"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383)
"The United States in Congress Assembled") became your federal government. Your US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, granted your federal servants exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia.
US Supreme Court in Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20:
"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative."
"The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound." The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)
Your birthright means you are not bound to statutes that take away your rights. Unless, of course, you signed something to give up your birthright.
"The term Liberty "... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience, the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary ..." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399
If this doesn't describe your liberty, then perhaps you signed something to give up your rights. Notice that protecting public interest is not a function of government, at least according to your Supreme Court. Your government was instituted among men to protect the rights of the innocent. PROTECTING PUBLIC INTEREST IS CONTRARY TO PROTECTING RIGHTS.
IT then becomes obvious that the federalists have been given exclusive jurisdiction over Washington DC. There are no sovereign rights in Washington DC.
The next time you are filling out a form that asks you to check a box, don't be so quick to confess that you are a US citizen. (And don't be so willing to waive your right to privacy, fill out confessions, take perjury oaths, or greed after whatever worldly recognition that the form offers). Without a confession, you might be able to retain basic human rights, such as the right to own property and the right to earn wages.
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government." State v. Manuel 20 NC 122 14 CJS section 4
Read that again. Pay attention. CITIZENS IN THE U.S. ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. What part don't you understand?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) "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."
125 Fed 322, 325: "The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government."
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520: "... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]
That's right! the US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights.
By claiming that you are a U.S. Citizen, you are placing yourself into submission to the Federal Government, and you do not have any Rights as a Subject. To be both a Citizen of the Fed and of the state at the same time is even worse.
But if you claim your Birth State as your Nationality, it removes all those barriers, and as long as you do not deprive someone else of their Rights, yours must be protected.
The US citizen
A US citizen does not have any rights.
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity."
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
A US citizen is a corporation.
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... 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." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.
The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.
"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
"Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State." Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905
and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide, and because the unborn are NOT “persons”, then they are by definition State Citizens, which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty, and this is proof that it has nothing to do with race, and has everything to do with slavery;
"The unborn are not included within the definition of "person" as used in the 14th Amendment." Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957,
“...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]
“SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign to whom allegiance is owed.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986
“[T]he term "citizen," in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430
and a “US citizen” is a fictitious entity, and has no rights;
"Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity." Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L. Ed. 1143, 56 S. Ct. 773
“In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the
statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government ...”
Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added]
“Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares
only that "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." Here there is a limitation to person born or naturalized in the United States,
which is not extended to person born in any place "subject to their jurisdiction."”
Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added]
A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states. Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
"The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, 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 (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.
“Yet, of the cases in this Court in which the Fourteenth Amendment was applied during the first fifty years after its adoption, less than one-half of 1 per cent invoked it in protection of the negro race, and more than 50 per cent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations.”~DISSENT, Justice Hugo Black, Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77 [1938]""
"The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; . . . . . The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. " U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542
"The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381
"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
