Comment: Let me add one more thing.

(See in situ)


Let me add one more thing.

Let me add one more thing. The reason the Constitution isnt allowed in courts is because "residents" of States are aliens to the State. They are Federal persons residing in the State of the Union for a temporary time (think hospital residency).

In California for example:

    An alien has no right to raise the question whether a statute is violative of Const. U.S. art. 4. Sec 2. declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.
    In re Johnson's Estate, 73 P 424 (1903).

Seems simple, but what is an "alien"?

California Government Code section 242.

Persons in the State not its citizens are either:

(a) Citizens of other States; or
(b) Aliens.

You see? A citizen of the United States is NOT a Citizen of another State, and is therefore an "alien" merely "resident" in the States.

This is why I always declare my status, and my special appearance. Here is my opening of a current suit:

Plaintiff, My Name, Sui Juris, flesh and blood man, appearing specially, hereby files this complaint as a free white Citizen of the Republic state of Michigan, and therefore a Citizen of the Republic state of California pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Plaintiff is specifically not a “citizen of the United States” (Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (1874) and Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)) and specifically not a “resident” of any State. (Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 143)(“Of course the terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important” [252 U.S. 60, 79] (La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465, 470 , 39 S. Sup. Ct. 160)...TRAVIS v. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO. , 252 U.S. 60 (1920)).

Plaintiff hereby seeks justice from this Constitutional Court of Record. This action arises from a NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM from the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW for a claim made by Plaintiff for a deprivation of Plaintiffs unalienable fundamental human rights; and from violations of fundamental rights protected by the California Constitution of 1849; to acquire, protect and possess property (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 1); to due process (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 8); to be free from a Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 16), to be secure in his effects against unreasonable seizure (Cal Const Art I, Sec. 19); to be compensated for the taking of private property by the State (Cal Const Art I, Sec. 8); to be guaranteed a trial by jury (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 3); to confront witnesses at trial (1849 Cal Const Art I, Sec. 21 supported by the 6th Amendment to the Organic Federal Constitution for the united States).

Plaintiff declares that he is not a party to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because he is an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” with an upper case “C” as found in the organic Constitution for the united States of America, and therefore requests no protection from the 14th Amendment. (“No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent [13th and 14th] amendments to the Federal Constitution.” VAN VALKENBURG V. BROWN, 43 CAL. 43 (1872)).

I also ONLY cite State Constitutional deprivations whenever possible, and in California I cite the 1849 rather than the 1879 Constitution. you see the United States Constitution has been interpreted to only be for the free white founders:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 7 Pet. 243 243 (1833)

Although the Federal Constitution is the law of the land and states are not supposed make any law in violation of the Federal Constitution, I still try to stay in the State.