1 vote

Why U.S. citizens aren't free!!!!!

IT'S LONG, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT OF YOUR LIFE. If the Constitution doesnt apply to you, then what is the point of arguing it?

for more info http://dailypaul.com/node/139777#comment-1489775

A "citizen of the United States" is a term that specifically means a "Federal citizen". A federal citizen has "civil rights" not "human rights" and as a creation of Congress is under their direct and complete authority.

A "citizen of the United States" is a term created by the 14th Amendment.

A "state Citizen" on the other hand, is someone who is born in a state of the Union, and one that is protected by the organic Constitution of the union of states, and is not subject to complete Congressional control.

One need not be a "citizen of the United States", unless they wish to give up their human rights in exchange for civil rights.

#########################################
here is the oath one would take to give up their state rights:

    The Oath of Allegiance to the United States

    The following is the text of the Oath of Allegiance:

    I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
    that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
    that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
    that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
    that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
    that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
    that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

By taking this oath, or by checking he U.S. citizen box on birth certificates and Social Security forms, you volunteer ito servitude and give up your freedom. The 13th Amendment made it crystal clear that only
IN-Voluntary servitude was forbidden!

Look at what the Courts have said regarding his issue:

    "[W]e find nothing…which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved."
    [Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) ]
    "United States citizenship does not entitle citizens to rights and privileges of state citizenship."
    [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]
    "We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell."
    [The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)
    "The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
    [Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]

civil rights

–plural noun ( often initial capital letters )
1.
rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts, esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group.
2.
the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality extended to blacks.

vs.

human right

noun
(law) any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)

"citizens of the United States" are Federal citizens with "civil rights" and "state Citizens" are Constitutional Citizens with fundamental human rights
see

"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Julius, have you or will you lawfully disengage from

this fraudulent corporation?

Technically I dont think it

Technically I dont think it is "fraudulent"...The United States has been very careful to not violate the Constitution; from setting up a municipal corp in D.C. (Where Congress has COMPLETE legislative control over all matters what so ever), to the 13th Amendment that made "voluntary servitude" Constitutional...

We are suppose to know ALL LAWS, and our representatives are suppose to know all laws; instead, Americans became obsessed with fancy cars and houses and traded all of their liberties for easy credit and retirement programs.

I have released and terminated all contracts that I am aware of, from Birth Certificate, Social Security, Voters registration, Drivers License, and so on.

Julius,

I am curious. Did you use family guardian website or another source?

Famguardian and SEDM are two

Famguardian and SEDM are two sources of fantastic information!!

Thank you

Julius. I agree it is a world within a world. I am learning as much as I can. I want out of this current de facto government.

error

.

Having a SS# makes you subject to the draft?

(From below)
"1, Anyone can volunteer to the selective service!"

May be true but then, why have a draft? Everyone is REQUIRED to register with selective service, whether they have a SS# or not.

"2. The govt admits that info on pamphlets or websites "should not be used to make a legal position"

Standard meaningless disclaimer. The question remains, what is the law and how is it enforced.

3. An "illegal alien" is technically someone who is in D.C. Or some other federal area, thus subject to complete congressional control"

Now you've lost me again. This was referring to the fact that even illegal aliens were required to register with selective service.

"And 4, do you think amish received draft notices? What about eskimoes? No, because they had no tracking numbers!"

Actually, I think the Amish ARE required to register. (They are just routinely given conscientious objector status.) I don't know about Eskimos, but I would still like to see some evidence that their exemption was based on their failure to obtain a SS#.

Bottom line, not obtaining a SS# may make it a little harder for the Selective Service (or the IRS) to track you down, but it does not give you any more rights.

******************************
The Virtual Conspiracy

"2. The govt admits that info

    "2. The govt admits that info on pamphlets or websites "should not be used to make a legal position"

    Standard meaningless disclaimer. The question remains, what is the law and how is it enforced.

"While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position." [IRM 4.10.7.2.8 (05-14-1999)]

The "law" is full of tricks, that many refuse to believe for some reason...

For example:
What is the difference between a Form W-2 and a Form 1099-MISC? A Form 1099-MISC is used to report payments made in the course of a trade or business to another person or business who is not an employee.
[SOURCE: IRS Website, http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq12.html]

Easy enough. But you will notice that the requirement to file and pay tax revolves around "trade or business"...what does "trade or business" mean? Is it a garage sale? is it selling lemonade? lets look at the definition:

    26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701

    "The term 'trade or business' includes the performance of the functions of a public office."

thats it!! Now, their use of the word "includes" makes your brain think that it means also, among everything else that one might consider a trade or business, but in law we are not allowed to presume; this definition would make us presume that trading a tennis racket for a football would be a "trade or business" action, but it's not.

Congress, and the IRS can make laws for federal personnel, all of which are considered as holding "public office". ALSO anyone who declares to be federal personnel by filling out federal forms, requesting privileges, or entering into a retirement program with the UNITED STATES...
see usc title 5, 552 "federal personnel"

    (13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

this means Social Security. Because Social Security is NOT mandatory, anyone who has a number is presumed to have knowingly and willingly applied to become a member of a Government retirement program, thus federal personnel, thus engaged in a "trade or business" as ALL FEDERAL PERSONNEL are holding a public office.

No Social Security number = no retirement program = no payment into that program = not engaged in the performance of a public office!...

This is what is really hard to grasp. Since USC Title 26 was written by the United States (not the several states of the union) it applies to ALL who are within the jurisdiction of Congress, ie, all Federal U.S. citizens (as created by the 14th Amendment), this means that anyone who is without the U.S. jurisdiction is "alien" to that jurisdiction.

Since the United States is defined as the District of Columbia and the Territories of the United States, and specifically not the states of the union for the purpose of Title 26 (and many others), then tose who do NOT reside in the "United States" as defined, are "non-residents".

This is why an Amish or Eskimo, or 'sovereign kooky state Citizen' is a "non-resident alien" thus, not subject to back up withholding!!
http://inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/TaxFreedom/Instructions/3....
but instead we think a nonresident alien is a Mexican!

    "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term "means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'"); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read "as a whole," post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction -- "the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial portion," indicate the contrary."
    [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]

kids

anyone who has a number is presumed to have knowingly and willingly applied to become a member of a Government retirement program

Don't most children have a social security number? They didn't knowingly and willingly apply. So how can this 'contract' apply to the kids?

good question lime, When a

good question lime,
When a contract is made unknowingly or unwillingly it is a "voidable" contract, NOT void!!
So, the SSA offers this form:
SSA-521 form, if you dont fill one out, then it is presumed that you wish to keep the number!
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-521.pdf

Especially if you agree to the number when you a)get your drivers license
b) register to vote
c) sign up for selective service
d) get a bank account
and so on!!

If you buy a house, the realtor has a duty to inform you if it has lead paint. If they dont, and you later find lead paint, you can void the contract or have recourse against the brokerage...but that is ONLY if you bring forth action. If you never mention it, or never discover it, then the law properly presumes that there is indeed no lead paint.

Julius...got some questions ?

I agree that the SS# is at the root of our problems, but Form SSA-521 is for when you reach retirement age and apply to start receiving your benefits, and you want to withdrawl that application if you decide to keep working.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/withdrawal.htm

You said below that you were able to withdrawl your number. Can you show us a determination from the SSA that confirms this? Also, did you get the money refunded that you put into it?

You are mistakenly assuming

You are mistakenly assuming that the SSA-521 form is ONLY for those who have already began receiving benefits. Although the 521 form is the form you would use for that, it is not a precursor for using the 521 form.

As far as a determination, I have nothing I can post for you...but Social Security is not withheld from me, nor do I pay, nor do I intend to use any SS number, which is as good as it can get. You can call the SSA and they will inform you (with proper questioning) that you can have your employer stop withholding Social Security.

The number is in effect by our use of it!

SSA-521 form--

why didn't I know about this--

going to go confer with spouse.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

thanks

So I can 'unsubscribe' to social security? If I do, they will stop withdrawing from my paycheck?

Have you unsubscribed from "the coporation"? If so, what services?

Thanks.

(Any sites you suggest for me to learn more about this?)

I have withdrawn from

I have withdrawn from everything I can think of!!!

The problem is, there are SO MANY THINGS that allow for the Presumption that you are a Federal U.S. citizen and/or on Federal Land!!!

For example, use of a zip code is MANDATORY for federal zones, so, if you use one (which is NOT MANDATORY FOR NON FEDERAL LAND) then you are presumed to have an address in the Federal Zone
see: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/115183 for example.

Only U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted Aliens can register to vote, get drivers license's, get marriage licenses, get mail delivered to their door (rather than the Constitutional 'general delivery'), get building permits, get State I.D.s, get well fare, and so on. So, if you do any of these things, or accept any benefit, then you ALLOW for the presumption that you are a Federal Persons.

This lets Congress off the hook. How can they get in trouble for treating you, a "resident" or "U.S. citizen" as a federal citizen residing in the District of Columbia, when the laws (that you are suppose to know) says specifically that you will be treated as such, if you claim that residency or citizenship??

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/139777#comment-1489775

    (39) Persons residing outside United States
    If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to...

for more info see "Why you are a national"
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf

I saw the number--

spouse and I have paid into it for decades, but still--

it would be freeing to be disconnected--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I never recommend that anyone

I never recommend that anyone withdraw so late in life, after you have invested SOOOO much to the SS 'fund'.

Also, canceling all of your contracts takes real dedication!! You will have no credit score without a number, etc.

All of this hinges on the use of the term "State" in federal codes. What they do is define "State" to mean all of the 50 states ONLY when the portion of law would be Constitutional, and for the seemingly unconstitutional portions they define "State" as "includes the District of Columbia"

See the new Health care bill, All written by the same lawyers, look at the different definitions of "State"
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

SEC. 208. OPTIONAL OPERATION OF STATE-BASED HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES.

(7) DEFINITION- In this subsection--

(A) the term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and

(B) the term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States.

WE MUST PRESUME THAT THE 50 STATES ARE ALSO INCLUDED!!! (which of course they cant be) This is their famous trick!!

and now in section 252 the term "State" is different...

SEC. 253. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) STATE- The term ‘State’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

This means that in the first definition the 50 states were NOT included!!

See State in USC Title 26, 7701
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00007701----...
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

and since "United States" means only the "States" and the District of Columbia...

and since "includes" means everything else within the TERM DEFINED: 26, 7701
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

AND SINCE THE TERM DEFINED WAS THE District of Columbia (a federal zone), all other Federal Zones are ALSO included!

unconstitutional laws

and for the seemingly unconstitutional portions they define "State" as "includes the District of Columbia"

Why are they avoiding writing a law that is unconstitutional? Why are they afraid to write unconstitutional laws?

Believe it or not, it is MY

Believe it or not, it is MY contention that the Government does NOT VIOLATE the Constitution, and in fact that they take great measures in order to not violate it!!

I know this is hard to believe, but for every 'seemingly' Un-Constitutional law, there are specific definitions, savings clauses, applicability, etc. that keep the legislators clear of treason charges.

see:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/142364

In Politics no-one really knows whos side anyone is on, and sides are always changing, so if the legislators for the Obama administration write an unconstitutional law, what keeps a future enemy, or future opponent from using that against them? Everyone in politics has something on someone else, it is the way it works.

Every once in a while a politician gets thrown to the wolves!

wow

This stuff is very interesting. Thanks for all the info and links.

You are forgetting that there is a term -

"citizen of the United States" that is due to citizenship of one of the several States and NOT the 14th amendment. (which is limited to being COMPLETELY subject to the jurisdiction of the Congress)

Simply categorically saying any reference to citizen of the United States is a loss of liberty is an error of sweeping generalization.

I am a citizen of the United States because I am a citizen of Louisiana, NOT because I was born in the United States AND subject (completely) to the jurisdiction of the United States. (singular - aka - Congress)

This has been decided and well articulated in the Slaughterhouse Cases. I suggest reading them.

sam...

This is the first incorrect statement I have seen you make! Unless you're use of "citizen" (with lower "c") was inadvertent

    "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383)

When citizenship is Constitutional, and not 14th Amendment, it has a capital "C" ALWAYS!!!!

see:
U.S. Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, the word "Citizen" was always capitalized, see: Article 1, Section 2 (twice); Article 1, Section 3; Article 2, Section 1; Article 3, Section 2 (five times); Article 4 Section 2 (twice); and the 11th Amendment (twice).

ANY reference to "citizen of the United States" with a lower case "c" is ALWAYS a 14th Amendment or statutory citizen! Things that are similar are specifically not the same!

    "The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
    [Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94)]
    "... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
    [Powe v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940)]
    "Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
    [Jones v. Temmer (1994), 829 F. Supp. 1226, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 section 1]

    Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.

United States naturally means "belonging to the United States"

    "...It is unnecessary to lay special stress on the title to the soil in which the channels were dug, but it may be noticed that it [Chelsea Creek in Boston] was not in the United States. The language of the acts is 'public works of the United States.' As the works are things upon which the labor is expended, the most natural meaning of 'of the United States' is 'belonging to the United States.'"
    [U.S. Supreme Court, ELLIS v. U S, 206 U.S. 246 (1907) 206 U.S. 246]

today's news

Anti-Government Sovereign Citizens Taking Foreclosed Homes Using Phony Deeds, Authorities Say
Georgia Officials, FBI Are Pursuing Anti-Government Citizens Squatting in Bank-Owned Homes

Aug. 23, 2010

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11445382

The term "anti-government" is

The term "anti-government" is a tool used to make sincere and concerned people appear 'kooky'.

I am not, and never have been "anti-government", rather I am pro-government, I simply want the government that I am 'pro' for, to be within their limits, or more correctly, for them to understand the laws as they are written, and to accept clarification over their presumptions.

If I am a business owner, and I have a rule that says "anyone who doesnt specifically object in writing, will automatically consent to having 45% of their pay deducted and donated to the company", and someone specifically objects, then I should respect their request and not deduct the 45%. However, if there are people that dont specifically object, and I deduct the amount, then who is to blame??

This is what the government does. You are presumed to be a "citizen of the United States" and a "resident", and a "driver", and a "person" and many other legal names.

Wikipedia says it's a conspiracy

What's your take on Wikipedia's explanation of the 'United States is a Corporation' movement?

ADL calls it the 'Sovereign Citizen Movement'.

What you posted is something different

Under the UCC UNTIED STATES is defined as a Federal Corporation.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein

US, Inc.

And what are the ramifications of the US being a corporation?

The theory is that one's relationship with any corporation, including the US corporation is voluntary and contractual. Therefore, one can chose to avoid contracting or to break existing contracts with US, Inc.

But this is just a theory because I haven't seen any evidence of this actually getting results.

That's what that Wiki entry on the Redemption movement is talking about.

Have you seen evidence of results, or is it just a theory in your opinion?

Wiki

was talking about a trust you can draw off of. Basically, everything for you is paid for. I've seen other info on this, but I can't substantiate it.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein

bump

I just heard about Denizens recently. You would have to expatriate your citizenship. Although, I have heard that you are not allowed to expatriate during a war.

I just wanted to throw that out there as a possible alternative to state citizenship.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

redemption movement