The United States of America is a corporation endowed with the capacity
to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec.
177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law.”
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 5th, definition of “United States”
“In clause (4), the words ‘United States’ are substituted for the words ‘Federal Government’.”
10 U.S.C.S. (United States Code Service), '2231(4), History: Ancillary Laws and Directives, p. 19
TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, Judicial and Judiciary Procedure, SUB CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002. Definitions (15), p. 564, ''United States'' means -
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or
other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States
"The government of the United States 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.
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
SECTION 9301 - 9342
9307. (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
"...the United States, in Congress assembled."
The Articles of Confederation, Nov. 15, 1777
(The forgoing is used 28 times in that document.)
PURCHASES FROM UNITED STATES
— The use of property purchased by a consumer from the United States,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, is exempt from use tax except
when property has been declared “surplus property’ ’ pursuant to the
Surplus Property Act of 1944.
REVENUE: N/A, SECTION: 6402
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Sales and Use Taxes: Exemptions and Exclusions
California Revenue and Taxation Code Part 1, Division 2
May 2005
Publication No. 61 • LDA
SECTION A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS, p. 21
UNITED STATES — Sales and leases to the United States or
its incorporated agencies and instrumentalities, any incorporated
agency or instrumentality wholly owned by the United States or by a
corporation wholly owned by the United States, and sales to the
American National Red Cross are exempt from sales tax. (SECTION 6381)
REVENUE: N/A, SECTION: 6402
CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Sales and Use Taxes: Exemptions and Exclusions
California Revenue and Taxation Code Part 1, Division 2
May 2005
Publication No. 61 • LDA
SECTION A SALES AND USE TAX EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS, p. 40
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the
Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens.
See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394
(1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights
peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not
protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.
Jones v. Temmer, 829 Fed. Supp. 1226 (1993)
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele (1953) 112 F.Supp 383, United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.
Status of citizenship of United States is a 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.
Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 143 U.S. 162,
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.
"Citizenship of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutes, ..."
Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, 221 A2d 431, 434, citing 19 Md 82, 93
"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."
People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)
Cyclopedia of Law - 1900
516 [a6 Cyc.]
SOVEREIGNTY
SOVEREIGN. As an adjective, supreme, PARAMOUNT, 81 q. v. As a noun, a
supreme ruler,82 (Sovereign: As Party to Private Action, see
INTERNATIONAL. LAW, 22 Cyc. 1717 note 61. As Used to Describe
International Person, see INTERNATIONAL LAW, 22 Cyc. 1708. Averment as
to Authority of Sovereign in Caption of Indictment, see INDICTMENTS and
INFORMATIONS, 22 Cyc. 240. Power - ~ Necessary For Creation of
Corporation, see CORPORATIONS, 10 Cyc. 201; Validity of Statute
Divesting, see CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 8 Cyc. 975 note 87. State
Subscription by to Shares of Private Corporation, see CORPORATIONS, 10
Cyc. 380.)I
SOVEREIGNTY. The supreme power which governs the body
politic or society that constitutes the state; 83 a term used to
express the supreme political authority of an independent state or
nation; 84 the aggregate of all civil and political power;85 the
supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power by which any state is
governed;86 so that public authority which directs or orders what is to
be done by each member associated, in relation to the end of the
association,87 (Sovereignty: Attributes of, see CONSTITUTIONAL. Law, 8
Cyc. 934. Effect of Change of, see INTERNATIONAL LAW, 22 Cyc. 1729.
Exercise of in General, see INTERNATIONAL LAW, 22 Cyc. 1716.)
81. Webster New Int. Dict.
"Sovereign people" is a term which describes the political body
who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty,
and who hold the power and conduct of the government through their
representatives. Scott r. Sandford, 19 How. (U. S.) 393, 404, 15 L. ed.
691.
"Sovereign power" refers to the people of the state in their sovereign
capacity, acting through their representatives, the legislature.
Kennebec Water Dist. v. Waterville, 96 Me. 234, 242, 52 Atl. 774. All
the powers necessary to accomplish the legitimate ends of government
must be sovereign, and therefore must exist in all practical
governments. Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 309. "In all
governments of constitutional limitations, sovereign power manifests
itself in but three ways: ]Iv exercising the right of taxation; the
right 'of eminent domain; and through its police power." U. S, v.
Bouglas-Willan Sartoris Co., 3 Wyo. 287, 297, 22 Pac. 92.
"Sovereign" right is a right which the state alone, or some of its
governmental agencies, can possess. St. Paul v. Chicago, etc., 14. Co.,
45 Minn. 387, 397, 48 lq. W. 17.
"Sovereign state" is a term said to be appropriate when applied to an
absolute despotism. Doe v. Buford, I Dana (Ky.) 481, 591, where it is
said: "'Sovereign state' are cabalistic words, not understood by the
disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional
schools."
82. Atty.-Gen. v. Barstow, 4 Wis. 567, 675. SS. Gilmer r. Lime Point,
18 Cal. 229, 250, where it is said: "And this power is independent of
the particular form of government, whether monarchial, aristocratic, or
democratic."
84. Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199, 218, 79 Am. Dec. 123.
85. State v. Hunt, 2 Hill (S. C.) 1, 259. 86. Cooley Const. Lim.
[quoted in People v. Pierce, 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 83, 86, 41 lq. Y. Suppl.
858].
87. Vattel L. Nat. [quoted in Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co. 33 Fed 900, 906]
For either definitions of the term see INTERNATIONAL LAW 22 CYC 1716 note 59
“Sovereignty of a state embraces the power to execute the laws and the
right to exercise supreme domination and authority, except as limited
by the fundamental law”.
People v. Tool, 35 Colo. 225, 234, 86 Pac. 224, 229, 231, 117 Am. St. Rep. 198, 6 L.R. A. N. S. 822.
“Boundary means sovereignty, since in modern times sovereignty is
mainly territorial unless a different meaning clearly appears”.
New Jersey Central R. Co. v. Jersey City, 200 U.S. 473, 28 S. Ct. 592, 52, L. ed, 896
State naturalization laws are superseded and annulled by an Act of
Congress on the subject, as the jurisdiction of Congress upon the
subject is exclusive.
Collet v. Collet,
Pa.1792, 2 U.S. 294, 2 Dall. 294, 1 L.Ed. 387. See, also, Matthew v.
Rae, C.C.Dist.Col.1829, 3 Cranch, C.C., 699, 16 Fed.Cas. No. 9,284.
It is not in the power of a state to denationalize a foreign subject
who has not complied with the federal naturalization laws, and
constitute him a citizen of the United States or of a state, so as to
deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over a controversy between
him and a citizen of a state, conferred upon them by Art. III, sec. 2,
and the Acts of Congress. City of Minneapolis v. Reum, C.C.A.8 (Minn.) 1893, 56 F. 576, 6 C.C.A. 31.
A state cannot make the subject of a foreign government a citizen of the United States.
Lanz v. Randall, C.C.Minn.1876, 14 F.Cas. 1131, 24 Pitts.L.J. 68, No. 8080. See, also, Minneapolis v. Reum, C.C.A.Minn.1893, 56 F. 576.
Aside from limitation of Amend. 14, Congress has no general power,
express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship
without his consent.
Afroyim v. Rusk, U.S.N.Y.1967, 87 S.Ct. 1660, 387 U.S. 253, 18 L.Ed.2d 757.
UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ARTICLE III--THE JUDICIARY
Current through P.L. 106-73, approved 10-19-1999
Section 2, Clause 1. Jurisdiction of Courts
Consent of the parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on
federal court, nor can party ever waive its right to challenge the
subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
United Indus. Workers, Service, Transp., Professional Government of
North America of Seafarers' Intern. Union of North America, Atlantic,
Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters Dist. AFL-CIO, (Local No. 16) on Behalf
of Bouton v. Government of Virgin Islands, C.A.3 (Virgin Islands) 1993,
987 F.2d 162.
Federal jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon court by consent of parties, nor may its absence be waived.
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. U.S., D.Conn.1991, 759 F.Supp. 87.
United States district court has only limited jurisdiction, depending
upon either the existence of a federal question or diverse citizenship
of the parties, and where such elements of jurisdiction are wanting
district court cannot proceed, even with the consent of the parties.
Wolkstein v. Port of New York Authority, D.C.N.J.1959, 178 F.Supp. 209
AGAIN...
A CORPORATION HAS NO "CITIZENS". A CORPORATION HAS EMPLOYEES AND ASSETS!
"The government of the United States 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.
People who are members of this
corporate entity are named: "U.S. citizen", distinguished
from those who are not members of this corporation.
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 the state the
highest exercise of its sovereignty, - the right to declare who are its
citizens." State of Louisiana v. Fowler: 6 S. 602; 41 La.Ann. 380
[1889]. "... [U]ndoubtedly in a purely technical and abstract sense
citizenship of one of the states may not include citizenship of the
United States."
United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company, 164 U.S. 686, 688 [1897]
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers
granted to the states and the federal government, through the
Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally
sovereign within their respective states."
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997. .
“We have in our political system a Government of the United States and
a government of each of the several states. Each is distinct from
the other and each has citizens of its own...”
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens
by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to
concentrate your affections. The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you
in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of
patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local
discriminations. With slight shades of difference you have the same
religion, manners, habits, and political principle. You have, in
a common cause, fought, and triumphed together; the independence and
liberty you possess, are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts
-- of common dangers, sufferings and success."
George Washington, "Farewell Address", delivered September 17, 1796. (Emphasis added.)
"The American colonies brought with them the common, and not the civil
law; and each state, at the revolution, adopted either more or less of
it, and not one of them exploded the principle that the place of birth
conferred citizenship."
Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. Ky. R,pp. 337, 338.
Attorney-General of the United States, one William Wurtz, in an opinion dated November 7, 1821:
I presume that the description,
"citizen of the United States", used in the Constitution, has the same
meaning that it has in the several acts of Congress passed under the
authority of the Constitution; otherwise there will arise a vagueness
and uncertainty in our laws which will make their execution, if not
impracticable, at least extremely difficult and dangerous.
Looking to the Constitution as the standard of meaning, it seems
very manifest that no person is included in the description of "citizen
of the United States" who has not the full rights of a citizen in the
state of his residence. Among other proofs of this, it will be
sufficient to advert to the constitutional provision that "the citizens
of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of
citizen in the several states".
Now, if a person born and residing in Virginia but possessing none
of the high characteristic privileges of a citizen of the state is
nevertheless a citizen of Virginia in the sense of the Constitution,
then, on his removal into another state, he acquires all the immunities
and privileges of a citizen of that other state, although he possessed
none of them in the state of his nativity; a consequence which
certainly could not have been in the contemplation of the Convention.
"A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act
of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is
legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity,
while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to
limitations prescribed by the superior authority."
Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.
"The term 'Citizen of the United States' must be understood to mean
those who were citizens of the State as such after the Union had
commenced and the several States had assumed their sovereignty.
Before that period there were no citizens of the United States."
Inhabitants of Manchester v. Inhabitants of Boston, 16 Mass. 230, 235.
"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.
"The government of the United States 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.
"The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which
are protected by the 14th Amendment, against abridgment by the states,
are those which arise out of the essential nature and characteristics
of the national government, the federal Constitution, treaties, or acts
of Congress, as distinguished from those belonging to the Citizens of a
state;. . . . "
Gardner v. Ray, 157 S. W. 1147, 1150;
Hammer v. State, 89 N. E. 850, 851, 173 Ind. 199, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 795,
140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034.
"On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of
this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and
of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship.
. ."
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.
"It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence
and security to citizenship in the 14th Amendment was the desire to
protect the Negroes."
Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), 18 L.Ed. 2d 758, 764.
"The object of the 14th Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 692.
"It would be a remarkable anomaly if the national government, without
the amendment, could confer citizenship on aliens of every race or
color, and citizenship, with civil and political rights, on the
"inhabitants" of Louisiana and Florida, without reference to race or
color, and cannot, with the help of the amendment, confer on those of
the African race, who have been born and always lived within the United
States, all that this law seeks to give them."
United States v. Rhodes (1866), 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 794.
"The amendment referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons
embraced by its provisions, and for which Congress was authorized to
legislate in the manner were those then in slavery."
Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29.
"After the adoption of the 13th Amendment, a bill which became the
first Civil Rights Act was introduced in the 39th Congress, the major
purpose of which was to secure to the recently freed Negroes all the
civil rights secured to white men. . . .(N)one other than citizens of
the United States were within the provisions of the Act."
Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 509.
"No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."
Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.
"The rights of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the
14th Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."
United States v. Anthony (1873), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.
“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes
of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several
states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one
may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)
“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth
constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are
such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as
citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)
“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to
the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the
citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and
a government of each of the several States. Each one of these
governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s
own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
“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”.
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36(16 Wall.); 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)
“...there was no such thing as citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some state
United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829, (Case No. 14,459)(1873)
“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and
voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet
not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)
““Citizenship” and “residence”, as has often been declared by the courts, are not convertible terms. ...
“”The better opinion seems to be that a citizen of the United States
is, under the amendment [14th], prima facie a citizen of the state
wherein he resides , cannot arbitrarily be excluded therefrom by such
state, but that he does not become a citizen of the state against his
will, and contrary to his purpose and intention to retain an already
acquired citizenship elsewhere. The amendment [14th] is a
restraint on the power of the state, but not on the right of the person
to choose and maintain his citizenship or domicile”“.
Sharon v. Hill, 26 F. 337 (1885) [inserts added]
“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state”,...
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
state Citizenship
If there's NO SUCH THING as a state Citizen, why would both State and
federal courts RECOGNIZE and ACKNOWLEDGE and CONSIDER something that
doesn't exist? BECAUSE IT DOES EXIST!
"Except as modified by statute, the place of birth governs citizenship status".
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815; 28 L.Ed.2d 499; 91 S.Ct. 1060 (1971).
Our primary
status is established where we were born. In short, where you pop
outta mom establishes your PRIMARY status. That status is state
as opposed to US citizen.
NO
ONE IS BORN IN THE CORPORATION NAMED UNITED STATES! NEITHER THE
"UNITED STATES" NOR WASHINGTON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARE STATES!
When our parents
entered us into the Social Security system, as a condition of getting
the benefits, our PRIMARY status was bumped to second because the
condition of getting the benefits is becoming a member of the
club. It’s just like any club ie 24 Hour Fitness. If
you want to use the work out equipment you have to become a
member. Same goes for what US Inc. offers, Social Security
benefits. If you want the benefits you HAVE TO become a member
and US Inc’s members are identified as either US citizens or US
persons, regardless of which term you use they ARE NOT state Citizens
any longer.
So when you read
a federal law, look for the word used to identify who the law applies
to, inevitably it will be “person”. Well, that term is defined
and it DOES NOT mean what the majority of people believe it
means. It’s typically associated with a CORPORATION, that’s
correct, a CORPORATION is considered and identified as a
“person”. The word “person” as used in the law ALWAYS
refers to a LEGAL ENTITY. You ARE NOT a “legal entity”, you are a
sentient being. A “legal entity” is a FICTION, it DOES NOT exist
in nature, it’s a mental construct.
Please
Visit these Bitchute channels for vids and slide shows exposing the
frauds having been and are being perpetreated against us:
