Hey Sizzle! Besides the links I posted back on page 6 of this thread, I've run across another that I've used fairly extensively. I only now
recovered the link because some OS problems created the need for the 'ol format/reinstall routine about a month ago; subsequently, I'd lost the
bookmark for it & only now remembered it. From this post, all "External Source" quotes will be derived from
Supreme
Law unless specifically linked elsewhere. Needless to say, these guys really know their stuff...
To start, let's talk about taxes & the IRS (insert ominous music of choice here):
31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service
1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?
Answer: No...
...the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil
War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be
governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats)...
...Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.
Well, that's the major bombshell about the IRS...And that's only the first Q&A out of 31. Needless to say, you'll never see news like this in MSM.
:dn
So, if you're a citizen that lives within the boundaries of one of the States of the USA...Are you a State Citizen, or a federal citizen, or both?
One can be a State Citizen without also being a federal citizen
A. see Crosse case from Maryland Supreme Court:
"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been
necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state."
Other precedences are listed at the website. Determining the differences between these two classes of citizenship carries a lot of ramifications:
Before the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly
there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from
its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the
respective States....
...For it is certain, that in the sense in which the word "Citizen" is used in the federal Constitution, Citizen of each State," and
"Citizen of the United States***," are convertible terms; they mean the same thing;...
After the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other
and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the State in which they reside,
and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state...
...A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be
a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise
of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens...
...State Citizenship
1. found in the U.S. Constitution prior to the Civil War
...federal citizenship
1. 14th Amendment attempted to formalize a second class of citizen first defined in 1866 Civil Rights Act
2. this is a statutory creation, a subject class, created and endowed by the Congress, not by the Creator
Ok, there's the legal basis of the distinction of the two classes of citizen...Some of repercussions of what that means?
State Citizens Stop Voting: An Outline of Legal Reasons
...Under current California State law, only federal citizens can register to vote; State Citizens cannot register...
...California Legislature now requires that an elector be a "citizen of the United States"
A. this qualification was predicated on a ratified 14th Amendment
1. the ambiguities in Section 1 of the 14th amendment confuse many into thinking there is but one class
of citizenship throughout America
2. State legislators were likewise confused by these ambiguities, and by the deception surrounding the
passage of this amendment...
...Registering to vote produces material evidence that one is a federal citizen who is, by definition, liable for federal income taxes, whereas State
Citizens are not...State Citizens are protected by constitutional limits against direct taxation...State Citizens must cancel their voter registration
to perfect and maintain their status under the Law...
...2 recent decisions of Utah Supreme Court struck down the 14th Amendment.
A. Congress and the President forced Southern States to vote for it "at the point of a bayonet", using the duress and undue influence of martial
law.
B. The Civl War was over and Southern States had already been counted upon to ratify the 13th Amendment, banning slavery...
...in contrast, State Citizenship is an unalienable Right which Congress cannot tax, regulate, or revoke
1. Congress cannot amendment the Constitution
a. Congress derives its power solely from the Constitution
b. Congress can lawfully exercise its powers only within the limitations of constitution
Since the southern States were under duress & coersion to "ratify" the 14th Amendment, it's not a valid Amendment...But also note that a State
Citizen still retains his status because that was defined as a "Natural Right" even before the 14th Amendment!
...The consequences of the failed ratification are many and far-reaching:
A. federal citizenship is not defined in the supreme Law (i.e. the U.S. Constitution)
1. it is, at best, the creation of federal statute
2. as such, it can be taxed, regulated, and even revoked, just like a corporation...
...federal citizens are liable for federal income taxes; State Citizens are not
A. State Citizens are protected by constitutional limits against direct taxation
1. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
2. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4
B. federal citizens are not protected by these same constitutional limits
1. Constitution for the "United States" as such does not extend beyond the boundaries of the States
which are united by and under it.
a. The Insular Cases established this dubious precedent at the turn of the century
2. a "citizen of the United States" is, effectively, a citizen of the District of Columbia, which never
joined the Union
a. Congress can enact local, "municipal" law for D.C. which is not constrained by the federal
Constitution
Wooo! Anyone got a headache yet? If not, hang on to your hat because here comes some of major points of all this:
I. State Citizens cannot register to vote under current California State law.
II. California voter registration form has a formal affidavit by which signer swears, under penalties of perjury, that s/he is a "citizen of the
United States".
III. Such completed affidavits become admissible evidence and conclusive proof that signer is a federal citizen.
IV. The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be created, taxed, regulated and even revoked by Congress.
V. The exercise of State Citizenship is an unalienable Right which Congress cannot tax, regulate or revoke under any circumstances.
VI. Such a Right is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, which Congress cannot amend without the consent of three-fourths of the Union
States.
Since it's been determined that Washington DC does not qualify as one of the "States United," it behooves people to learn more about
The Federal Zone, as it is distinctly different from State boundaries.
For one, since it's been determined that the IRS is
not an Agency under the Secretary of the Treasury and also that all
legally
collected tax revenues must be turned into said Treasury & State Citizens are protected from Unconstitutional Taxation by the Feds, this means that
the IRS turns over all
illegally collected revenues to
someone else entirely; Most notably, the IRS has been using illegal tax monies to
pay the Fed Reserve for use against the National Debt (which is an illegal construction built against State Citizens in the first place).
It must also be noted that, since the IRS only has jurisdiction within Federal Zones (including Federally owned lands legally procured for Federal
purposes such as military bases, the Federal Buildings within cities & the Federal territories such as Puerto Rico), this means that they have no
jurisdiction within the boundaries of the States!
You should also consider what this "question of jurisdiction" would mean to a lot of other topics discussed in this thread.
Do some of these last paragraphs ease your headache yet?
How about Pweagle? Does any of the previous help provide a little warmth? Maybe check your State Legal System (the above only mentioned California
specifically) to help you figure out how you may be able to use "jurisdiction" in your favor in some cases?