Rene Frias

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@Directorgawd @Directorgawd , cat got your tongue?

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@mcrea_bill @1Nicdar 2.23 in San Antonio

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@NFL_DovKleiman Pretty sure Romo is a "minority" also.

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@dude_9886 Hmmm

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@KelliKayK It's all a show.

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@CloydRivers Freedom died around 1860. Men went to war for the wrong reasons on 06/06/1944.

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

Huge thanks to the amazing @SouthwestAir crew on Flight 1375 (6/4 LAS ➡️ AUS). Anthony, Terri, and were incredible when my wife had an anxiety attack—ice packs, water, calm support. Compassion in action. ❤️✈️ #SouthwestHeart

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@vulturetrades Trade

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@Ravious101 2.29

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@VigilantFox Republic

[Creditor @redbeard172023]

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
International Public Notice:
Good Try, King Charlie, But No!
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

As everyone has seen, Donald Trump offered Canada the opportunity to become the 51st State of the Union.  He can do that very simply by making the offer, and the Canadians, upon considering it, can take a vote (plebiscite) and decide to accept.  Or not.

If they accept, they already stand under the Northwest Ordinance process, and their Provinces are already run under Territorial Government auspices, so all that is needed is for the American States of the Union to enroll them as States of the Union.

If the Canadians want to be part of The United States, it's as easy as a name change and a few ceremonial dustings of glitter.

Mr. Trump spoke with some pique, outraged by an artificial $100 billion dollar trade deficit caused by crippling Canadian tariffs on American products.

He has a right to be angry.  America has been used as the goat by nearly all the other countries ever since WWII.

At first, this was done to help these countries recover from WWII.  We bore the economic brunt and provided their civil service and defense services via corporation franchises; they protected their markets and paid a tiny fraction toward their own costs.

These franchise governments in Europe and throughout the so-called Commonwealth have been riding on us like fleas on the back of a dog for so long that they feel entitled to our protection and largesse, but WWII ended eighty (80) years ago.

What should be happening is that Europe should not only be carrying its own weight again, but it should also be paying us back.

The 450 million people of Europe and the former Commonwealth have not only recovered from WWII, but they've found new wars to support in Ukraine and the Middle East and are hellbent on promoting more war and more self-destruction with forced immigration and population displacement policies.

Apparently, their leaders think that the more destruction they can cause at home, the longer they can get "the Americans" to fund and fight their wars for profit for them and pay their other bills for them.

We have been the Sugar Daddies for far too long, and Donald Trump knows that; he knows that we were supposed to be released from that role thirty (30) years ago, so now, he is raising the flag and letting the freeloaders know it's time to take responsibility for their own decisions and pay their own bills, and if they want to protect their domestic markets, it will cost them as much as it costs us.

It's a simple message that is long overdue, and it has nothing to do with Canadian nationalism, which is, after all, a matter for Canadians to sort through.  No doubt we would all be happier if they had control of their own political process and chose better leaders for themselves, but at least we can avoid paying the consequences of their bad choices.

Now, King Charles is getting into the Act, counter-proposing that "the US" join the supposed-to-be-long-gone Commonwealth as a Territory of Great Britain.  Wouldn't they all just love that?

And what, after all, can Donald Trump, as "President" of "the United States of America, LLC" --- a British Corporation --- do but smile and say, "Right-O, Your Majesty!"

Bear in mind that "the United States of America, Incorporated" like "The United States of America, Incorporated," have all been British Territorial or straight-up British corporations in the business of providing "essential government services," and they have always been, in effect, members of the British Commonwealth and have been administered as such through the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

So, to the uninitiated, it looks as though King Charles is proposing that "the United States" should join the Commonwealth composed of British Territorial entities and be subjected to Britain as a British Territory -- without, of course, disclosing which "United States" is under discussion.

King Charles III is not talking about our United States, known as The United States.

He is talking about sharing the spoils from the Municipal UNITED STATES bankruptcy and forging a new role for Britain as direct owner-manager of former Municipal UNITED STATES assets that the U.S.A., LLC either can't afford to maintain or doesn't want to maintain.

Imagine a bankruptcy sale, only instead of potted plants and aging sideboards, the merchandise is government departments and agencies.  In a foreign government, no less.  King Charles III offered to buy his way into a separate ownership role in the bureaucratic mechanisms developed by our former Municipal Government service provider.

King Charles could convert those Municipal services into Territorial services instead, and he shrugged and said, "Why not?"

We can tell him and the UNITED STATES Bankruptcy Trustees why not, and it's simply this.  Their man, Donald Trump, is settling the UNITED STATES bankruptcy in a representative capacity; he can save or forfeit or dissolve the parts, pieces, and franchises of the UNITED STATES ---including the UNITED KINGDOM --- but he is still under contract to us, the actual Priority Creditors, and still obligated to provide "good faith service."

Would it be good faith service to misrepresent what is actually going on and give people, especially the American People, the idea that our United States --- the actual United States --- was suddenly a British Territory and member of a resurrected Commonwealth?

Hardly.  It would be another con job and sleight of hand, attempting to illegally latch upon our resources and our country via Presumption and another similar-names Substitution Fraud, such as we've seen before.

We propose, instead, that if Donald Trump is feeling the least bit impoverished in his position and post, he should liquidate the UNITED KINGDOM, SCOTLAND, ENGLAND, IRELAND, and WALES and go through their books immediately after he is finished auditing CANADA.

If King Charles III feels so expansive and wealthy that he invites himself to the bankruptcy sale, it makes far more sense for him to buy back the assets of the aforementioned Municipal Corporations associated with his own realm than to propose to buy -- and misrepresent -- any Municipal assets here.

Come to that, as we are viewing the history and the international law involved, actually paying up the debts of the United Kingdom (Corporation) and Great Britain (Company) and their related franchises would seem to be in order.  Also, there were substantial deficits of the Bank of England and the Bank of Scotland.

We, Americans, the State Citizens party to the Federal Constitutions, are owed good faith service in all these matters, and the return of our inheritance unharmed, which does include and is not limited to the return of our land assets that were held in trust while we ourselves were being misrepresented as Federal Dual Citizens and Wards of Her Majesty Elizabeth II.

Lest King Charles III forgets, we are not British Subjects and don't wish to be British Subjects, Territorial or otherwise.  And yes, we do get the point that the Commonwealth is the civilian equivalent to the military Territorial Government.  We hope that King Charles III will remember that the Commonwealth was dissolved by his Mother in the 1960s, though the details of this were not disclosed to the Commoners in any of the countries impacted.

As a result, the actual owners of the land and soil and the assets of these countries have not taken action to organize their own governments again and have suffered an undisclosed British Territorial Military "Protectorate" that has done anything but protect the victims of this scheme promoting a form of Corporate Feudalism.

If we would not willingly bow knee to King George II why should it be supposed that we would knowingly and willingly bow knee and Pledge Allegiance to the Title IV Flag we loaned to our British Territorial Federal Subcontractors?  A piece of cloth under our own seal?  Really?

The absurdity of these suppositions and the legal presumptions being asserted never cease to amaze us, nor does the diversity of number, kind, and cleverness of the criminal impositions resulting from these British word games.

Still, they are words games and lies by omission, owed as the Scottish Civil Law would agree, and no performance owed to deceit properly recognized and objected to.

The Scot's Maritime Law shares the same Maxim with the Roman Civil Law, which declares: 

Fiction yields to truth; Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

The fiction of the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as the purported Kingdom of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, has been called out for what it is-- fiction, and demand has been placed upon King Charles III to prove that the land and soil of England has not been vacated for over 300 years, indeed, ever since the reign of Queen Anne?

Instead of inviting Donald Trump to act as a British Lackey while under contract to serve us instead, it would appear that King Charles III would be better served, and the people of the nations -- both the home islands and territories far afield, would be better served if His Imperial Majesty came home and acted as King of England instead.

Yes, for over a hundred years, the people of Britain have been struggling to recoup their native populations and still falling behind, still in rampant population collapse (underpopulation) while these fools and charlatans are preaching a narrative of strict population control and the same time, importing hundreds of thousands of people from cultures that are not only foreign but actively antithetical to everything that the British people have ever stood for.

Ironically, those purportedly speaking for the British working class have been the most ardent advocates of selling their constituents down the road, with deceptive policies designed to cheat them out of their land and inheritances while pursuing crazy narratives, such as "Britain is overpopulated!" when Britain has been in free-fall population collapse thanks to their war-faring ever since WWI.

Yes, for over a hundred years, the people of Britain have been struggling to recoup their native populations and still falling behind, still in rampant population collapse (underpopulation) while these fools and charlatans are preaching a narrative of strict population control and at the same time, importing hundreds of thousands of people from cultures that are not only foreign but actively antithetical to everything that the British people have ever stood for.

If the Brits look for succor or relief from their self-absorbed and maniacal politicians, they will look in vain, for these individuals -- whether inbred aristocrats or for-sale populists are the cause of their misery, including two World Wars which the vermin are mindlessly trying to turn into three World Wars under the mantra, "War is good for business."

Forget that it is devastating to infrastructure and profoundly disruptive and destructive for living people.

Changing back and forth from conservative to liberal governments provides no relief, and the British people, like the American people, observe that the Liberals spend their time in office creating messes, and the Conservatives spend their time in office trying to clean up the messes the Liberals leave behind.

In such a system, everyone votes based on their pocketbook until it becomes clear that there are some things that money can't buy and a few things that remain sacred.

Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents;
Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals.

Issued by:
Anna Maria Riezinger -- Fiduciary
The United States of America
In care of: Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652

March 22nd 2025

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@RepRaskin $280 million is kinda cheap. President Trump could easily get $1 billion.

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@theliamnissan Legal or illegal?

[Creditor @redbeard172023]

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Information and Instructions on Pardons
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Rules Governing Petitions for Executive Clemency

United states Department of Justice

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@VigilantFox The new ice age = more taxes
Acid rain = more taxes
Ozone depletion = more taxes
Global warming = more taxes
Climate change= more taxes

[Creditor @redbeard172023]

I am not an attorney.
I do not practice law.

I am a man;
I am an American national by birth;
I am a Texan by choice.

I am unrepresented, and
I am competent in handling My own affairs.

What’s mine is mine;
What’s yours is yours.

If we consciously, willingly, and freely opt to exchange to mutual satisfaction, then we both may part ways with honor.

I am committed to acknowledging, honoring, and respecting you. If I fall short of this commitment, please feel free to help me get back on track.

I strive to assist others to the best of my ability when asked, aiming not to do it for them, but to help them do it for themselves.

I possess the absolute freedom and liberty to engage in a vast array of activities, completely unencumbered.

I refuse to be subjected to any jurisdiction of law outside the common law without my explicit and wilful consent following complete disclosure of terms and conditions. Any such consent must be part of an agreement/contract sealed by autograph.

Under Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties; otherwise, it is void and unenforceable.
It must also be based on substance.

UCC 1-308

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@redbeard172023 @Aaa98497477 @jymetcalf @NatashaCL7 Absolutely!!! @redbeard172023

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@SouthwestAir San Jose airport Cayla at check in was extremely rude.

[Creditor @redbeard172023]

–––– state Citizen vs. federal citizen ––––

The United States of America is a unique nation. It was the first constitutional republic in the world. Before the American Revolution, the King of England owned all the land in his colonies. The inhabitants of the colonies were his subjects. When the war was over, the King signed the Treaty of Peace. In that treaty, he said that all the land in the former colonies was owned by the people and all of his sovereign powers that he held in the colonies were transferred, not to the government of the colonies but, to the People of the colonies. This made all of the Citizens of the colonies sovereigns. This has never happened before or since in any other country. In other countries, the government is sovereign. It makes laws for its subject-citizens and it gives them their rights. In the United States, the People were sovereigns. The People were endowed, by their creator, with certain rights and the government was instituted to secure those rights. We the People gave a portion of our sovereignty to the state government, and the states gave a small portion of the sovereignty we gave to them, to the federal government so that it would be strong enough to defend the People. The Constitution for the United States of America describes the powers that the states gave to the federal government.

If the federal government is defined by the Constitution, and the Constitution says that I am a sovereign, why do I feel like a subject? I own my house. If I don’t pay my property tax the government will go to a court and remove me from it just as the courts would remove me from an apartment if I did not pay the rent. Do I really own the land if someone can take it away from me simply because I don’t pay them for the use of it? Could the King of England have the land taken away from him if he did not pay a tax? So long as I don’t cause injury to someone’s person or property or defraud them shouldn’t I, as a sovereign, have the right to do anything I want? Today there are so many rules and regulations that the government has that I think nearly everything I do is against some law. What has happened to my sovereignty? Isn’t the government sovereign over me? Are there any sovereign People left in the United States of America?

There are hundreds of thousands of sovereigns in the United States of America and I am one of them. Sovereigns own their land in “allodium.” That is, the government does not have a financial interest in their land. Because of this, they do not need to pay property tax (school tax, real estate tax). Only the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution for the United States of America define the laws that they have to follow. This is a very small subset of the laws most of us have to follow. Unless they accept benefits from or contract with the federal government, they do not have to pay Social Security tax, federal income tax, or resident individual state income tax. They do not need to register their cars or get a driver’s license unless they drive commercially. They can own ANY kind of gun without a license or permit. They do not have to use the same court system that US federal citizens do. I am sure that most people reading this are saying to themselves that this cannot be true. I know I did when I first heard of it.

The government recognizes two distinct classes of citizens: a state Citizen and a federal citizen.

A state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an individual whose inalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his/her state Constitution against State actions and against federal intrusion by the Constitution for the United States of America.

A federal citizen, also called: a 14th Amendment citizen, a citizen of the United States, a US citizen, a citizen of the District of Columbia, has civil rights that are almost equal to the natural rights that state Citizens have. I say almost because civil rights are created by Congress and can be taken away by Congress. Federal citizens are subjects of Congress, under their protection as a “resident” of a State, a person enfranchised to the federal government (the incorporated United States defined in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution). The individual States may not deny to these persons any federal privileges or immunities that Congress has granted them. This specific class of citizen is a federal citizen under admiralty law (International Law). As such they DO NOT have inalienable common rights recognized, secured and protected in the Constitutions of the States, or of the Constitution for the United States of America, such as “allodial” (absolute) rights to property, the rights to inheritance, the rights to work and contract, and the right to travel among others.

A federal citizen is a taxable entity like a corporation, and is subject to pay an excise tax for the privileges that Congress has granted him/her.

The rights that most people believe they have are not natural rights but civil rights which are actually privileges granted by Congress. Some of these civil rights parallel the protection of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution), but by researching the civil rights act along with case law decisions involving those rights, it can be shown that these so-called civil rights do not include the Ninth or Tenth Amendments and have only limited application with regard to Amendments One through Eight.

If you accept any benefit from the federal government or you claim any civil right, you are making an “adhesion contract” with the federal government. You may not be aware of any adhesion contracts but the courts are. The other aspect of such a contract is that you will obey every statute that Congress passes.

State Citizens cannot be subjected to any jurisdiction of law outside the Common Law without their knowing and willing consent after full disclosure of the terms and conditions, and such consent must be under agreement/contract sealed by signature. This is because the Constitution is a compact/contract created and existing in the jurisdiction of the Common Law, therefore, any rights secured thereunder or disabilities limiting the powers of government also exist in the Common Law, and in no other jurisdiction provided for in that compact!

Federal citizens are presumed to be operating in the jurisdiction of commercial law because that is the jurisdiction of their creator — Congress. This is evidenced by the existence of various contracts and the use of negotiable instruments. All are products of international law or commercial law [Uniform Commercial Code]. Under Common Law your intent is important; in a court of contract (commercial law) the only thing that matters is that you live up to the letter of the contract. Because you have adhesion contracts with Congress, you cannot use the Constitution or Bill of Rights as a defense because it is irrelevant to the contract. As stated previously, the contract says you will obey every statute passed by Congress. A federal citizen does not have access to Common Law.

To restate: state Citizens are bound and protected by the Constitution, like the founding fathers intended and like we are taught in school what citizenship means. Federal citizens have made further agreements with the federal government and are bound by these contracts.

The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to:
・Operate on behalf of the several States in dealing with foreign relations and matters of treaties, trade agreements, etc., under the purview of International Law.
・Exercise limited constitutional jurisdiction to interact with the several States in regulating trade, commerce, etc., between the States to insure equitable continuance of the compact.
・Exercise exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, in the same manner that a state exercises jurisdiction within its boundaries.

Rights are considered gifts from the Creator, and not to be disturbed by acts of man. Some of these rights were considered important enough to be specifically stated to be secured from Federal encroachment in the Bill of Rights, upon the theory that these rights existed long antecedent to the creation of the nation, and the theory that a government, left to its own devices without restriction, could and would use man-made law to defeat the liberty that this Republic was intended to represent.

I was born on one of the several states, the California Republic, so why am I not a state Citizen? The answer is that I was born a state Citizen but, I unknowingly gave it up to become a federal citizen so that I could receive benefits from the federal government. Some of the benefits that I received were: a Social Security Number, receiving mail sent to the State of CA, receiving mail with ZIP Codes, having FDIC insurance on the money left in a bank, and using Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) without protest. This sounds crazy. Would you give away sovereign powers for benefits like these?

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth is one of the “several states” described in the Constitution. The “several states” were severed from each other. The law treats the several states as independent countries. The Buck Act in 1940 created federal areas inside the states. If you live in a federal area, you are subject to federal territorial laws and the municipal laws of the District of Columbia. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is internal to the District of Columbia. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth is not part of the District of Columbia, but the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is. PA is the name that the post office recognizes for mail sent into the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is a federal area. Pa., Penna., and Pennsylvania are the names that the post office uses for mail sent into the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, which is not a federal area. If someone living in Pennsylvania accepts mail sent to PA, they’re saying that they live in part of the District of Columbia. The same situation exists in the other states.

Your ZIP Code determines which ZIP Code region you live in. ZIP Code regions are federal areas. The IRS has adopted the ZIP Code regions as IRS regions. If you accept mail that has a ZIP Code on it, you are in a federal territory and thus subject to the IRS and all other municipal laws of the District of Columbia.

If every Citizen in the colonies became a sovereign, how could any Citizen lose their sovereignty? The Citizens of each of the several states in the Union were sovereigns. But the people in a territory or in the District of Columbia were not because the territories and the District of Columbia were not in the Union. Congress had/has exclusive legislative control over these areas. The states were governed by a “constitutional republic” while the territories were ruled by a “legislative democracy”. In a legislative democracy the citizens have no rights except what Congress gives them. In the constitutional republics, the Citizens have rights given to them by their Creator and Congress is the Citizens servant. This is why Citizens, having left a state to buy or conquer land from the native Americans, would apply for statehood as soon as possible.

How is it that someone who was born in and has lived in a state all his/her life can be treated like a citizen of the District of Columbia? There has been a series of steps that Congress has made to convert the state Citizens into federal citizens. Over the years, our laws have been made unreadable by the average intelligent person. The 14th Amendment was illegally passed creating a federal citizen who cannot question the federal debt. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 turned over our money to a private banking cartel. Social Security created Social Security Districts (or territories) in which people with SSN lived. The Buck Act created federal areas inside the states.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89.

“At the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves: the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm Exp v. Georgia (US) 2 Dale 419, 454; I L Ed 440, 445 @DALL 1793 pp 471-472.

“as general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.”
In Re Newman (1925), 71 C.A. 386, 235 P. 664.

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” In re Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287; 20 C.J.S., Section 1785. Title 28, United States Code, Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being “freely associated compact states” in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact states as being “countries” in subsection(b). Did you know that the individual states were considered to be foreign countries to the United States and to each other?

In 1818, the Supreme Court stated that “In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.” U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 WHEAT) 336 (1818), reaff. 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401(h).

When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, it is important to remember that it has full authority to enact legislation as private acts pertaining to its boundaries, and it is not a state of the union of States because it exists solely by virtue of the compact/constitution that created it. The constitution does not say that the District of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form of Government to its own subject citizens within its territories. (See Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 US. 445(1805); Glaeser v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass’n., 55 F. Supp., 925 (1944); Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431 (1966), among others).

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.

The Constitution provides limited powers to federal government over the state Citizens. The federal government has unlimited powers over federal citizens because it is acting outside of the Constitution. Administrative laws are private acts and are not applicable to state Citizens. The Internal Revenue Code is administrative law.

“We are a republic. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.”
–– Alexander Hamilton.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

In 1865, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. The Supreme Court ruled that the 13th Amendment operated to free former slaves and prohibit slavery, but it in no way conferred citizenship to the former slaves, or to those of races other than white, because the founders of the Constitution were all of the white race.

The federal government did not have the authority to determine if former slaves could become a Citizen of one of the several states because the 9th and 10th Amendments said that powers not granted specifically to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the People. History shows that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and New York State were nationalizing blacks as State Citizens. In other states blacks were not Citizens and therefore did not have standing in any court. The answer to this problem was the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment used the term “citizen of the United States.” The courts have ruled that this means federal citizenship which is similar to a citizen of the District of Columbia. Since the federal government didn’t step in and tell Pennsylvania or New York that it couldn’t make State Citizens out of former black slaves, an argument could be made that the 14th Amendment was written primarily to afford [voluntary] citizenship to those of the black race that were recently freed by the 13th Amendment (Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71), and did not include Indians and others NOT born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (McKay v. Cambell, 2 Sawy. 129), Thus, the Amendment recognized that “an individual can be a Citizen of one of the several States without being a citizen of the United States,” (U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830), or, “a citizen of the United States without being a Citizen of a State.” (Slaughter-House Cases, supra; cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875)).

To restate: In the Slaughter-House Cases, supra the Court said: “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 of the individual. . . . Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state, and what they respectfully are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.”

The court has also ruled that “The term United States is a metaphor [a figure of speech]”. Cunard S.S Co. V. Mellon, 262 US 100, 122; and that “The term ‘United States’ may be used in one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of sovereign in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be a collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652, 672-73.

Did the Courts really say that someone could be a Citizen of a State without being a citizen of the United States? Yes, they did. It’s true that the cases cited above are old, some over 100 years old. None of these cases have ever been overturned by a more recent decision, so they are valid. A more recent case is Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors, 221 A.2d 431 (1966) which says: “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.”
U.S. v. Cruikshank, supra.

The courts presume you to be a federal citizen, without even telling you that there are different classes of citizens. It is up to you dispute this. “Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability.”
U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).

In 1866, Congress passed the first civil rights act which only applied to the District of Columbia and other federal territories. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed to be passed. At this point the number of subjects that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over increased to all of the former slaves that had not become state Citizens.

“I cannot believe that any court in full possession of all its faculties, would ever rule that the (14th) Amendment was properly approved and adopted.” State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936; Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266. ( Utah Supreme Court.)

Further, in 1967, Congress tried to repeal the 14th Amendment on the ground that it is invalid, void, and unconstitutional. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE, June 13, 1967, pg. 15641. The nine pages of argument that are recorded here detail the infirmities that prove that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, and thus is no law!

The 14th Amendment reads in pertinent part, “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…. The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.”

“Upon introducing the provisions which eventually became 18 U.S.C. 242, its sponsor, Senator Stewart, explicitly stated that the bill protected all ‘persons’… He noted that the bill ‘simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protection of our laws’.” United States v. Otherson, 480 F.Supp. 1369, 1373 (1979). This implies that Citizens of a state already had the protections introduced by this statute, but it extended to foreigners this protection also. What is a “foreigner” if they are not also an “alien”?

Privileges granted by the sovereign (governments) in their capacity to license (condone) what might otherwise be illegal are always taxable and regulatable. Rights such as those envisioned by the founding fathers are not taxable or regulatable because they are exercises of the common right that could be completely destroyed by government through taxation and/or regulation. These are maxims of law so well established that they are irrefutable. For example, look to Frost & Frost Trucking v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U.S. 583, 70 L.Ed. 1101 (1925).

Now, in 1868, we have a class of citizenship created [14th Amendment] which is “subject” by grant of privilege from a sovereign power [federal Congress] exercising exclusive authority to govern its territory under Article I, sect. 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution. Federal citizens are created by Congress. It is self-evident that all state Citizens are created equal; that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain inalienable rights, and that governments are instituted to secure these rights.

It is also a self-evident truth that the sovereign creator can never create an entity (government) and assign it more power than what the creator possesses to begin with. Further, the Constitution for the United States of America did not repeal the Articles of Confederation, it was only intended “to make a more perfect union.” Therefore, it logically follows that the creator did not purposely intend to alter their status as MASTER to accept a role as SERVANT to its own creation. This is plainly shown throughout the Constitution, but especially set forth in the Tenth Amendment.
(cf. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958))

“The right to tax and regulate the national citizenship is an inherent right under the rule of the Law of Nations, which is part of the law of the United States, as described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.” The Luisitania, 251 F.715, 732. And, “This jurisdiction extends to citizens of the United States, wherever resident, for the exercise of the privileges and immunities and protections of [federal] citizenship.” Cook v. Tait, (1924) 265 U.S. 37,44 S.Ct 447, 11 Virginia Law Review, 607.”

“A ‘civil right’ is a right given and protected by law [man’s law], and a person’s enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it.”
Nickell v. Rosenfield, (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 P. 760.

Title 42 of the USC contains the Civil Rights laws. It says “Rights under 42 USCS section 1983 are for citizens of the United States and not of state. Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905, CC Cal) 136 F 941.”

Source: Constitutionalcommando(dot)com

[Rene Frias @ReneFrias13]

@Thekeksociety I suffer from cellulitis in my leg. I will try this method next time my leg flares up.