerce under Art. 1, Clause 8, Cl.3, subjecting themselves to the federal income tax. Thus the federal government ultimately obtains legal title to all of our property and total control over our lives leaving us with only the equitable interest so long as we perform the terms of our contracts. 

A serious breach of the contract means the loss of our equity; i.e., the government will take our property. The 1st clause of the 14th Amendment created a subject matter enclave jurisdiction to "artificially" create citizens not circumscribed by the Organic Law (Negroes, corporations, licensees, etc.) and placed them directly under municipal authority of Congress so that wherever they might "reside" in any one of the several states, territories, or possessions, they are within the scope of Congress's legislative authority as their existence is a federal state created privilege. 

Since the nations bankruptcy in 1933-- and the subsequent overthrow of the Constitution in 1933--through our government will not "openly and officially" admit it-- its position is that all Natural Born Citizens are also "subjects" with jurisdiction acquired by our "voluntary" contractual participation in Worldwide Social Insurance. 

Accordingly, all races are considered joined together as 14th Amendment (D.C.) citizens, "subjects" since being "enrolled" into Commerce by their "birth certificate", and by subsequently confirming their consent, when "applying for" such Unilateral Contracts as the Drivers and Marriage Licenses, Social Security Application, Selective Service and Voters' Registration, Bank Accounts, Credit Applications, W-4, and 1040 Income Tax Contracts, etc. for those who would chose to follow Satan, God provided flaws in the Constitution -- Art. 1 Clause 8, Cls 3, 17, & 18, and Art. 1, Clause 10, Cl. 1- - for the International Bankers to discover , to humble Christian Americans who would turn their backs on their God to worship the strange gods of greed, power, prestige, sex, the sports world, etc.- - their idols of materialism - - all violations of the First Commandment. 

When a Natural Born Citizen with a SS# refuses to sign a 1040 contract the federal courts will rule that he has " a know legal duty" which compels him to contract with government without ever requiring the government to produce the laws that make him liable for the tax and require the affirmative act of filing. Such quasi- coerced and compelled "commercial agreements"- - though entered out of fear - - need only be entered voluntarily and intentionally to have validity. The fact that he did not enter the agreement knowingly is immaterial. 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. 

It has taken concerned American Nationals 62 years to figure out why our Constitutional protections have been legislated away since 1913 by a Congress initially ordained with no such powers. Under the Common Law, violations require an injured party (a Corpus Delicti), and contracts must be entered Knowingly, Willingly, and with full knowledge of informed consent (intentionally). Having done so unknowingly or unwillingly could not have resulted in any forfeiture of unalienable Rights that would bring about a loss of property (labor) or liberty (held in captivity) as has been the case resulting from alleged Internal Revenue Code violations by American Nationals. Such an insidious plot perpetrated against American Nationals could only have been conceived and hatched in the mind of Satan. How did this system of Commercial Law develop? It developed as a result of the use of the introduction and use of Federal Reserve Notes (Commercial Paper). In pursuance of our use of this "Commercial Paper" the courts in our country are proceeding under the old Negotiable Instruments Low which has been codified into the Uniform Commercial Code and subsequently adopted by all the states. 

A Federal Reserve Note dollar is a fictional instrument a "colorable" dollar, and not the lawful dollar described in Clause 9 of the Coinage Act of 1792, (371-1/4 grains of .999 silver.) Common Law and Equity use gold and silver; Admiralty use gold only. All systems of law described in the Constitution are based on substance. No system of law that uses paper can be genuine - - -therefore it is a "colorable" system of law. So the Banksters and the Bar Association invented this new "colorable" jurisdiction to support this colorable law called "statutory law" which operates not according to "Public Law" but according to "Public Policy". 

For many years Patriots thought that because this statutory jurisdiction followed Admiralty rules it was an Admiralty jurisdiction. Not so! The only reason the Banksters did not enforce the Bankruptcy of 1933 by 1938 and foreclose on this and other bankrupt nations is that they did not have control of the guns. So you see why it is today that gun control is our government’s paramount objective through deception of anti-terrorism legislation? 

Our servants of the Public Trust have long ignored the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments and the Concept of "unalienable Rights" so eruditely stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence for the benefit of the People of this nation and their Posterity. Our Natural and Unalienable Rights run much deeper than those so called "civil rights" regulated by Congress through the 14th Amendment, [Proof of this among others is the duplicate due process clause provided therein for its citizen "subjects”] If we expect to claim our Rights it is our individual responsibility to see that the Bill of Rights is enforced and that those violating our Rights are tried for Treason. ] Truly, we are engaged in a spiritual battle. 

The situation that presently exists in the 50 Union States is the very reason the 2nd Amendment was written - - so that the contract called the Constitution could be enforced by the People (i.e. the state 3 Citizens). Obviously, to extend the taxing powers beyond their constitutionally authorized limits. Everybody knows that:" The District of Columbia is not a state within meaning of the Constitution" [U.S. vs. Virginia (1805)] like the 50 states of the Union, and yet it is referred to in all the (2) United States Codes as a "State", meaning the corporate and statutory venue of the Union. The District of Columbia is a corporation which is also known as the "1 & 2 United States." It must have its own definition for "state" since it 1 & 2 and the territorial States were not formed as Union States (3) by and under the Constitution. It is the primary entity owning Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, etc., which are federal States. 

Nevertheless, the federal courts are unconstitutionally enforcing the jurisdiction of CORPORATE U.S. FEDERAL (2) entity upon the entire geographical area of the Union states (3) as if they were under Congress' exclusive legislative authority (see 18 U.S.C. Clause 3231, with its Cross References referring the reader to 18 U.S.C. Clause 7, @ (3). The law is clear on this point, but the courts won't enforce it. 

Here are the facts concerning the term "United States" when used in the federal tax code (Title 26) which has its own peculiar definitions (called terms of art) written by the craftiest of legal minds, and paid by our tax dollars to defraud us, the American People, of our labor property.

1.) "United States" does not mean the fifty states of the Union except in two extremely limited areas which deal with excise  on taxesarticles and goods.
2.) "United States" means "federal areas" within the fifty states of the Union which are ceded to the "United States" and under the municipal authority of the Congress seated in Washington, D.C., but it does not include the entire geographical areas of the several states of the Union. 171
3.) "United States" means the possessions of the District of Columbia which are its States - - -Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. It does not mean the 50 Union States.
4.) The numbers 2 and 3 above are called "States" but are not to be confused with the states of the Union, such as Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. The "Internal Revenue Code" is purposely written to mislead and is purposefully misconstrued by the courts in the interest of promoting "Public Policy".
5.) "United States" are: Congress assembled at home (the seat of government), the District of Columbia and its territories (termed States in the IRS Code) and its possessions (ceded areas, military posts, navy yards, etc.) called federal enclaves.
6.) "United States Citizen" does not mean a Natural Born Citizen who is an American National. State Inhabitants who live in the Common Law venue and jurisdiction of one of the 50 Union States are not "subject to" the income tax laws unless they either work for the federal government [see 26 U.S.C. Clause 6331(?)] and thus are compelled to pay a Kickback for the contractual privilege received. Or they are those who produce alcohol, or tobacco under Title 27, the Stamp Tax Act. 

The District of Columbia is referred to as a "State" in the Income tax laws and Social Security laws, as well as in all other codes of the "United States" to purposely leave the law open to interpretation so the courts can "mold" it in the interest of "Public Policy" under the Colorable Law of the Uniform Commercial Code. Federal Law Distinguishes How our government complies with the law while promulgating the fraud...

Do they know the difference? You bet they do! And the following law proves it. From the Code of Civil Procedure 28 United States Code: Section 1746 Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury. "Wherever, under law of the United States, or any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated in substantially the following form.

(COMMON LAW VENUE jurisdiction that of the Republic)
(
    1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)"   

(STATUTORY VENUE  jurisdiction of the District Of Columbia that of the Democracy)
(
    2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verily, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date) (Signature) [emphasis mine]

The writers of the Code of Civil Procedure in (1) above are referring to the Common Law venue and jurisdiction (that of the Republic), and in (2) above, the statutory venue and jurisdiction of the District Of Columbia (that of the Democracy) -- not just whether one is inside or outside of the country -- but whether one is legally situated inside or outside the Republic, through your ignorance in this instance will never be challenged. 

Please also note that when government employees and agents sign documents they are only required to swear that the information is true, correct and NOT "Complete" as is required of those United States citizens/"subjects" who submit 1040 contracts because of their so-called "voluntary" relationships with the District. That should incline one to inquire just who considers whom the master and whom the servant in this relationship. A word to the wise....

Are YOU a Union state Citizen or Federal U.S. “citizen”?
If you look through the copy of the United States constitution, 
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. 

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

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.

The 14th Amendment then had to create another "position" for those persons for whom it was created. Scrutiny of the 14th Amendment reveals that persons encompassed thereby were "subject" to jurisdiction thereof and may not "question" the validity of the public debt.

Big "C" -- Little "c"

When this Nation was founded each of the individual States of this union had their own Citizens (spelled with a capital "C"). Today, we have a second class of citizen (note the small "c"), the 14th Amendment citizen.

In law, every letter in a word is important. A word capitalized may mean one specific thing, while the same word without capitalization may mean something entirely different. In the case of Citizenship (or citizenship), this is more certainly true.
There is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and Immunities of the Citizen of the State. K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, affirmed 49 S Ct 47, 278 US 123. 

There are two Privileges and Immunity's Clauses in the Federal Constitution and Amendments, the first being found in Art. IV, and the second in the 14th Amendment. Section 1, second sentence, clause 1. The provision in Art. IV states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunity's of Citizens in the several States, while the 14th Amendment provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunity's of citizens of the United States. 176

Note the lack of capitalization in the wording used in the 14th Amendment, this specifically means that the words "citizens, privileges, immunity's" are not the same as in Article IV.
The State of California was admitted into the Union of the United States in 1849; 9 Statutes at Large 452. It was admitted on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.

The State of California was required to have its own Citizens, who were first State Citizens, and then as a consequence of State Citizenship were American Citizens, known as Citizens of the United States. There was no specific class as this, but for traveling and protection by the United States government while out of the country, they were generally called Citizens of the United States.

The Constitution for the United States of America (1787) used the term "Citizen of the United States" in Article I, Section 2, (capital "C"), and numerous other sections. This referred to the Sovereign Political Body of State Citizens, this Citizen is entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States under Article IV. 

Congress utilized the same term "citizen of the United States" qualifying it with a small "c" to distinguish "federal citizen" in the so-called 14th Amendment. These "citizens" have only statutory rights granted by Congress. Thus, Congress and most of the Judiciary, without distinction being properly brought forth have made rulings based upon the federal "citizens" who are resident in a State, not State Citizens domiciled within their own State. 

It would see then, from the foregoing, that there are two "classes" of citizens in this country:

1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the several Republics of the United States who enjoy full citizenship of the Organic Constitution as Citizens of the Republic which they inhabit.
2. Citizen "subject": persons enfranchised by the 14th Amendment who are born or naturalized in the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are residing therein as a United States citizen and are enjoying the privileges and immunities of "limited" citizenship.
It is not my intention, in this article, to become technically involved in citations for the information introduced here, but only to outline an overview for those folks who claim "Constitutional Rights" and then wonder why the legislatures, courts and police don't respond in "kind" to these claims.
When one separates the classes among their appropriate dividing lines, it appears that:

1. Preamble Citizens: 178

a. Have direct personal access to a God inspired, original Constitution and it's restraints on government for the protection of life, liberty and property.
b. Have direct personal access to the Article III courts known as "justice courts" which deal with law.

2. Citizen "subjects":
a. Have representative access to the first eight amendments as previewed by the 14th Amendment.
b. Have representative access to Article 1 courts, provided by legislature, that are known as "legislative courts" which deal with statutes and are served by bar members, or officers of the court, known as lawyers.

My concern here stems from my observation that folks involved with the preservation of our beloved Constitution are unaware of the "limited" citizenship created by the 14th Amendment. Additionally, these folks don't realize that they are, or have voluntarily become, citizen subjects because of their acceptance of the "benefits" of limited citizenship.
The main "benefit" that I will mention here is Social Security. There are many other "benefits" such as the benefit of "regulation by licensing" that give control of your children to the State by making them "wards of the State" and subject to the "regulation" of the "legislative courts" by statute, etc.

The intention of this article is to point out the apparent difference in the classes of citizenship and the difference in the courts in serving these classes. I have noticed that, in many publications, and also personal conversations, people convey their feelings of alarm or despair in finding that "the court" or "government" is in violation of the Constitution without realizing that the court they are addressing is a legislative court and does not hear cases based on justice, but rather, cases based only on statute law.

The reality of the following example of statute law is that the statute specifies a speed limit to be held at 30 m.p.h. The only question that can be entertained by the court is that of whether the accused did in fact go faster than the limit. That is a yes or no question. The accused cannot try to tell the court that it was a six lane highway on a clear day with no traffic in sight and that his speed of 60 m.p.h. did not injure anyone. The court is not obligated to hear that argument as it is not a justice court.

The final question then would seem to be "where is the article III "justice" court and who can use it? I am very aware that many of the folks reading this article are not going to be able to use the justice courts, as they have natural or acquired deficiencies that will not allow them Preamble Citizenship,
a. Have direct personal access to a God inspired, original Constitution and it's restraints on government for the protection of life, liberty and property.
b. Have direct personal access to the Article III courts known as "justice courts" which deal with law.
2. Citizen "subjects":
a. Have representative access to the first eight amendments as previewed by the 14th Amendment.
b. Have representative access to Article 1 courts, provided by legislature, that are known as "legislative courts" which deal with statutes and are served by bar members, or officers of the court, known as lawyers.

My concern here stems from my observation that folks involved with the preservation of our beloved Constitution are unaware of the "limited" citizenship created by the 14th Amendment. Additionally, these folks don't realize that they are, or have voluntarily become, citizen subjects because of their acceptance of the "benefits" of limited citizenship.
The main "benefit" that I will mention here is Social Security. There are many other "benefits" such as the benefit of "regulation by licensing" that give control of your children to the State by making them "wards of the State" and subject to the "regulation" of the "legislative courts" by statute, etc.
The intention of this article is to point out the apparent difference in the classes of citizenship and the difference in the courts in serving these classes.

I have noticed that, in many publications, and also personal conversations, people convey their feelings of alarm or despair in finding that "the court" or "government" is in violation of the Constitution without realizing that the court they are addressing is a legislative court and does not hear cases based on justice, but rather, cases based only on statute law.

The reality of the following example of statute law is that the statute specifies a speed limit to be held at 30 m.p.h. The only question that can be entertained by the court is that of whether the accused did in fact go faster than the limit. That is a yes or no question. The accused cannot try to tell the court that it was a six lane highway on a clear day with no traffic in sight and that his speed of 60 m.p.h. did not injure anyone. The court is not obligated to hear that argument as it is not a justice court.

The final question then would seem to be "where is the article III "justice" court and who can use it? I am very aware that many of the folks reading this article are not going to be able to use the justice courts, as they have natural or acquired deficiencies that will not allow them Preamble Citizenship, 179 but for the people endowed with the proper qualifications, it appears that the straight line approach of barring jurisdiction of legislative courts (tribunals) through recession of contracts and declaration of Article IV, Section 2 status is essential, as it appears that only Preamble People can exercise the offices as set forth in the Organic Constitution. Additionally, it seems that this same class (Preamble People) is the only class that may claim the protection of the first ten Amendments as written. 

Remember this the next time you show up in one of their private “STATE OF’ franchise courtrooms:

The United States “citizen” has ONLY privileges granted by the authority of the Federal Government. You have NO “lawful” RIGHTS or CONSTITUTIONAL protections.

The 'Strawman', also known as the Legal Person or Natural Person is the idea that a Fictitious Legal Entity, called a PERSON, exists for purposes of Law and Commerce.

This PERSON is similar to a Company or Corporation in that it exists as a construct of the imagination - it has no real body, and no soul to save, but for legal purposes, carries similar rights and attributes to that of a Human Man or Woman.
These rights include Ownership of Property, Lobbying the Government, Voting, and other activities related to money. The PERSON allows us to function with Limited Liability (read: Less Responsibility) Our primary Legal Person, or "ID Card" consists of Birth Date, Eye color, Hair colour, Height, Weight, and now Fingerprints and Retina-scans, as if that's all we are. Nowhere on an ID Card are your Soul, or your Personality, or your Hopes, Dreams or Capacity to Love ever mentioned...

The emotional insecurities we have about our Bodies are magnified & exploited through constant propaganda and advertising, while our media hammers away at our psyche, "reminding" us that we are only Bodies, that bodies can only be sexy or ugly, and that Bodies and their Parts must be regarded as Possessions or Objects to be Owned.

In addition, by Registering (signing over to the state) your Biological Property (your body and the bodies of your children), creating a Birth Certificate (a Financial Security Instrument representing proof of parental consent in signing over the child) you are thus Consenting to the State's Ownership of You and Your Children.

The State then creates a child's very first Legal PERSON, with the parental signing of the Birth Certificate, which is given a "commercial value". If you have an older-style Birth Certificate, look on the Reverse side of it, to see 3 points of interest.
1) A 6-10 digit Number that you have never used in your life.
2) The words "Revenue Receipt" on the left side of this number.
3) The words "For Treasury Purposes Only" on the right side of the number.
Incidentally, before the 1900's, people USED to write the evidence of a birth in their Family Bible.

This first Legal Person attached to you, is known as a "NATIONAL CITIZEN" which later becomes synonymous with being a "Government Employee", when you SUBMIT (give in) an APPLICATION (to beg) for REGISTRATION (to sign over your rights) to become a Sinner (by signing up for the Fraud called Social Insurance or Social Security).

You then receive your Employee ID # (also known as S.S.N. ) which creates another Person called a "TAXPAYER". This means you consent to the Income Tax Act, and now makes you liable for the Income Tax, in exchange for the "Benefits" of being a Government Employee.
The Strawman/Legal Person is thus the Evidence of your Signature (an oath) and Consent to Obey a set of Acts or Statutes, usually located on paper contract, or in a card form with your signature.

For example: You sign for a "Drivers License" to create a Legal Person called a "DRIVER", and have consented to follow the Traffic Safety/Motor Vehicle Acts of your state or province. You sign up for a "Bank Account" to create a Legal Person called an "ACCOUNT HOLDER", usually providing your SIN # as part of your "Identification" which consents to allowing access to your bank account by court order to pay your Income Taxes by force!

You sign up for "Voter Registration" to create Legal Person called a "VOTER", which gets to vote for new Employee's and Presidents/Prime Ministers for the Corporation your PERSON resides in, and thus consent to the actions of your representative and their party, even if it means going to war against an innocent foreign country, or proroguing their own Parliament illegally!

There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of different PERSONS you can be holding, but none of them are YOU. PERSONS must RESIDE within another Legal Entity, they cannot "Live" anywhere - that is why you are asked if you are a Resident of CANADA or the UNITED STATES. Authorities are not asking you, the Living Man or Woman if you Live in the Country, they are asking if your Legal Person RESIDES (has the right to do business/work) within their Corporation.

We have to know what words mean when people claiming authority try to use Legal words to control us. Legal dictionaries are different than regular dictionaries, because Legal words carry Weight in Law, and are often defined completely differently within various Acts, Statutes, and Legal dictionaries. It is literally another language, which is why they call it Legalese. 

"You can declare your Rights and stand upon them as a Sovereign Man or Woman by filing "Notices of Understanding and Intent" and "Claims of Right", example of both available on the Web. You must tailor your own Notices and Claims to your own situation. It is not a simple cookie-cutter process.
Standing upon your Sovereignty in court and winning is FACTUAL, but you must not fall for their NAME GAME, where they try to get you to accept your LEGAL NAME, which puts you in their jurisdiction. Doing that, in the eyes of the court, turns you from a Living Human with Human Rights, into a Soulless Corporate Entity with No Rights whatsoever.

The best solution to win against the crooked and corrupt courts is to never go to court and play their fixed game at all. If someone tries to use a Court Order against you, make sure it is SIGNED by a JUDGE or it is INVALID. Most Court Orders aren't actually signed, and officials use unsigned Court Order's as a confidence trick to gain your consent!

There is no silver bullet. There is no lazy way to learn about your rights. You must Research and do your homework to REALLY learn what you are doing. Ignorantly walking into court is like playing carelessly with a loaded handgun."

You are not a PERSON. You are a Living Soul of Flesh and Blood. A PERSON has Privileges that can be revoked while a Living Man or Woman has Rights that are Inalienable! Knowing THIS, is the first step to stopping the War Against Consciousness. This article will go into the IRS use of meanings in their code. In fact, any agency of government or the legislature of a state, or Congress that uses the word “TERM” in its statutes is totally different from when the “TERM” is not used. WORDs and TERMs are entirely two separate and distinct conveyances of ideas. 

A TERM is used in a definition that signifies a special meaning to the words that follow. For it is the man's idea alone, who is the proponent of the idea, who is to define the meaning of that specific term “means” in his mind. It can be a totally different definition than what you are accustomed to using even when using the exact same “word.” As we move along you will see it is really not that hard to grasp the differences between a “word” and a “term.” 

TERM. A word or phrase; an expression; particularly one which possesses a fixed or known meaning in some science, art, or profession.
WORDS. Symbols indicating idea and subject to contraction and expansion to meet the idea sought to be expressed. * * * As used in law, this term generally signifies the technical terms and phrases appropriate to particular instruments, or aptly fitted to the expression of a particular intention in legal instruments. See the subtitles following.
WORDS OF ART. The vocabulary or terminology of a particular art or science, and especially those expressions which are idiomatic or peculiar to it. See Cargill v Thompson, 57, Minn. 534, 59 N.W. 638

Term consists of two columns so only the pertinent parts are cited. However, read the entire definition in that book so you cannot say I am picking and choosing. However, that's exactly what the enemy (the government) does.
TERM. 1. A limit; a bound or boundary; the extremity of anything; that which limits it extent.
7. In grammar, a word or expression; that which fixes or determines ideas.
14. In contracts, terms in the plural, are conditions; propositions stated or promises made, which when assented to or accepted by another, settle the contract and bind the parties.
WORD. 1. An articulate or vocal sound or a combination of articulate or vocal sounds, uttered by the human voice, and by custom expressing an idea or ideas; a single component of human speech or language.

Notice that "term" is defined in both dictionaries quite similarly. Term pinpoints the idea exactly and must be specific and cannot be expanded or contracted upon. However, "word" is quite differently defined in the standard dictionary of common words we all use. When we converse on the street, in the home, in the store we use common words which are not terms. Term is limiting to a specific idea. Only “words” can be expanded or contracted upon whereas terms cannot. Now refer to Black's above and note that they used "TERM" and not 184 "word" in the definition of WORD. Most people would never catch it unless shown. This is how closely you have to read the past masters of deceit who are lawyers.

What is white to you is black to them in the words employed in their "Words of Art." This is never more evident than in the definitions in the IR Code. Please note that every definition (7701) starts with "The TERM---". Once you understand TERM is a clue to words of art employed after the word term, you have half the battle won. That means throw out the standard dictionary definition we are all use to seeing and go by what they, the writers of the law, mean. They never say "The WORD" when they start the definition in any 7701 (a) part, now do they? Or for that matter anywhere else in the code definitions. It has to be term in order to make words work against you and for them, as they write the definitions, not us.

I suggest everyone take a look at IRC 7701(a) (28) OTHER TERMS. -- Any term used in this subtitle with respect to the application of, or in connection with, the provisions of any other subtitle of this title shall have the same meaning as in such provisionsThe case of the TERM, not word, "Resident" it is legally defined in United States v. Penelope, 27 Fed. Case No. 16024, which states:
"But admitting that the common acceptance of the word and its legal technical meaning are different, we must presume that Congress meant to adopt the latter.” page 487. "But this is a highly penal act, and must have strict construction. * * * The question seems to be whether they inserted 'resident' without the legal meaning generally affixed to it. If they have omitted to express their meaning, we cannot supply it.", page 489.

No one asks what words are in the code because we blindly use the common accepted use of that word that we all use in every day speech. This gives the IRS an edge because the idea written is specifically technical as stated by the court in the case above. So IRS moves by presumption, against the man by calling him a "person" that is defined in the code at section 7343, but the man assumes he is a person in common words and not terms of the law writer. Now this is where the use of the word "including" by IRS, means restricted to that specific meaning and cannot be expanded upon. 

The use of the word TERM quite clearly states it is not a "WORD" that can be expanded or contracted upon when reading the definition in the above dictionaries. Therefore, including cannot be expanded upon to mean any more than what is described by the 'TERM." If it could be expanded the definition would look like this, Person. Person shall be construed to mean and include * * *. Or it could look like this Person. The word person shall be construed to mean and include * * * In either case the word can be expanded or contracted while the use of TERM cannot. 

"Person" is a TERM and is a word of art that does not pertain to Man. Man is never referenced in any tax code; a "person" is a Man that has taken on the artificial character of a legal entity and is subject to the tax. That Man is an artificial “person” and to define him as such they use the term of art "natural person" in order to separate him from a paper corporation such as IBM who could never be a "natural person," just a "person" as defined in the 7701(a) definition. So, now the man who is not a taxpayer, in the sense we know, actually makes the IRS presumption stick when declaring he is a "natural person." Remember, in law, and nowhere else, the word "person" means a legal entity of artificial character. So you state you are a "natural" artificial (person) compared to a fictional corporation (person).

For instance in 7701 (a) 10, State is a TERM and not a WORD. Therefore, it is defined exactly like the words employed and no more. State is exactly what is written, that is the District of Columbia. It does NOT include any of the states of the Union as it cannot be expanded upon as it is not a WORD but a "TERM" already defined as the idea of the law writer. In 7701 (a) (9) the United States is only the district of Columbia and only the states 185

that the United States owns such as those described in 26 U.S.C. 3121 (e) (1) and (2). Notice the word "TERM" in the beginning of the definition to alert you that it is a technical specific closed meaning to those words employed in that section. Therefore, in all the entire code, that meaning stands unless altered specifically. Now where that might be?

Turn to 26 U.S.C. 6103 (b) (5). Note after the word TERM is used it includes the word MEANS. Nowhere else but one or two other places will you see the word “means” used. Now they are telling you that for that section and that section only the definition is expanded upon to include all the states in the Union as it names them as such. You do not see this definition in 3121 (e) (1) and (2). Because to do so, as stated in 7701 (a) it would be "manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof." Be not so fast to look at what the word "means" means. Just like Clinton argued the word "is." Yes, words are used to kill you by IRS and this government. From the 1828 American Dictionary this is very revealing as to why they had to use "means" in 6103. The words of study are in bold.

MEAN. Pronounced ment. To mean, to intend, also to relate, to recite or tell, also to moan, to lament; The primary sense is to set or thrust forward, to reach, stretch or extend.

So the use of the word "means" to describe a different meaning to the United States and State is required to make an expansion to the TERM United States and State as found throughout the IR Code. If you will please note the use of the word include is not to be found in 6103, whereas in all the other definitions "include" appears. We all know that includes is argued back and forth that it can be expansive. Well this proves includes is restrictive when the word TERMS is employed, which in itself is a special "technical" restrictive meaning. We all know that "includes” is defined as to shut up, confine within and so forth. 

Now go and read 3121 (e) (1) and (2) and you will see "The term "State" includes" and "The term United States when used in a Geographical sense." Geographical is explained in my book Which One Are You, as it is another WORD OF ART. 

Now when you look at 7701 (a) (4) and (5) you can see the fraud by the use of TERMS rather than words to define domestic and foreign. Remember, the entire set of laws Titles 1 to 50 are designed to apply strictly to the United States and NOT to the States in Union. It is to apply to government people and not to the people in the States. It is to apply to "Domestic corporations" and NOT to the "Foreign corporations" located in the States of the Union. Can the statutes of Texas, Ohio, Florida or California apply to any other State or to the United States? The answer is obviously not. Can the laws of the United States apply to one living in the foreign states just mentioned? Obviously not when the Case of John Barron was decided and since then all the other cases where the Supreme Court stated the Bill of Rights was never to extend to the people in the states as it was a Bill for ONLY the United States. That means none of the laws or Constitution FOR the United States apply to the people of the States.

Have fun in reading the use of the words of art following the use of the TERM in any definition in the Code or for that matter any other Title of the United States code. You might want to see how your state uses the word TERM in its definition. This is one reason why the kids of today starting in about 1974 have gone downhill so they could never begin to understand what was employed by use of words that have an entirely different meaning than what they think they mean in law. Always remember, there is a common use of a word and there is a "legal technical" use of the word as stated by the Supreme Court above. Now at the back of the U.S. Supreme Court Rule book at Rule 47 it says,

"The term "State Court," when used in these Rules, includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. See 28 U.S.C. Sections 1257 and 1258. References in 186
these Rules to the common law and Statutes of a State include the common law and statutes of the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." This is a prime example of deceit because" includes" is restrictive to the terms defined which is State Court. Had this been properly designed to mean in the very beginning the state courts of each of the 50 states it would say so but it does not. It would have to be written this way if the word TERM was not used. 
A "State Court" when used in these Rules means the 50 State courts of the Union and includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

The original wording is stating that besides the U.S. Supreme Court being the State Court so are the other two. It does not mean any of the 50 State of The Union courts. I cannot harp on this enough but by definition we people in the states are non resident aliens and are not subject to the income tax unless falling under sections 871 to 877. See 26 U.S.C. Section 2 (d). No one or very few people heeded my words on this in, Which One Are You, published over 12 years ago. People called me crazy, but I knew the words employed and they refused to pick up a dictionary to understand. 

The IRS gets you on words of common meaning when saying you are not a non resident alien because they ask, "don't you live and work in the United States?" to which the man says "yes," not realizing the IRS agent just stepped outside the legal technical" definition of United States and applied it in common language. Read 871 to 874 and 7701 (b) (1) (B) and ask this. If I am a non resident alien and I make money or carry on a trade or business within the United States am I subject to an income tax? The answer is yes? Why? What United States are you referring to that you work and receive income from? That's about all I can say; the rest is up to educating yourself in the fine line of "Words of Art." But I will include part of a Chapter from Which One Are You to digest.


HERE ARE LAWS IN AMERICA MOST DON'T KNOW, BUT SHOULD
 
1.     The IRS is not a US government agency it is an agency of the IMF (International Monetary Fund)
(Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)
 
2.     The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the U.N. (Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)
 
3.     The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921
(41 Stat. Ch. 214 page 654)
 
4.     The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF (International Monetary Fund(Presidential Documents Volume 24-No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-2887)
 
5.     The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States! No more reorganization. After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over.
(Executive Order 12803)
 
              6.  The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA, and all of the other alphabet gangs were                    never part of the U.S. government. Even though the "U.S.                Government" held stock in the agencies.(U.S. v Strang, 254 US491 Lewis v. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239) 
             7.     Social Security Numbers are issued by the U.N. through the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are Department of the Treasury.

(20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111 Subpart B. 422.103 (b))
 
8.     There are NO Judicial courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes.
(FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat 138-178)
 
9.     There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been administrators.
(FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178)
 
10.     According to GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) you MUST have a Social Security number.
(House Report (103-826)
 
11.     New York City is defined in Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that "New York City is the capital of the World." For once, he told the truth.
(20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111, subpart B 44.103 (b) (2) (2) )
 
12.     Social Security is not insurance or a contract. Nor is there a Trust Fund.
(Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619 Steward Co. v. Davis 301 US 548)
 
13.     Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF (International Monetary Fund), which is an agency of the United Nations.
(It says U.S. Department of Treasury at the top left corner, which again is part of the U.N. as pointed out above)

14.     You own NO property, Slaves can't own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours. you are listed as a TENANT.
(Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
 
15.     The Most powerful court in America is NOT the United States Supreme court, but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania(42 PA. C.S.A. 502)
 
16.  The King of England financially backed both sides of the American Revolutionary War.
(Treaty of Versailles-July 16, 1782 Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)
 
17.  You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you are NOT a party to it.
(Padelford Fay & Co. v The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)
 
18.  America is a British Colony. The 'United States' is a corporation, not a land mass and it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British Troops did not leave until 1796
(Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774)



19.  Britain is owned by the Vatican.
(Treaty of 1213)
 
20.  The Pope can abolish any law in the United States
(Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)
 
21.  A 1040 Form is for Tribute paid to Britain
(IRS Publication 6209)
 
22.  The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.    (Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)

23. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of Millions of people.
(Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)
 
24. The Pope's laws are obligatory on everyone.
(Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. vii, n. 4. Prati, 1844 Syllabus Prop 28, 29, 44)
 
25. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing, NOT even what we think are our children.
(Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 438 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)
 
26. Military Dictator George Washington divided up the States (Estates) into Districts
(Messages and papers of the Presidents Volume 1 page 99 1828 Dictionary of Estate)
 
27. "The People" does NOT include you and me.
(Barron vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243)
 
28. It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers.
(SAPP vs. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, REiff vs. City of Phila. 477 F. 1262, Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)
 
29. Everything in the "United States" is up for Sale: bridges, roads, water, schools, hospitals, prisons, airports, etc, etc... Did anybody take time to check who bought Klamath Lake??
(Executive Order 12803)
 
30. "We are human capital
(Executive Order 13037)
 
The U.N.-United Nations has financed the operations of the United States government for over 50 years (U.S. Department of Treasury is part of the U.N. see above) and now owns every man, woman and child in America.

The U.N. also holds all of the land of America in Fee Simple.
Source: http://home/iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/essays.html 

 The good news is we don't have to fulfill "our" fictitious obligations. You can discharge a fictitious obligation with another's fictitious obligation. These documents are not secret; they are a matter of public record.

Simple words such as "person" "citizen" "people" "or" "nation" "crime" "charge" "right" "statute" "preferred" "prefer" "constitutor" "creditor" "debtor" "debit" "discharge" "payment" "law" and "United States" doesn't mean what we think it does because we were never taught the legal definitions of the above words.


  
RESEARCH INFORMATION REFERENCES

Thirty-Seventh Congress. 
U.S. Constitution
U.C.C. universal commercial code
U.S.C. united states code
U.N. united nations
I.R.S. Internal Revenue Service.